From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Justice Ministry's Jon Bricker filed their Response to   
   Heidi's motion for an interim extension of her grow permit   
   with some affidavits and a 195 page book of Authorities.   
      
   T-144-18   
                           FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                          HEIDI CHARTRAND   
                                      Plaintiff (Moving Party)   
                                and   
                       HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                         Defendant (Respondent)   
      
                      WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
            OF HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA   
      
   PART I-OVERVIEW   
      
   I. On January 25, 2018, the plaintiff applied to Health   
   Canada to renew her registration to produce cannabis for her   
   personal medical use. Rather than wait for the outcome of   
   this application, the plaintiff now brings the present   
   motion for an interlocutory injunction allowing her to   
   produce cannabis,   
      
   JCT: Rather than wait in jeopardy of fines and imprisonment,   
   she brings her motion for remedy right away.   
      
   CR: or for an order compelling Health Canada to grant her   
   application.   
      
   JCT: No, for an order mandating Health Canada process her   
   application right away. Big difference he will want to   
   avoid.   
      
   CR: 2. The motion should be dismissed. With respect to the   
   request for an injunction, the plaintiff's claim does not   
   raise a serious issue,   
      
   JCT: Fines and imprisonment aren't serious?   
      
   CR: the plaintiff has provided no evidence that she would be   
   irreparably harmed in the absence of an injunction,   
      
   JCT: Disruption of production and and destruction of supply   
   isn't irreparable harm?   
      
   CR: and the balance of convenience favours denying the   
   requested relief.   
      
   JCT: Actually, there's nothing particularly inconvenient   
   about granting her an interim exemption from prohibition or   
   extending her Registration like Manson did for the Allard   
   plaintiffs, right ? Haven't heard any counterbalancing   
   convenience in refusing.   
      
   CR: With respect to the request for mandamus, the requested   
   relief is unavailable in an action and on an interlocutory   
   basis,   
      
   JCT: Mandating the granting of the permit may not be   
   available but mandating the immediate processing of her   
   Registration is. Remember, he's talking about "granting" her   
   permit, we're talking about processing it. And the Manson   
   Order was available on an interlocutory basis, wasn't it?   
   Later, Phelan dealt with the main Action.   
      
   CR: and the plaintiff has in any event not established that   
   she is entitled to registration.   
      
   JCT: Almost worried he had some rule or precedent that said   
   mandamus was not available with the other extraordinary   
   remedies. No jurisprudence on why Mandamus is not available,   
   just "Jon Says." Not enough.   
      
   So now he says she hasn't established that she's entitled to   
   registration. Must be something other than having a doctor's   
   letter to be entitled. Can't wait to find out what else she   
   has to do to establish her entitlement to be registered than   
   her medical document.   
      
   CR: PART II- STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   3. The plaintiff was previously registered to produce   
   cannabis for her personal medical use on June 9, 2017. Her   
   previous registration certificate clearly indicated that it   
   would expire on January 27, 2018,   
      
   JCT: Get that? Effective Date June 9 2017, expiry date Jan   
   27 2018. So she lost from the date her doctor signed on Jan   
   27 2017 to the Jun 9 2017 Effective Date of the   
   Registration. She got 33/52 weeks and lost 19/52! Got 63% or   
   her prescription and lost 37%! And she's not the worst.   
   Colleen got 24/52 46% weeks and lost 28/52 54%! Stephen   
   McIntosh submitted on Apr 21 and got his permit on Nov 17   
   after a Statement of Claim. He got 22/52 weeks and lost   
   30/52 weeks. Got 42% and lost 58%. But Heidi only lost 37%   
   off her full term.   
      
   CR: and included instructions recommending that she "submit   
   your renewal application at least 6 to 8 weeks before the   
   expiry of your current Registration Certificate" if she   
   wished to renew her registration.1   
   1 Affidavit of Michael McGuire, affirmed February 7, 2018,   
      
   JCT: So it's official. Bricker criticized Terry Johnsgaard   
   for only filing 6 weeks in advance, their minimum! But still   
   on time and they were late.   
      
   CR: 4. The plaintiff mailed a renewal application to Health   
   Canada on January 25, 2018, just two days before her   
   previous registration was scheduled to expire.2   
   2 McGuire Affidavit, para 7(c), RMR, Tab 5, p 22   
   (Although the plaintiff submits in her motion record that   
   she submitted her renewal application on January 18, Canada   
   Post tracking information confirms that the package was   
   mailed on January 25.3)   
   3 McGuire Affidavit, Exhibit B, RMR, Tab 5B, p 27   
      
   JCT: Actually, Heidi had sent her first "urgent" renewal by   
   regular post and when she later checked, it had not been   
   received. So couriered another and filed her Statement of   
   Claim and Motion expiring the next day.   
      
   CR: 5. Rather than wait for the outcome of this application,   
      
   JCT: With expiry looming, the court was her only recourse.   
   CR: the plaintiff filed an urgent motion on January 26 for   
   "a personal constitutional exemption" from the ("CDSA")   
   pending the outcome of her application, or in the   
   alternative, an extension of her previous registration, or   
   in the further alternative, an order in the nature of   
   mandamus requiring Health Canada to grant her renewal   
   application4.   
      
   JCT: Again, she did not ask that her renewal be granted:   
   here's the actual head of relief sought:   
       3) an Order of Mandamus that Health Canada immediately   
       do its duty not to violate Applicant's S.7 Charter   
       rights by allowing the Applicant to suffer the jeopardy   
       of expiry that compels the destruction of all plants and   
       stored cannabis.   
      
   JCT: They can do their duty not to violate Applicant's S.7   
   Charter rights by allowing the Applicant to suffer the   
   jeopardy of expiry that compels the destruction of all   
   plants and stored cannabis by processing the application,   
   not granting it. No one's asking that a Registration be   
   granted if not complete. She is asking to have it processed   
   expeditiously, not granted. She's now 23 days, more than the   
   2 weeks under the MMAR.   
      
   CR 6. By Direction dated January 29, the Court dismissed the   
   plaintiffs motion.5 In doing so, Brown J. observed that the   
   plaintiff had waited (by her own account) until January 18   
   to submit her renewal application, and he concluded that   
   "The Defendant is not obliged to issue a renewal of a   
   personal production permit within 6 days as the Applicant   
   asserts."5 The dismissal of the plaintiffs motion was   
   confirmed by Order dated January 30.6   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)