From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Krzyz files Allard-Smith BENO Quash in Jasper for hearing today   
      
   Information No. 151154820P1   
                IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA   
                    JUDICIAL CENTRE OF JASPER   
   BETWEEN   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                             Respondent (Crown)   
                               AND   
                          WOJCIECH KRZYZ   
                                            Applicant (Accused)   
      
           APPLICANT SUBMISSION ON ALLARD ET AL V. HMQ   
      
           IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION PURSUANT TO   
               S.601 OF THE CRIMINAL CODE OF CANADA   
      
      
   1. In Applicant's "Smith BENO Quash" motion, Applicant   
   notes:   
      
   - the constitutional Parker decision [2000] declared the   
   CDSA prohibitions on marijuana to be invalid absent a valid   
   medical exemption.   
      
   - the constitutional Hitzig decision [2003] declared the   
   MMAR had failed to comply with the Parker Order since 2001.   
      
   - the non-constitutional S.601 J.P. decision [2003] ruled   
   that a Bad Exemption meant there was No Offence when J.P.   
   was charged in 2002 and quashed his charge. Rather than   
   appeal the BENO ruling to the Supreme Court, the Crown   
   stayed the remaining 4,000 charges across Canada.   
      
   2. Applicant has followed the non-constitutional precedent   
   in J.P. raising the 2015 Smith decision as the worse Bad   
   Exemption meaning No Offence than the 2003 Hitzig decision   
   in failing to comply with Parker.   
      
   3. On Feb 24 2016, two days ago, the Federal Court of Canada   
   issued the landmark Allard v. HMQ that declared the MMPR to   
   be unconstitutionally flawed. Justice Phelan ruled:   
      
       VIII. Conclusion   
       [289] For all these reasons, the Court has concluded   
       that the Plaintiffs have established that their s 7   
       Charter rights have been infringed by the MMPR and that   
       such infringement is not in accordance with the   
       principles of fundamental justice or otherwise justified   
       under s 1.   
      
       IX. Disposition and Remedy Disposition and Remedy   
       [290] For these reasons, I find that the MMPR regime   
       infringes the Plaintiffs' s 7 Charter rights and such   
       infringement is not justified.   
       [291] In several decisions regarding the MMAR, the   
       Courts have struck out either certain provisions or   
       certain words in certain provisions, but otherwise left   
       the structure of the regulation in place. Most of these   
       decisions related to criminal charges where such narrow,   
       feasible and effective excising was appropriate.   
       [292] In the present case, the attack has been on the   
       structure of the new regulation. It would not be   
       feasible or effective to strike certain words or   
       provisions. That exercise would eviscerate the   
       regulation and leave nothing practical in place. The   
       Defendant has recognized the integrated nature of the   
       MMPR provisions.   
       [293] It is neither feasible nor appropriate to order   
       the Defendant to reinstate the MMAR (as amended by   
       current jurisprudence). It is not the role of the Court   
       to impose regulations. The MMAR may be a useful model   
       for subsequent consideration; however, it is not the   
       only model, nor is a MMAR-type regime the only medical   
       marihuana regime, as experience from other countries has   
       shown.   
       [294] The remedy considerations are further complicated   
       by the fact that there is no attack on the underlying   
       legislation. Striking down the MMPR merely leaves a   
       legislative gap where possession of marihuana continues   
       as a criminal offence. Absent a replacement regulation   
       or exemption, those in need of medical marihuana - and   
       access to a Charter compliant medical marihuana regime   
       is legally required - face potential criminal charges.   
       [295] It would be possible for the Court to suspend the   
       operation of the provisions which make it an offence to   
       possess, use, grow and/or distribute marihuana for those   
       persons holding a medical prescription or medical   
       authorization. However, this is a blunt instrument which   
       may not be necessary if a Charter compliant regime were   
       put in place or different legislation were passed.   
       [296] The appropriate resolution, following the   
       declaration of invalidity of the MMPR, is to suspend the   
       operation of the declaration of invalidity to permit   
       Canada to enact a new or parallel medical marihuana   
       regime. As this regime was created by regulation, the   
       legislative process is simpler than the requirement for   
       Parliament to pass a new law.   
       [297] The declaration will be suspended for six (6)   
       months to allow the government to respond to the   
       declaration of invalidity.   
       [298] The Plaintiffs have been successful and have   
       brought a case that benefits the public at large. They   
       shall have their costs on a substantial indemnity basis   
       in an amount to be fixed by the Court.   
      
       "Michael L. Phelan" Judge F.C.C.   
       Vancouver, British Columbia   
       February 24, 2016   
      
   4. In 6 months, the declaration takes effect that the MMPR   
   be struck down as unconstitutional. Applicant would ask this   
   Court to henceforth consider this a "Smith-Allard Bad   
   Exemption No Offence Quash" motion but accept the Allard   
   conclusions as applicable herein.   
      
   5. The Bad Exemption improperly restrict Applicants' ability   
   move or travel with their medication. Applicant must point   
   out that the seized marijuana was about the 13+ pounds   
   Applicants were permitted to travel with under the MMAR. And   
   since the MMPR 150 gram limit was unconstitutional at the   
   time, continuing to abide by their old MMAR conditions show   
   a good faith that should now stand them well if old limits   
   become effective again.   
      
   Should the Quash motion succeed, Applicants further seek an   
   Order under S.24 of the CDSA for the return of the   
   Controlled Substance by Canada Post to the address where   
   Applicants are currently licensed to possess it.   
      
      
      
   Dated at Jasper on Feb 26 2016   
      
      
   ____________________________________   
   Applicant/Accused:   
   Wojciech Krzyz   
   13450 112A Avenue   
   Surrey, BC, V3R2G5   
   Tel: 778-394-7031   
   E: voytek61@hotmail.com   
      
   TO: THE CLERK OF THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF ALBERTA   
   AND TO: ALBERTA FEDERAL PROSECUTION AGENTS,   
   Suite 204, 17707-105th Avenue, Edmonton, AB, T5S 1T1,   
   Kathryn Laurie, Crown Counsel Standing Agent for the   
   Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General of   
   Canada   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)