Federal Court



Expanding scope of injunction order would disrupt balance of convenience analysis

Action challenged constitutionality of Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations. Plaintiffs were granted interlocutory injunction that had very specific terms designed to balance number of competing interests. Plaintiffs wanted to change dates set out in injunction order and to change class of persons covered by order and extend order to wider group of former Marihuana Medical Access Regulations holders. Plaintiffs brought motion to vary injunction. Motion dismissed. Matters raised on motion were not truly new. Motion was premature. To accept plaintiffs’ characterization of evidence, its weight and significance would require court to make critical determinations in advance of decision on underlying Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms challenge. It was not appropriate for court to engage in piecemeal and premature consideration of aspects of its final judgment. Court should not alter carefully crafted interlocutory injunction order by expanding its terms. Expanding scope of injunction order would disrupt balance of convenience analysis. Relief sought extended past decision date of Charter challenge. Interlocutory orders were designed to expire when final decision in litigation was made.

Allard v. Canada (Jul. 15, 2015, F.C., Michael L. Phelan J., File No. T-2030-13) 261 A.C.W.S. (3d) 708.

cover image


Subscribers get early and easy access to Law Times.

Law Times Poll

Law Times reports that there is no explicit rule that lawyers in Ontario must be competent in the use of technology. Do you think there should be explicit rules spelling out the expectations of lawyers’ in terms of tech use in their practice?