Individual self-represented litigants, numbering about 300 persons, challenged constitutionality of Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, and Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. Federal Court exercised its discretion by granting interlocutory order staying challenges brought by all of self-represented litigants on ground that challenge by A was much further advanced. Court also dismissed motions for interim constitutional exemptions from Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Can.) pending trial of challenges. Self-represented litigants appealed. Appeal dismissed. Federal Court had basis for declining to grant interim constitutional exemption. Federal Court left door open for those who could establish, by further and better proof than that found in template affidavits, that they had medically verifiable need for medical marihuana. Decision to stay self-represented litigants’ challenges until final disposition of A challenge supportable on evidentiary record before judge. Evidence before Federal Court supported its finding that there was significant overlap.
Turmel v. R. (Jan. 13, 2016, F.C.A., J.D. Denis Pelletier J.A., David Stratas J.A., and Mary J.L. Gleason J.A., A-342-14) 128 W.C.B. (2d) 39.