From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: In my last post: "Crown Motion to Stay Gold Star Claims,   
   go for Repeal anyway", I pointed out that the Crown wanted   
   to have our claims for all four remedies claimed dismissed   
   because Allard won A1 for us. But in it, it's said:   
       On behalf of the defendant Her Majesty the Queen in   
       Right of Canada ("Canada"), I am writing to advise of   
       Canada's intention to bring a motion to strike the   
       proceedings listed at Appendix A to this letter, and to   
       request the Court's direction concerning this motion.   
      
       By Orders dated May 7 and June  4 (amended July 9),   
       2014, the Federal Court stayed the above-noted matters   
       pending final disposition of Allard et al v. Her Majesty   
       the Queen in Right of Canada (Court File Number T-2030-   
       13 ("Allard").   
       The Court issued a trial decision in Allard on February   
       24, 2016 and the time to appeal has now passed without   
       an appeal. The stay of the above-noted matters having   
       therefore expired, Canada now intends to bring a motion   
       in writing to strike these matters.   
      
   JCT: Okay, the Crown brings a motion now that the stay is   
   expired to dismiss everything. Now the Crown may want to   
   pretend that all our claims are settled by Allard winning A1   
   for us. Should be fun to point out they seem to have omitted   
   A2, B and C at any Big Event hearing.   
      
   But with the stay expired, I filed a motion for A2, Repeal:   
      
                                              File No: T-488-14   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                          JOHN C. TURMEL   
                                                      Plaintiff   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Respondent   
      
              NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on _________________ 2015 will be heard   
   Plaintiff's motion at the Federal Court in Toronto.   
      
   THE MOTION SEEKS Summary Judgment on a Question of Law that:   
   A2) "absent a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption"   
   the prohibitions on marihuana in the Controlled Drugs and   
   Substances Act (CDSA) be declared invalid and the word   
   "marijuana" be struck from Schedule II of the CDSA.   
      
   THE GROUNDS ARE THAT the absence of adequate medical   
   exemption since Aug. 1 2001, ever, as declared in R. v.   
   Smith and Allard v. HMQ, ascertain the R. v. Parker Order   
   for a valid medical exemption has never been complied with.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging any time for service or amending   
   any error or omission which this Honourable Court may allow.   
      
   Dated at Toronto on April 08 2016   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
                      PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT   
      
   I, John C. Turmel, B. Eng., residing at 50 Brant Ave,   
   Brantford, Ontario, having also personal knowledge from   
   having authored the associated judicial reviews, make oath   
   as follows:   
      
   1. On Feb 26 2014, I started an action for a declaration:   
       A1) that the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR)   
       that came into force on Jul 30 2001 and the Marihuana   
       for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) that came into   
       force on June 19, 2013, (and run concurrently with the   
       MMAR until March 31, 2014 when the MMAR will be repealed   
       by the MMPR) are unconstitutional and not saved by S.1   
       of the Charter in that the s. 7 Charter constitutional   
       right of a medically needy patient to reasonable access   
       to his/her medicine by way of a safe and continuous   
       supply consistent with the S.7 Charter right is   
       unreasonably restricted by the impediments to access   
       and/or supply in the MMAR and/or MMPR;   
      
       A2) And that, "absent a constitutionally acceptable   
       medical exemption," the prohibitions on marihuana in the   
       Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) are invalid   
       and the word "marijuana" be struck from Schedule II of   
       the CDSA.   
      
       B) In the alternative, pursuant to S.24(1) of the   
       Charter, for a permanent Personal Exemption from   
       prohibitions in the CDSA on marihuana for the   
       Plaintiff's personal medical use.   
      
       C) Or, alternatively, damages in the amount of $300 for   
       loss of patient's marihuana, plants and production site.   
      
   2. The Respondent Her Majesty The Queen is in Default of   
   filing a Statement of Defence.   
      
   3. My action was stayed pending a constitutional challenge   
   to the MMPR in Allard v. HMQ (T-2030-13) for which the Crown   
   had filed a Statement of Defence.   
      
   4. On Feb 24 2016, Federal Court struck down the MMPR in its   
   entirety suspending its decision 6 months which mooted the   
   relief I had claimed under Parts A1 and B.   
      
   5. Plaintiff further abandons the claim for damages under   
   Remedy C.   
      
   6. Both I and the Allards challenged the prohibition in the   
   regimes on using non-dried marijuana recently declared   
   unconstitutional in Smith v. HMQ [2015].   
      
   7. I alone sought the remedy under A2 to strike marijuana   
   from Schedule II on the grounds that just as the Hitzig "Bad   
   Exemption" [2003] by regulated Mis-Supply meant there was   
   "No Offence" in force since Aug 1 2001 absent an acceptable   
   medical exemption under R. v. J.P., so too, the recent Smith   
   Worse "Bad Exemption" [2015] by regulated Mis-Use means   
   there was "No Offence" in force since Aug 1 2001 absent the   
   acceptable medical exemption.   
      
   8. At the hearing to vary the Manson Order, Allard Counsel   
   Kirk Tousaw suddenly raised the relief claimed in A2 to   
   strike "marijuana" from Schedule II of the CDSA. The Crown   
   objected that it had not been in their Statement of Claim   
   and that motion to strike "marijuana" from Schedule II was   
   dismissed for want of proper documentation.   
      
   9. During the Smith hearing at the Supreme Court, Tousaw   
   again raised striking marijuana from Schedule II because of   
   the absence of valid medical exemption, again dismissed for   
   want of original claim.   
      
   10. Just as staying my action pending the resolution of the   
   Allard action mooted my need to argue for Remedy A1, a   
   resolution of my claim for summary judgment on Remedy A2   
   would similarly mooten the A2 claims of the over 300 other   
   "Turmel Kit" Plaintiffs who have also filed identical   
   Statements of Claim.   
      
   11. The prohibition of cannabis and the stifling of   
   marijuana and hemp production has been a catastrophe for   
   both patients in need of medical marijuana and the Canadian   
   economy in need of a valuable resource. In examining all the   
   defects in the regimes, there can only be the conclusion   
   that they never offered effective access and supply for   
   Canada's medically-needy under either regime. The formerly-   
   deficient MMAR was extended to cover for the currently-   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)