From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Waylon O'Reilly filed a motion in Federal Court for an   
   interim constitutional exemption to start planting his outdoor   
   crop before the grow season is over after waiting 16 weeks so   
   far. And to plant double since his season is halved.   
      
   Letter to the Court from Crown:   
      
   Department of Justice   
   50 O'Connor St.   
   Ottawa, K1A 0H8   
      
   July 12 2017   
      
   BY FAX   
      
   Federal Court   
   Courts Administration Services   
   90 Sparks St.   
   Ottawa K1A 0H9   
      
   Dear Sir/Madam   
      
   Re: Waylon O'Reilly v. Attorney General of Canada   
       CFN: T-1008-17   
      
   CR: I write in response to the email of Registry Officer   
   Benoit Labelle to Judy LaFrance at the Department of Justice   
   dated July 11 2017 regarding the above noted matter. The email   
   advised the Respondent of the direction of the Court that the   
   Respondent shall provide its position on the Applicant's   
   motion in the above noted matter no later than 10am on   
   Wednesday July 12, 2017.   
      
   The Respondent's position is that the Applicant's Notice of   
   Motion should be struck and no hearing should proceed. In the   
   alternative, should the Court decide to hear the Applicant's   
   motion, the Respondent requests an adjournment to Wednesday   
   July 26 2017 in order to be able to properly respond to the   
   Applicant's materials.   
      
   JCT: So the Court did not strike the Notice and booked them for   
   July 26 2017, same day as Adrian Stuerm in Montreal. They need   
   2 weeks to prepare an argument of why there's no rush to get   
   him his exemption before the grow season is over! Har har har   
   har har har.   
      
   CR: The Respondent was served with an unfiled copy of the   
   Applicant's Motion Record on July 10 2017, and has had a   
   chance to review it. The Applicant states that he is seeking   
   an order of "interim relief of a personal constitutional   
   exemption" to allow him to grow 38 outdoor marijuana plants.   
   This number represents double the amount of outdoor marijuana   
   plants that the Applicant applied to grow under the Access to   
   Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations (ACMPR). The   
   Applicant's application pursuant to the ACMPR is still pending   
   with Health Canada, the body that administers the regulations.   
      
   JCT: Still pending after 16 weeks when it should have taken   
   under 10?   
      
   CR: It appears that there is no proceeding that underlies the   
   Applicant's Notice of Motion. While the Applicant has   
   referenced an outstanding application for judicial review in   
   his materials, 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. Rule 372 of the Federal Court Act states that a   
   motion may not be brought before the commencement of a   
   proceeding, except in the case of urgency.   
      
   JCT: Bingo. What can be more urgent than "going, going, gone!"   
      
   CR: The Respondent submits that the Applicant has not   
   established any urgency in having this motion heard prior to   
   the filing of an application for judicial review.   
      
   JCT: They don't see missing his medicine crop as an emergency!   
   Have fun explaining that.   
      
   CR: Without an underlying application for judicial review, the   
   Court is not able to hear a motion for an interlocutory or   
   interim injunction. As much, the Respondent's position is that   
   the Applicant's Notice of Motion should be struck.   
      
   JCT: The underlying application for judicial review will say   
   that 16 weeks is too long.   
      
   CR: Further, the Applicant makes mention in his Motion Record   
   of the unconstitutionality of the way applications under the   
   ACMPR are processed. It is not clear if the Applicant intends   
   to challenge the constitutionality of the ACMPR at the motion   
   hearing, but if so, the Respondent notes that the Application   
   has not filed a Notice of Constitutional Question, pursuant to   
   S.57 of the Federal Courts Act.   
      
   JCT: Then if he can't challenge the constitutionality of the   
   way exemptions are processed at the motion, I guess it's   
   clear enough that he will not in the motion, just later in the   
   judicial review.   
      
   CR: The Respondent also notes that the purpose of the motion   
   for interim relief is to preserve or restore the status quo   
   until the adjudication of the underlying proceeding (Gould v.   
   Canada [1984]. Setting aside the fact that there is no   
   underlying proceeding in this case, it appears from the   
   materials in the Motion Record that the Applicant's requested   
   relief of being permitted to grow 38 marijuana plants outdoors   
   would be a departure from the status quo.   
      
   JCT: I'm sure the Court doesn't have to stick with the status   
   quo when double the status quo is called for. Of course, we're   
   presuming his doctor prescribing cannabis means the status quo   
   is that he should get his medicine. They consider the status   
   quo him not having it yet and getting it early would violate   
   the status quo! Har har har har har har. Lawyer think.   
      
   CR: It is not clear whether the Applicant is currently   
   licensed to grow any marijuana plants, only that he applied   
   under the ACMPR to grow 19 plants.   
      
   JCT: Seems pretty clear he is not licensed yet to grow if he's   
   demanding his license to grow. Har har har har har har.   
      
   CR: The Respondent submits that the Court does not have the   
   ability to grant the Applicant permission to grow 38 plants,   
   or any marijuana plants that he is not currently permitted to   
   grow.   
      
   JCT: The Applicant submits that the Court has the power to   
   grant the Applicant anything that is deemed just. We're down   
   to what's just. Still, to tell them they can't, when Justice   
   Manson did in Allard. Remember, he extended the medicine to   
   half the patients who had had permits. The other half,   
   some died, but he's protected, what does he care?   
      
   CR: The Respondent thanks the Court for being granted the   
   ability to provide its position on the Applicant's Notice of   
   Motion, and awaits the further direction of the Court.   
   Regards,   
   Jennifer Bond, Counsel   
   Civil Litigation Section   
      
   JCT: Now the "hop to it" story.   
   Monday July 10, Waylon filed.   
      
   Wednesday July 12 letter, the above letter is written where   
   she says she doesn't know if he's been exempted yet.   
      
   Same day, Health Canada approves and mails out his exemption   
   by Express Post. That's the "hop-to-it." His exemption somehow   
   got from the approval desk to the mailroom on the same day.   
   Maybe it won't take 2 weeks any more? Har har har.   
      
   Monday July 17, (after the weekend), he gets his exemption.   
      
   Tuesday July 18, Registry and Justice call to see if he wants   
   to call off his motion now that he got his exemption. No.   
   Wants more plants. Even more now that they wasted another 2   
   weeks.   
      
   Wednesday July 26, Sparks St. Ottawa, same day as Adrian in   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)