From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: After letting expire the permits of 5 other Plaintiffs   
   that we know of who had submitted for renewal from 6, 10, 13   
   and 15 weeks in advance. And now, because Heidi had to ask   
   for a rush job, and a motion for interim remedy, their   
   Response jumped all over her for not giving them enough   
   time! This is her Reply due today.   
      
   File No: T-144-18   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                         HEIDI CHARTRAND   
                                          Plaintiff (Applicant)   
                               and   
                       HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                         Defendant (Respondent)   
      
                        PLAINTIFF'S REPLY   
      
   1. The Applicant mailed a first renewal application on Jan   
   18, 8 days before expiry date Jan 26, marked "Urgent" and a   
   second application on Jan 25 when the first had not been   
   received.   
      
   2. The Defendant argues the request for an injunction   
       does not raise a serious issue, the plaintiff has   
       provided no evidence that she would be irreparably   
       harmed in the absence of an injunction, and the balance   
       of convenience favours denying the requested relief.   
      
   3. Applicant submits the delivery of medication is a serious   
   issue.   
      
   4. Applicant submits that the irreparable harms are evident   
   and have already been discussed: Possible fines and   
   imprisonment if Applicant does not take down her site and   
   destroy her supply pending renewal. The Defendant has argued   
   that the Plaintiff shutting down her site means her Right to   
   Liberty is not engaged but she did not say she destroyed her   
   stash and no longer takes any medicine. Her site is known   
   and can be easily busted but where she hid her stash is not.   
   It does not follow that complying with the regulations with   
   respect to ceasing production does not mean she has complied   
   with respect to ceasing taking her medicine. Applicant is   
   thus always engaging the Right to Liberty in possessing any   
   medicine.   
      
   5. The balance of convenience favors Health Canada adding   
   more staff to more expeditiously process registrations or   
   using the present staff to expedite the odd urgent   
   application.   
      
   6. Several times, the Defendant has stated that Applicant   
   although previously authorized to produce cannabis for   
   medical purposes, she provides no evidence of a continuing   
   medical condition with which cannabis would assist, has not   
   established that she is entitled to registration... not   
   demonstrated that she continues to meet the requirements of   
   the ACMPR..   
      
   7. Applicant submits that the new doctor's medical document   
   is evidence of a continuing medical condition, establishes   
   she is entitled to registration, and demonstrates that she   
   continues to meet the requirements of the ACMPR. Her doctor   
   said so. Again.   
      
   8. Defendant argues the action is frivolous and vexatious   
   because no cause of action exists with insufficient facts.   
   Arguing " it is so bereft of facts," "the claim contains   
   virtually no material facts," "Absent these material facts,   
   the claim is frivolous and vexatious and fails to raise a   
   serious issue."   
      
   9. The Applicant submits that the only facts relevant to   
   whether the short-staffing is causing unconscionable delays   
   in processing registrations are the length of time   
   determined by the Effective Date of issuance, the Expiry   
   Date which gives us the date the doctor signed.   
      
   10. The Defendant has submitted facts that are missing:   
   1) does not identity an ongoing medical condition   
   2)  does not allege that there are no other medications   
   available to her,   
   3) fails entirely to explain why the plaintiff must produce   
   cannabis herself as opposed to purchasing it from a   
   commercial licensed producer, which does not require   
   registration with Health Canada.   
      
   11. Plaintiff submits the Applicant's medical condition is   
   not material to whether the processing delays caused by   
   short staff is too long.   
      
   12. Plaintiff submits that though using cannabis as a last   
   resort used to be the norm, there is no longer any need to   
   explain why all of the dangerous chemical drugs were not   
   tried before opting for herbal.   
      
   13. Applicant could list financial benefits like no courier   
   costs per 150 gram delivery, no sales taxes, no labelling   
   and testing expenses, no corporate profits to pay, or that   
   self-production allows choice of strains, or just that she   
   likes gardening. But it is not relevant why Legal Route A   
   was chosen over Legal Route B. So, absent these NON-material   
   facts, the cause of action is NOT frivolous and vexatious.   
   Those are not material facts in argument over whether Expiry   
   Date Minus Effective Date shows short-changing of time.   
      
   14. The Defendant several times argues the public interest   
   in continued application and enforcement of the law is   
   particularly strong in this case.   
      
   15. Plaintiff submits that whether short-staffing violates   
   patient rights through processing delays with no motion to   
   end application and enforcement of the law.   
      
   16. In paragraphs 1, 5, 8, 9, the Defendant has   
   misrepresented the relief sought by mandamus as:   
        "compelling Health Canada to grant her application."   
      
   17. Applicant agrees the Court has no power to compel Health   
   Canada to grant her application but did not ask for that:   
       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.   
      
   18. In paragraph 22, the Defendant gets it right.   
       The plaintiff also seeks an order in the nature of   
       mandamus requiring Health Canada to process her renewal   
       application.   
      
   19. The Court does not have the power to tell a body how to   
   its duty, it can only say its duty has not been done and   
   mandate it be done. The duty here is not that the   
   Registration be granted but that it be processed without   
   violating the patient's rights.   
      
   20. Ray Turmel's exemption was expiring on Friday May 31,   
   2013, after he'd submitted his renewal 7 weeks earlier.   
   Justice Roy granted a short notice hearing on expiry eve at   
   6:30pm and though he did not issue an Order mandating that   
   Health Canada get the renewal processed on time, he did   
   order Health Canada appear the next morning, Saturday, to   
   explain why they had not. They did their duty by 11:30pm.   
      
   21. Applicant is not an expert in the law and hopes the   
   Court will ensure that though mandamus is not available to   
   grant the Registration, if mandamus is available to expedite   
   the process, that it be accepted as a lawful recourse.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)