From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Response to Pelissier Interim Grow Motion   
      
   JCT: The response to Charline Pelissier is pretty well the   
   same as they used for Heidi Chartrand's motion and I'd   
   expect for others coming up. It repeats the cards I've   
   already trumped with a few differences.   
      
   Charline sent in her application on Dec 19 2017.   
      
   After 9 weeks, filed Statement of Claim on Feb 20 2018.   
      
   Within 2 days, they have it out of the mail-room and find a   
   typo! On one doc, birth date is the 31 and on another, 21!   
   Horror. It's all her fault.   
      
   On Feb 27, she filed the motion despite not having corrected   
   the typo. All her fault.   
      
   Not quite. They do admit they didn't look at it for 2 months   
   and who knows how much longer it would have stayed in the   
   mail room had she not filed. Donald Cote has waited 35   
   weeks, 8 months! Wonder how long his was in the mail room?   
      
   T-144-18   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                        CHARLINE PELISSIER   
                                       Plaintiff (Moving Party)   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                         Defendant (Respondent)   
      
                    WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OF   
          HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA PART   
      
                   PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   A. OVERVIEW   
      
   1. The motion should be dismissed. With respect to the   
   request for an injunction, the plaintiffs claim 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 since the plaintiff's   
   application was incomplete and because the plaintiff has   
   failed to provide Health Canada with the additional   
   information necessary to process her application. With   
   respect to the request for mandamus, the requested relief is   
   unavailable in an action and on an interlocutory basis, and   
   the plaintiff has in any event not established that she is   
   entitled to registration.   
      
   B. BACKGROUND   
      
   2. On Dec 18, 2017, the plaintiff applied to Health Canada   
   to obtain an initial registration to produce cannabis for   
   her personal medical use. The plaintiff's application was   
   received by Health Canada on Dec 19 2017.   
      
   3. On Feb 20, 2018, the plaintiff filed her Statement of   
   Claim in this matter.   
      
   4. On Feb 22 2018, Health Canada determined that it needed   
   further clarification and information from the plaintiff in   
   order to process her application. More particularly, Health   
   Canada required clarification with respect to the address of   
   her ordinary place of residence as well as that   
   of the production site.   
      
   JCT: No mention of a problem to be corrected there. Wonder   
   what clarification they required with respect to a correct   
   address?   
      
   WW: In addition, there were discrepancies between the   
   plaintiff's date of birth as on her application and as   
   reflected on her supporting medical document.   
      
   JCT: Mis-typing a 31 for a 21 is "a discrepancy," not the   
   plural. One digit wrong is not plural. Lawying.   
      
   WW: 5. On Feb 23, 2018 Health Canada spoke with the   
   plaintiff and was able to obtain confirmation regarding the   
   address of her ordinary resident as well as that of the   
   production site.   
      
   JCT: Why would they need to take time to confirm the correct   
   address she had entered? What a colossal waste of time to   
   point out to the judge.   
      
   WW: It also asked that she provide an additional   
   clarification on her application, specifically with respect   
   to the discrepancy related to her date of birth. The   
   plaintiff was supposed to provide this additional   
   information by email, however Health Canada has not received   
   the expected email from the plaintiff. On March 7 2018,   
   Health Canada wrote to the plaintiff, reminding her about   
   the outstanding clarification request, and outlining once   
   again that this information was necessary to process her   
   application.   
      
   On Feb 27 2018, the plaintiff served and filed the present   
   motion in which she seeks a personal constitutional from the   
   CDSA or order in the nature of mandamus requiring Health   
   Canada to grant her registration.   
      
   JCT: Har har har. I've already pointed out in previous cases   
   that that is a misrepresentation. We're not asking the Court   
   to make them grant her registration, just to process it. But   
   here she is again, repeating the same losing line.   
      
   WW: PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE   
      
   7. The issue on this motion is whether the Court should   
   grant the plaintiffs requests for either (a) an   
   interlocutory injunction either exempting her from the CDSA   
   or (b) an order in the nature of mandamus requiring Health   
   Canada to grant her renewal application.   
      
   JCT: She can misrepresent the motion as much as she wants,   
   Justice Brown knows he's not being asked to grant it, only   
   process it. How stupid to repeat a card that's already been   
   beaten.   
      
   WW: PART III - SUBMISSIONS   
      
   A. AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE   
      
   8. The well-known test for interlocutory injunctive relief   
   is set out in RJR MacDonald v. Canada. The party seeking an   
   interlocutory injunction must prove that: a) there is a   
   serious issue to be tried; b) irreparable harm would result   
   if the injunction was not granted; and c) the balance of   
   convenience favours granting the order. The plaintiff has   
   not met any of these requirements.   
      
   a) No serious issue to be tried   
      
   9. The threshold for establishing a serious issue is low.   
   The party seeking injunctive relief need only establish that   
   their claim is not destined to fail or that it is "neither   
   frivolous nor vexatious." The plaintiffs claim fails to meet   
   even this low threshold.   
      
   10. A pleading is frivolous and vexatious if it is so bereft   
   of facts that the defendant cannot know how to answer or the   
   Court cannot effectively regulate the proceedings. In the   
   present case, the plaintiff alleges that "the long   
   processing time" for registration and the "back-dating" of   
   registration violate section 7 of the Charter but the claim   
   contains virtually no material facts to support this   
   conclusion. For example, although it alleges that the   
   registration process violates the right to life, the claim   
   does not identity an ongoing medical condition that   
   threatens the plaintiffs life, allege that there are no   
   other medications available to her, or explain how the   
   alleged delays and "back-dating" of registration have   
   affected the plaintiff personally. The claim also 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)