From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: As usual, the Crown is making a motion to dismiss the   
   claims of those seeking juice/oil with Ray Hathaway's claim   
   for repeal or juice-oil exemptions.   
      
                      STATEMENT OF CLAIM   
          (Pursuant to S.48 of the Federal Court Act)   
      
   FACTS   
      
   1. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that:   
   A) the CDSA prohibitions on marijuana have been invalid   
   absent a constitutional exemption since Aug. 1 2001, or in   
   the alternative,   
   B) provisioners of cannabis marijuana juice, oil and   
   products to licensed patients are exempted from the CDSA.   
      
   THE PARTIES   
      
   2. The Plaintiff brings this claim for declaratory relief   
   pursuant to S.24(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as   
   a patient who has been disabled by an inoperable tumor on   
   the spine and has established medical need by obtaining an   
   MMAR permit to use marijuana for medical purposes but who   
   still cannot access cannabis juice or oil for his treatment.   
      
   3. The Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of   
   Canada, as represented by the Attorney General of Canada,   
   is named as the representative of the Federal Government   
   of Canada and the Minister of Health for Canada who is   
   the Minister responsible for Health Canada and certain   
   aspects of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act   
   including the Narcotic Control Regulations, the Marihuana   
   Medical Access Regulations and program and the Marihuana   
   for Medical Purposes Regulations and program.   
      
   BACKGROUND   
      
   4. The Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Smith [2015] ruled   
   the prohibition on "non-dried" marijuana violated the   
   Applicant's S.7 Charter Rights thus legalizing Applicant's   
   use of juice, oil and derivatives for medical purposes.   
      
   5. On Feb 24 2016, the decision in Allard v. HMQ [2016]   
   declared the MMPR Regime entirely unconstitutional, such   
   declaration suspended to Aug 24 2016 before taking effect.   
      
   6. Though the Supreme Court has declared my right to various   
   cannabis oils or juice, they remain legally-inaccessible   
   evidenced by recent Toronto raids on my cannabis   
   dispensaries.   
      
   7. With no other reasonable alternative, Plaintiff's   
   exemption to use oil, juice and products is illusory. Having   
   the right to oil but not being able to get any is akin to   
   the Hitzig decision pronouncing that having the right to   
   marijuana but not being to get enough made it "illusory."   
      
   The Plaintiff proposes this action be tried in the City of   
   Toronto in the Province of Ontario.   
      
   Dated at Toronto on _______________ 2016.   
   Plaintiff   
   Raymond Lee Hathaway   
      
               NOTICE OF MOTION FOR INTERIM RELIEF   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on _________________ 2016 will be heard   
   Plaintiff's motion at the Federal Court in Toronto.   
      
   THE MOTION SEEKS a declaration granting interim exemption   
   from the CDSA for provisioners of cannabis marijuana juice,   
   oil and derivatives to licensed patients.   
      
   THE GROUNDS ARE THAT until the Action to Strike down   
   marijuana prohibitions is adjudicated, the absence of   
   adequate supply of cannabis marijuana juice, oil and   
   derivatives makes exemption for use of such products   
   illusory.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging or extending any time for   
   service or amending any error or omission which this   
   Honourable Court may allow that justice be done.   
      
   Dated at Toronto on _________ 2016   
   Plaintiff   
   Raymond Lee Hathaway   
      
   JCT: Judge Phelan stalled the motion for Interim Exemptions   
   for provisioners having the Registry tell Ray it was being   
   sent to the "case management" judge. He never got a "case   
   management" judge and which is it? Allard's or Gold Stars'   
   or someone else's case management judge? Well, we know that   
   Phelan directed it be stalled to himself as case management   
   judge.   
      
                      PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT   
      
   JCT: From the motion. The facts the Crown will say were   
   never sufficient..   
      
   I, Raymond Lee Hathaway make oath as follows:   
      
   1. I am disabled by an inoperable tumor on my spine which I   
   treated with cannabis marijuana oil under my Health Canada   
   permit number _____________________________________________.   
      
   2. Pursuant to the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Smith   
   [2015], I have right to treat my illness with non-dried   
   forms of cannabis marijuana including fresh juice, oil and   
   derivatives.   
      
   3. Though few accidents have been reported over many years   
   of oil production by experts, production of cannabis oil   
   remains hazardous for a disabled person.   
      
   4. The current regime leaves provision of juice and oil and   
   derivatives to the Licensed Producers who are just starting   
   to sell some oil but no juice yet. My only other source of   
   cannabis oil without having to run the risk of producing it   
   myself are the dispensaries and they are being shut down.   
      
   5. Just as having the right to use marijuana but forcing   
   patients to buy off the streets was deemed unconstitutional   
   in Parker, so too, having the right to use juice, oil and   
   derivatives but forcing me to buy off the streets should be   
   too. Having the right but not being able to buy any is the   
   height of "illusory!"   
      
   6. This Affidavit is made in support of a motion for interim   
   exemption from the CDSA for provisioners of cannabis   
   marijuana oil and derivatives to licensed patients pending   
   the action.   
      
               PLAINTIFF'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   1. In 1997, Justice Sheppard stayed possession and   
   cultivation charges against Terrance Parker and granted an   
   exemption from the offences.   
      
   2. On July 31 2000, in R. v. Parker, the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal ruled the prohibition on possession in S.4(1) of the   
   CDSA to be invalid absent an adequate medical exemption but   
   suspended the decision 1 year granting Parker an exemption   
   for the year. The Court agreed both possession and   
   cultivation offences were unconstitutional but could only   
   strike down the possession offence before them though they   
   said they would have struck down S.7 cultivation offence if   
   they could have.   
      
   3. On Dec 11 2000, in R. v. Krieger, Alberta Justice Acton   
   followed the Parker Court's ruling and struck down the   
   S.7(1) prohibition on cultivation that the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal had not had the opportunity to strike down.   
      
   4. On July 30 2001, the Ministry of Health enacted the   
   MMAR Exemption application process.   
      
   5. On Mar 18 2003, the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed   
   the Crown appeal and the Acton decision invalidating the S.7   
   prohibition on production took effect. (Crown Application   
   for Leave to Appeal denied by Supreme Court of Canada)   
      
   6. On Oct 7 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in   
   "Hitzig" that the MMAR had 4 constitutional flaws to be   
   struck down including S.43 limit of 1 patient per grower and   
   S.54 limit of 3 gardeners per garden. Respondent Hitzig did   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)