Update – Friday, April 22, 2016: Lawyer Kirk Tousaw posted on Facebook that today’s decision to expand the scope of the original ruling won’t be decided for several weeks.

Roughly a month after Justice Michael Phelan’s ruling on the Allard case found that medical patients had the right to produce their own cannabis, lawyer John Conroy is returning to court to attempt to have that ruling expanded.

Shortly after the decision was made, Conroy announced plans to request MMAR patients not covered by the original injunction be allowed to begin growing their own cannabis once again.

Conroy is also requesting changes to allow for MMAR licenses to reflect a change of residence if patients move, have the term “dried marihuana” refer to all forms of cannabis, raising the limit of cannabis from 150 g, as well as having the judge rule that sections of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act no longer apply.

Crown defendant Jan Brongers is requesting that Conroy’s motion be dismissed.

“These changes are all either unnecessary in that they would have little to no practical effect, or would undermine Health Canada’s ability to develop and promulgate a new comprehensive new regime,” Brongers wrote. “The fact that this judgment may not accord with precisely the relief the plaintiffs were hoping to obtain does not mean that it warrants being varied now.”

Conroy said he disagrees with the Crown’s assessment and that the changes are needed to have Phelan’s order actually put into place.

“The Crown is opposing everything we’re asking for, saying we haven’t met the test for ‘reconsideration and variation’ and that this is a thinly disguised appeal the parts of his order we didn’t like,” Conroy said. “We are definitely not appealing his final order, but pointing out that he gave no remedy to Beamish and Hebert and others similarly situated, nor did he address the address change issue or section 53 and the terms of the injunction order.”