From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: This the Response to the Crown motion to summarily   
   dismiss Adrian Stuerm's conviction appeal (based on the wrong   
   motion) and the Reply to their opposition to the Motion for   
   Leave to Appeal the mandatory minimum sentence.   
      
   RESPONSE TO SUMMARILY DISMISS CONVICTION APPEAL   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC                QUEBEC COURT OF APPEAL   
   DISTRICT OF ST-JEROME               (Criminal Chamber)   
   LOCALITE: ST-JEROME   
   NO: 500-01-113376-146        Between   
                                Adrian Stuerm   
                                RESPONDENT APPELLANT/Accused   
      
                                -and-   
                                Attorney General for Quebec   
                                APPLICANT RESPONDENT/Prosecution   
      
        [On Appeal from the May 9 and May 10 2017 judgments   
       of Superior Court of Quebec Justice Alexandre Boucher]   
      
              APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT   
      
   OVERVIEW   
      
   1. July 31 2000, Ontario Court of Appeal in R v. Parker ruled   
   S.4(1) Possession prohibition invalid absent medical   
   exemption and would have struck down the S.7(1) Production   
   prohibition had it been under appeal.   
      
   2. Dec 11 2000, Alberta Court of Queen's Bench Acton J. in R.   
   v. Krieger agreed with Parker and declared the S.7(1)   
   Production prohibition invalid absent exemption.   
      
   3. July 30 2001, Marijuana Medical Access Regulations   
   exemption were promulgated.   
      
   4. March 18 2003, Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Krieger   
   sustained S.7(1) Production prohibition invalid absent   
   exemption. Leave to appeal to Supreme Court refused.   
   Appendix A   
      
   5. Oct 7 2003, Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig v. HMQ ruled   
   that a valid constitutional exemption was absent since July 31   
   2001 and struck down flaws to make MMAR constitutional again   
   to bring the prohibitions back into validity.   
      
   6. Oct 7 2003, Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. J.P. quashed   
   Possession charge laid in the period the MMAR exemption was   
   declared invalid by Hitzig.   
      
   7. On Dec 8 2003, rather than appeal Hitzig and J.P, the Crown   
   stayed all remaining 4,000 Possession charges across Canada   
   whether the Accused had medical need or not. The prohibition   
   was invalid for all, not just the sick, when the exemption   
   fails.   
      
   8. In R. v. Mernagh, [2011] O.J. No. 1669, 2011 ONSC 2121   
   (CanLII), Taliano J. declared declared the MMAR absent for the   
   failure of the majority of doctors to participate and followed   
   Parker and Krieger to declare the prohibitions on Possession and   
   Production invalid. It was overturned and sent back for trial   
   upon the ground that there was no evidence that 90% of   
   Canada's doctors had not had sound medical reasons for their   
   refusals. Before the patients could again testify to the non-   
   medical reasons the doctors had used to refuse, the Crown   
   stayed the charges.   
      
   9. April 1 2014, MMAR was repealed and MMPR instituted.   
      
   10. On Aug 26 2016, Allard v. HMQ declaring the MMPR invalid   
   since April Fool 2014 took effect. Appellant was charged while   
   the MMPR were invalid.   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   10. The Accused was charged with the following count for   
   producing 65 marijuana plants:   
       1. On or about Jan 17 2016, at Brownsburg-Chatham,   
       district of Terrebonne, did produce cannabis marijuana   
       thus committing the criminal act in contravention of   
       S.7(1)(2)(b) of the C.D.S.A.   
      
   11. The Accused filed two pre-trial motions:   
      
   A) APPLICATION FOR ALLARD-SMITH BENO QUASH AND RETURN OF   
   CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE (C.C.C S.601 and C.D.S.A S.24, not the   
   Charter) BENO: Bad Exemption, No Offence.   
   Appendix B   
      
   B) APPLICATION AND CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE   
   Pursuant to S.8(2)(a) of the Constitutional Question Act.   
      
   A) SECTION 601 NON-CHARTER QUASH MOTION   
      
   12. Appellant invoked the Alberta Court of Appeal's R. v.   
   Krieger [2003] decision striking down the Production   
   prohibition in s.7(1) absent a valid medical exemption. It did   
   not invoke the Ontario Court of Appeal's R. v. Parker [2001]   
   judgment striking down the possession prohibition in S.4   
   absent a valid medical exemption with which the Alberta Court   
   agreed.   
      
   13. Just as J.P. cited the Hitzig v. HMQ [2003] declaration of   
   absent constitutional MMAR exemption to invoke the Parker   
   declaration of invalidity on S.4 Possession absent exemption   
   to quash his charge, Appellant herein cited the Allard v. HMQ   
   [2016] declaration of absent constitutional MMPR exemption to   
   invoke the Krieger declaration of invalidity of S.7 production   
   absent exemption. Appellant relied on Krieger striking down   
   S.7 to quash his S.7 charge, not Parker striking down S.4 to   
   challenge the S.7 offence he is charged with.   
      
   14. On May 9 2017, Justice Boucher dismissed the S.601 Motion   
   to Quash. Accused had not made the MMAR error in the S.601   
   Quash Motion and has appealed his conviction based only on the   
   dismissal of the S.601 Quash Motion that cited the Allard MMPR   
   declaration of invalidity and the Krieger S.7 Production   
   prohibition declaration of invalidity.   
      
   B) CHARTER MOTION   
      
   15. If Allard was not accepted precedent for an   
   unconstitutional MMPR to Quash the charge, this Charter motion   
   sought to have the MMPR declared unconstitutional for   
   deficiencies in the MMPR exemption regime not covered in   
   Allard.   
      
   16. On May 8 2017, Trial Judge Alexandre Boucher dismissed the   
   Charter challenge against the MMAR because the MMAR was not in   
   effect at the time of the charge, the MMPR was. It was   
   Accused's typographical error so there is no appeal on it.   
      
   MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS FRIVOLOUS AND VEXATIOUS   
      
   17. After the Notice of Appeal against conviction was filed   
   based on the dismissal of the S.601 Motion to Quash, the   
   Respondent filed a motion before the Court Clerk to send the   
   appeal to the Court Panel for summary judgment as frivolous   
   and vexatious.   
      
   18. The Respondent did not include the S.601 Quash Motion in   
   its documentation to the Clerk nor mention that there were two   
   motions.   
      
   The Clerk was left with the impression that this is   
   an appeal against the Charter motion against the MMAR which   
   would be frivolous and vexatious and futile.   
      
   19. The Respondent's Motion led the Clerk to believe:   
      
       a. According to the Respondent, the CDSA would be   
       unconstitutional since the Ontario Court of Appeal's R. v.   
       Parker;   
      
   20. The Accused argued that the CDSA was unconstitutional   
   since the Federal Court's Allard v. HMQ ruling took effect on   
   April Fool 2014.   
      
       b. Given this, the judge of first instance should have   
       granted his motion under S.601 (motion to quash);   
      
   21. This is the only mention of a S.601 motion to quash which   
   is not in the court file!!!   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)