From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Over 150 plaintiffs have filed a Statement of Claim for   
   damages from the process time too long and the permit period   
   too short. The Crown filed a motion to strike the claims   
   with the Too Long Process Time deemed frivolous and the Too   
   Short Permit Period deemed mooted by S.56 Orders that   
   they've stopped doing it to anyone on or after March 2 2018!   
      
   This is the Written Representations in Response from Lead   
   Plaintiff Jeff Harris:   
      
   File No: T-1379-17   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                         ALLAN J. HARRIS   
                                           Respondent/Plaintiff   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                            Applicant/Defendant   
      
               RESPONDENT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   BACKGROUND   
      
   1. In late 2017, complaints of bureaucratic short-staffing   
   causing delays in processing grow permits compared to next-   
   day access from Licensed Producers prompted John "The   
   Engineer" Turmel to create a template form for self-   
   represented plaintiffs to file a Statement of Claim seeking   
   a declaration that the long delay over 4 weeks under the   
   MMAR from bureaucratic short-staffing violated their right   
   to life, "Cause of Action A" and damages therefrom in the   
   value of the cannabis not grown determined by a formula such   
   as "$Price * Grams/Day * Days = $Damages."   
      
   2. Allan J. Harris (Jeff) submitted an initial application   
   for registration to produce cannabis on June 11, 2017. After   
   13 weeks, he filed the present "Turmel Kit" Statement of   
   Claim on September 11,2017. The Registration was granted on   
   Oct 11 2017 and expired on March 23 2018, 5.5 months later.   
   He was named Lead Plaintiff for now-over 150 plaintiffs   
   seeking damages for undue delay.   
      
   3. The Statement of Claim was then up-graded to seek a   
   declaration for Cause of Action B, the back-dating of the   
   start of the permit from Effective Date under the MMAR   
   (S.33a) to the date the doctor signed the medical document   
   under the ACMPR (S.8.2b); and damages by restitution of the   
   full-term. More new filers were now claiming for both causes   
   of action.   
      
   4. After the January 25 2018 hearing for Plaintiff Terry   
   Johnsgaard when Defendant made the good point that pleading   
   only Right to Life did not cover a guy with a broken arm   
   which took the Right to Security of the person. So the   
   Statement of Claim was changed a third time and the next   
   batch of plaintiffs filed it. Mr. Justice Brown also ordered   
   Defendant to explain the back-dating of permits to short the   
   period in any motion to strike as frivolous or vexatious.   
      
   5.Lead Plaintiff filed a motion that his Claim be deemed   
   amended to adopt the arguments of the latest plaintiffs.   
   Defendant objected. Court granted Lead Plaintiff to amend   
   his Claim to that of the newer filers which the claims of   
   other early plaintiffs were deemed amended so.   
      
   6. The Statement of Claim was then upgraded again to add 6   
   words that went unnoticed for damages "in the amount of the   
   value of the Applicant's prescription "AND LOST SITE RENT   
   AND EXPENSES" during any delay" figuring "receipts for lost   
   rent" would better demonstrate a loss than a formula   
   claiming damages of: "$Price * Grams/Day * Days = $Damages."   
      
   7. The Defendant's Motion to Strike the Mar 5 2018 Amended   
   Statement of Claim did not include a copy of the Mar 5 2018   
   Statement of Claim but substituted another instead nor did   
   it comply with the Court's order to explain the back-dating   
   of permits to short the periods of 100,000 patients arguing   
   the "back-dating" Cause of Action had been mooted so no   
   explanations were now necessary.   
      
   8. Defendant's motion did make a valid point about the need   
   to discuss breaches of the Principles of Fundamental Justice   
   and so the Statement of Claim has again been so amended for   
   any plaintiffs filing after May 10 2018.   
      
   9. On May 10, because of another new delay in amending his   
   permit, Lead Plaintiff Harris has filed the first such   
   updated Statement of Claim T-881-18 and should not need to   
   amend his original Claim in order to present all the   
   arguments in the updated claim for the whole group.   
      
   ISSUES   
      
   10. Defendant argues:   
      
   A)1) The "Delay" Cause of Action is frivolous with   
   insufficient facts;   
      
   A)2) Failure to invoke Principles of Fundamental Justice;   
      
   B) Damages from the Back-Dating permits of plaintiffs herein   
   are mooted by no longer back-dating permits others.   
      
   ARGUMENTS   
      
   B) BACK-DATING CAUSE OF ACTION   
      
   11. MMAR Start on Issuance Date:   
      
       33. A personal-use production licence expires on the   
       earlier of (a) 12 months after its date of issue, and   
       (b) the date of expiry of the authorization to possess   
       held by the licence holder.   
      
   12.Under the MMAR, the program set the clock to start upon   
   date of issuance. Under the ACMPR, the program was changed   
   to set the clock to start upon the date the doctor signed   
   the medical document.   
      
   13. The Defendant's Notice of Motion to Strike pleads that   
   the requests concerning the "back-dating" of registration   
   are moot though they were not moot when the Claims were   
   filed. Defendant argues:   
       10. section 178(2)(h) of the ACMPR requires that the   
       validity of Registration Certificates to produce   
       cannabis expire at the conclusion of the period of use   
       indicated by the health care practitioner in the medical   
       document;   
      
   14. Section 178(2)(h) of the ACMPR does not so require:   
       178(2) The registration must include   
       (h) the expiry date of the registration, which must   
       correspond to the end of the period of validity of the   
       medical document supporting the registration, as   
       determined in accordance with subsection 8(3);   
      
   15. Section 8(3) S also does not set the Start Date of the   
   permit period:   
            8(3) A medical document is valid for the period of   
            use specified in it.   
      
   16. Section 8.2b does set the start date:   
       Medical document   
       8 (1) A medical document provided by a health care   
       practitioner to a person who is under their professional   
       treatment must indicate   
       (e) the period of use.   
       (2) The period of use referred to in paragraph (1)(e)   
       (b) begins on the day on which the medical document is   
       signed by the practitioner.   
      
   17. The Start Date on the period is set in Section 8.2b and   
   striking down S.8.2b is the only way to change that. Someone   
   had to reprogram the Permit Printing algorithm from Start   
   Date upon Issuance under S.33a of the MMAR to Start Date   
   when Doctor signed under s.8.2b of the ACMPR. Permit   
   printing changes take software reprogramming.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)