From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Judge Roussel reserves on Waylon O'Reilly "more plants" plea   
      
   JCT: My last post had the Crown's letter to the Court   
   requesting a 2-week delay in Waylon's case that he was running   
   out of grow season for his outdoor crop. They wanted to Court   
   to refuse to hear it. No luck.   
      
   JULY 26 20217 TELEPHONE HEARING BEFORE MADAM JUSTICE ROUSSEL   
      
   The hearing only took 10-15 minutes. I'm told Waylon got to   
   explain how the vegeration cycle is almost up so he was   
   running out of time. Starting this week, having missed the   
   majority of the grow season, he'd only have small plants when   
   the flowering cycle began. He might have asked for 38 plants 3   
   weeks ago, he's now asking for as many as he can since he   
   doubts he'll make his limit at all. Here's the Crown's   
   official Response, all technical.   
      
   File No: T-1008-17   
                         FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                         Waylon O'Reilly   
                                                   Applicant   
                              and   
                  Attorney General of Canada   
                                                  Respondent   
      
                RESPONDENT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   CR: Overview   
      
   The Applicant's request for interim relief is not related to   
   any underlying application or action. Absent emergent   
   circumstances, which the Applicant has not established, a   
   motion may not be brought before this Court prior to the   
   commencement of a proceeding.   
      
   JCT: Wrong.   
      
   CR: Further, the Applicant has since been granted a license   
   under the ACMPR, and thus the matter is moot.   
      
   JCT: Not enough time to get any medicine this year is the   
   issue.   
      
   CR: Even if this Court were to entertain the Applicant's   
   motion on its merits, there is no basis in law to grant the   
   relief sought. The motion should be dismissed.   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   2. On March 17, 2017, the Applicant applied to Health Canada   
   for a license, pursuant to the Access to Cannabis for   
   Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR), to cultivate 19 outdoor   
   marijuana plants. The application was received by Health   
   Canada on March 22 2017.   
      
   3. As of July 10 2017, the Applicant had yet to receive a   
   decision from Health Canada regarding his application.   
      
   JCT: What kind of decision had to be made? Thought the doctor   
   had decided.   
      
   CR: As a result, the Applicant filed the instant motion with   
   this Court, seeking""interim relief of a personal   
   constitutional exemption" to allow him to grow 38 outdoor   
   marijuana plants for the remainder of the 2017 growing season   
   pending final processing of his ACMPR authorization and   
   judicial review of the processing delays." The Applicant   
   requests the ability to grow 38 plants as this is double the   
   number of plants that he sought permission to grow.   
      
   JCT: Waylon said he didn't want to challenge the ACMPR, he   
   just wanted to be able to plant a sufficient crop given the   
   circumstances.   
      
      
      
      
      
   4. Subsequently, the Applicant's application for a license to   
   grow 19 outdoor marijuana plants was granted by Health Canada.   
   The application was approved on July 12 2017 and mailed to the   
   Applicant on the same day.   
      
   JCT: Does anyone else have a mailing date the same as the   
   approval date? Speak up. I doubt it. I keep seeing 2 weeks to   
   get from the approval desk to the mail room. And their   
   Affidavit showed it arrived on July 17 2017!  So Mar 17 to   
   July 17, exactly 4 months, 122 days, 17+ weeks! While in the   
   MMAR, it took 8-10 and now they have less to do, just register   
   it. A judicial review would be fun.   
      
   CR: PART II - ISSUES   
      
   5. The issues raised on this motion are:   
   a. Does the Court have the jurisdiction to hear the   
   Applicant's motion?   
      
   JCT: Of course, it does in urgent matters.   
      
   CR: b. If so, is this motion application moot?   
      
   JCT: Not while the exemption won't get him his supply.   
      
   CR: c. If this Court decides to hear this matter on its   
   merits, can the Applicant be granted his requested relief?   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENT   
      
   (a) Jurisdiction to hear motions for interim relief   
      
   6. The Applicant has not specified whether, through the motion   
   for interim relief, he seeks an interlocutory injunction,   
   pursuant to Rule 373 of the Federal Courts Rules, or an   
   interim injunction, pursuant to Rule 374. As an interlocutory   
   injunction provides relief until a certain point in time as   
   specified by the court, usually the final outcome of the   
   underlying matter. An interim injunction provides relief for   
   up to 14 days.   
      
   7.Given the nature of the relief sought (i.e. the ability to   
   grow 38 marijuana plants for the rest of the 2017 growing   
   season), the Respondent will proceed on the assumption that   
   the Applicant's motion is pursuant to Rule 373.   
      
   JCT: Good to know.   
      
   CR: 8. Pursuant to S.18.2 of the Federal Courts Act, on   
   application for judicial review, the Federal Court may make   
   any interim orders that it considers appropriate pending the   
   final disposition of the application. Rule 372 of the Federal   
   Courts Rules states that a motion may not be brought before   
   the commencement of any proceeding, except in a case of   
   urgency.   
      
   JCT: Bingo. Not enough medicine qualifies as urgent.   
      
   CR: 9. In Valastro, Madam Justice Snider outlined the   
   authority of the Federal Court to grant interlocutory relief:   
       The power of the Federal Court does not extend to granting   
       interim injunctions absent some recognized legal interest   
       or right which is within the Court's power to adjudicate.   
      
   JCT: You'd think the right to your medicine, right to life,   
   would be obvious.   
      
       Section 18.2 of the Federal Courts Act and Rule 372 of the   
       Federal Courts Rules establish that a motion for   
       injunctive relief cannot be obtained before the   
       commencement of a proceeding.   
      
   JCT: Without the urgency about a violation of life.   
      
   CR: 10. The Applicant's Notice of Motion does not relate to   
   any underlying proceeding. While the Applicant has referenced   
   an outstanding application for judicial review in his   
   materials,   
      
   JCT: Where it says one can make an urgent motion prior to   
   filing a judicial review. When that was raised, Waylon said   
   that a judicial review could be done later. After he finds out   
   about how much he'll be able to grow is when he'll know if   
   also throws in a Claim for damages for their delay.   
      
   CR: the Respondent has not been served with any such   
   application, nor does it appear from the Federal Court website   
   that one has been filed with the Federal Court Registry.   
      
   11. Further, the Applicant has not provided any evidence to   
   suggest that there exist urgent circumstances such that his   
   motion should be heard prior to his filing of an application   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)