From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Donald Cote Reply on 8 month delay of meds   
      
   JCT: Donald Cote applied for a permit last June. He filed a   
   motion to interim remedy and the Crown found a point to   
   fight him on. Let's see if a judge can get around them.   
      
   File No.: T-477-18   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN   
                           DONALD COTE   
                                             Applicant/Plaintiff   
   and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                            Respondent/Defendant   
      
                        APPLICANT'S REPLY   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   1. The Plaintiff is a cancer patient who has suffered delays   
   in the processing of an authorization to produce and consume   
   cannabis due to short-staffing and the alleged non-   
   originality of signatures on his documentation.   
      
   2. The Defendant's representations omit and transpose facts   
   in the chronological order:   
      
          2. On June 29, 2017, the plaintiff applied to Health   
          Canada to obtain an initial registration to produce   
          cannabis for his personal medical use. The   
          plaintiff's application was received by Health Canada   
          on June 29 2017.   
          3. On July 21 2017, Health Canada reviewed the   
          application and determined that it was incomplete as   
          the medical document submitted by the plaintiff was   
          not an original of his supporting medical document.   
          Section 177 of the ACMPR requires that the medical   
          document sent to Health Canada be an original.   
      
   3. Plaintiff is cognizant that S.177(1) of the ACMPR   
   requires original documentation, but even if he had not   
   known, he would have had good reason not to know. Nowhere on   
   the "Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations   
   Production for Own Medical Purposes and Production by a   
   Designated Person Registration" form does it state that the   
   original must be submitted.   
      
          4. On August 3 2017, Health Canada returned the   
          application to the plaintiff and along with a blank   
          medical document.   
      
   4. A new blank medical document was sent because Health   
   Canada kept the disputed original medical document. How   
   Health Canada verified the original was not original has not   
   been explained. But the original remaining in their   
   possession may still be verified by scratching the back with   
   a pencil for indentations to prove originality.   
      
          5. On Sep 5 2017, Health Canada received a revised   
          application from the plaintiff. On Dec 8 2017, before   
          Health Canada finished its review of the revised   
          application, it received a second revised application   
          from the plaintiff. This second revised application   
          requested a change in the designated producer that   
          was listed in the application received on Sep 5 2017.   
      
   5. Health Canada had still not finished its review in the 4   
   months from Aug 3 to Dec 5, 18 weeks. And the only amendment   
   requested was of location, not a different grower which   
   would entail more verification of personal data and criminal   
   record check. They had already spent 4 months checking the   
   documentation that was interrupted by the next application   
   to amend one different datum.   
      
   6. The Dec 8 application to amend the location was made   
   necessary after the Plaintiff's grow was busted and his   
   medicine seized on Dec 3. He had submitted his September   
   application and started growing righty away. Mr. Cote's   
   sister was the proprietor of the proposed site and since   
   the Designated Person was not there at the time of the raid,   
   she was charged under S.7(1)(2)(b) with Production for the Purpose   
   of Trafficking facing a 14-year maximum and mandatory minimum,   
   under S.5(2)(3)(a) with Possession for the Purpose of   
   Trafficking with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. So   
   he then filed to amend one datum in his second application.   
      
          6. On Jan 3 2017, Health Canada reviewed the   
          plaintiff's second revised application which it had   
          received on Dec 8 and determined that it too was   
          incomplete. Health Canada returned the application to   
          the plaintiff, along with a checklist which itemized   
          the deficiencies in the application that the   
          plaintiff needed to remedy before the application   
          could be processed.   
          CHECKLIST   
          ANNEX B   
          Section B4 Consent of proprietor   
          [x] The signatures must be original   
          Section B8 Declaration of Designated Person   
          [x] The signature must be original.   
      
   7. The only deficiencies claimed are a lack of original   
   signatures. Even had Plaintiff sent copies that got his   
   first application rejected, could he have been so stupid as   
   to submit copies again to get his revised application   
   rejected too? The "not original" ruse cannot be used twice.   
      
          7. Rather than sending a new or revised application   
          which remedied the deficiencies noted in the December   
          2017 application, in a letter to Health Canada dated   
          Jan 2018, the plaintiff requested that Health Canada   
          disregard the changes requested and simply process   
          the June 2017 application. This letter was received   
          on Feb 19 2018   
      
   8. The Plaintiff could not have wanted his rejected June   
   application to be processed, he wanted the unrejected   
   September application to be finally processed with the   
   original location. The Plaintiff was then informed that he   
   should submit another application in blue ink to better   
   convince the authenticators of its originality.   
      
          9. The Plaintiff filed his Statement of Claim in this   
          proceeding on Feb 26 2018.   
          10. On Feb 27 2018, the plaintiff served and filed   
          the present motion, in which he seeks a "personal   
          constitutional exemption" from the CDSA or order of   
          mandamus requiring Health Canada to grant his   
          registration.   
          8. Since both the June 2017 and December 2017   
          applications had been assessed as incomplete and   
          could not be processed,   
          Health Canada elected to review the application   
          submitted by the plaintiff September 2017 (the same   
          application which the plaintiff sought to revise with   
          his December 2017 revised application).   
      
   9. Yes, it was his unrejected September 2017 application he   
   wanted processed. September application if .   
      
   10. On Mar 5, Plaintiff submitted his fourth application   
   with all signatures in blue ink.   
      
          However, on March 8 2018, Health Canada determined   
          that the Sept 2017 application was incomplete because   
          the medical document submitted was obtained from a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)