From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Bruno Roy gets Health Canada response to slow permit   
      
   JCT: Luc Lapierre's helped Bruno Roy file a motion for   
   interim remedy and Judge Brown ordered Canada to respond by   
   March 1. Wendy Wright got him his permit to mooten the   
   motion for interim relief but he refused to sign the Notice   
   of Abandonment. So she couldn't just make it go away so the   
   judge wouldn't find out they'd hopped to it again, like a   
   few earlier ones were quietly abandoned. Not abandoning   
   forces them to respond and tell the judge how they hopped to   
   it so it could be dismissed as mooted. Of course, now that   
   their response is on his desk, Bruno can abandon and not   
   waste the judge's time. Just wanted him to know about   
   another abuse.   
      
   So, Wendy Wright's response:   
      
   March 1 2018   
      
   Dear Justice Brown   
      
   Re: ROY, Bruno v. HMTQ File No T-341-18   
      
   WW: By Order dated Dec 11 2017, Your Honour ordered that any   
   claims that are "the same or substantially similar" to the   
   claim with Court File No. T-1379-14 (sic) be held in   
   abeyance with no further proceedings permitted, pending the   
   determination of the (sic) Canada's motion to strike that   
   claim.   
      
   JCT: She omitted: "without leave of the court." As if Judge   
   Brown is going to forget what he said just because she omits   
   it? He issued that direction to quiet things down since   
   they'd all be dealt with in Jeff's case. Except for urgent   
   interim relief which all of our motions are. So I included   
   "with leave of the court if necessary" in all new motions   
   and leave was implicitly granted every single time he   
   ordered the Crown to respond. Right? If he orders them to   
   respond, leave has been granted to bring the motion on   
   grounds of medical urgency. Every time. Not once has leave   
   to move despite the stay been denied. Admit it, every motion   
   was serious and had to be treated seriously. Does he expect   
   any frivolous motions to start? No, I'm sure he would let   
   them all in as he has already let them all in so far.   
      
   WW: The present claim is the same or substantially the same   
   to the T-1379-14.   
      
   JCT: She probably mixed up her years because Jeff did have a   
   Gold Star claim back in 1974.   
      
   WW: Canada submits that the claim is accordingly in abeyance   
   and that the plaintiff's motion for interlocutory relief   
   cannot proceed at this time.   
      
   JCT: Maybe she really doesn't know that Judge Brown said   
   motions can't be filed: "without leave of the court." And   
   she must not have noticed that it is requested, if   
   necessary. And it is. And it was when he ordered her to   
   respond! Har har har har har har. He ordered her to respond   
   and it didn't click that means leave is granted. And she's   
   still trying to nix the hearing she was ordered to respond   
   to!   
      
   WW: However, should the Court see fit to hear the   
   plaintiff's motion, please accept Canada's response   
   submissions.   
      
   JCT: Yes, it hasn't clicked that his ordering her to respond   
   means he's already seeing fit to hear the motion.   
      
   WW: The plaintiff requests an order renewing his Health   
   Canada-issued registration to produce cannabis for his   
   personal medical use, pending the outcome of his claim.   
      
   As detailed in the enclosed affidavit, the plaintiff's   
   application was received by Health Canada on Sep 20 2017.   
   This application was subsequently processed and the   
   plaintiff's registration to produce cannabis was renewed on   
   Feb 21 2018.   
      
   JCT: They got his Statement of Claim on Feb 20 and issued   
   his permit on Feb 21. Pretty hop-to-it action. But a day   
   over 5 months! Note, the Lessard Card says: MMAR   
   Registrations in under 4 weeks, renewals in far less."   
   Reported under 2 weeks. 5 months!   
      
   WW: His registration having already been renewed, the   
   plaintiff's motion is now moot.   
      
   In any event, even if his motion were not moot, Canada   
   submits the relief requested is not appropriate. Plaintiff   
   seeks an interlocutory constitutional exemption so that he   
   may continue producing cannabis pending the processing of   
   his application for a registration certificate. This is an   
   extraordinary remedy   
      
   JCT: Yes, Mandamus is called "extraordinary" remedy.   
      
   WW: and the plaintiff has pleaded no facts to warrant it.   
      
   JCT: Effective and Expiry Dates just not enough facts.   
   Then she needs to know what ails him, why he didn't try more   
   chems first, and why he didn't buy from an LP?   
      
   WW: Absent these material facts or evidence to support them,   
   the requested relief should not be granted.   
   Wendy Wright.   
      
   JCT: The requested relief has just been delivered so there's   
   no requested relief left to seek. Just wanted to hear an   
   explanation, not happy with it, but now Bruno can abandon.   
      
   Besides, as she gets Bruno's mooted motion off her desk, Luc   
   just got another motion filed! Har har har har har har.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)