From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Jeff Harris seeks amended permit after 13 weeks   
      
   JCT: Jeff Harris, Lead Plaintiff T-1379-17 of those claiming   
   it took too long to process grow permits has now had the   
   chance to  file another claim T-881-18 that 3 months is too   
   long to process an amendment.   
      
   On March 7, he filed his application to amend his   
   Registration Certificate.   
      
   On May 10, after waiting 9 weeks, he filed a Statement of   
   Claim.   
      
   On May 22, after waiting another 2 weeks, he filed a Motion   
   to see Judge Brown for interim relief until it arrives.   
      
   On May 30 2018, Judge Brown Directed:   
       "The Defendant is to serve and file responding motion   
       material by Thursday June 7 2018 and the Plaintiff is to   
       serve and file his reply by Thursday June 14 2018."   
      
   So on June 7, the Crown responds explaining why it has taken   
   3 months, 13 weeks, to amend his permit when under the MMAR   
   it used to take 2 weeks. Then Jeff can file a Reply on June   
   14. And then the judge can book the hearing.   
      
   In past cases, Health Canada got the permit to the applicant   
   in time to be able to respond that the issue is mooted now   
   that his permit has been received. They get to duck   
   explaining why it took 3 months.   
      
   Best of all, in the Crown's main motion to dismiss   
   everyone's claims as laughable, Judge Brown had ordered   
   Wendy Wright to file Jeff's March 5 Amended Statement of   
   Claim T-1379-17 which she had left out and ordered   
   an outdated Claim by Jason Allman which she had included to   
   be replaced with a later "representative" claim that   
   mentioned Cause of Action B: Restitution of short time.   
      
   Instead of using a latest claim without the latest changes, she   
   used January and February claims before Jeff's Mar 5 claim.   
   So none of the changes made after Jeff's claim was amended   
   were included, not representative of later filers at all.   
      
   I knew the claim for restitution of the ripped-off time in   
   later claims would apply to earlier claims but to ensure   
   Lead Plaintiff and not some newbie would make the arguments   
   on the whole thing we had to ask the court to let him a)   
   adopt the later claim with Cause B, or b) to amend his claim   
   to include Cause B but avoid making all plaintiffs file   
   amended claims too; c) abandon his old claim and file a new   
   one. Since the Crown had to deal with Cause B with later   
   plaintiffs, I found it lunatic that they'd object to Jeff   
   being able to adopt or amend to the later model when he   
   could just abandon and refile! Har har har.   
      
   But they tried to avoid facing with Jeff what they'd have to   
   face with later plaintiffs anyway. So that took a Motion,   
   Response, Reply, before Judge Brown let Jeff amend to the   
   later model but deem the others amended too. That's the   
   reason the Allman claim had to rejected, it was an early   
   model that had been deemed upgraded to Cause B. So it   
   couldn't remain in the Record.   
      
   But while that argument was going on, I had noted some good   
   points made by the Crown in earlier arguments about things I   
   should have included:   
   a) Right to Liberty and Security were also engaged, not just   
   Life; so they were added to later claims;   
   b) site rent and expenses not claimed, so they were added;   
   c) due process wasn't followed so principles of Fundamental   
   Justice violated were added.   
      
   So those three legal requirements she had argued were   
   missing from Jeff Harris' Amended Claim are added to the   
   later claims!   
      
   In March I chortled when I read the Health Canada Notice   
   that said the S.56 motions were to allay the concerns of   
   those whose time had been reduced and whose permits were   
   going to be from when the doctor "authorized," past tense.   
   She had to produce the S.56 Orders that she said had settled   
   their claims so I was in no rush to find them, expecting the   
   win. I really expected restitution, cheap and their bad gets   
   forgotten. I didn't appreciate how Kent Truman's clock was   
   running out if she wasn't telling the truth about what the   
   orders did.   
      
   Upon reviewing their Motion Record, I realized that the S.56   
   Orders did not change the start of the period from when the   
   doctor signed to when issued, as she told the Court. The   
   Crown was out and out lying. Kent Truman's Reply explains   
   why I was misled into thinking that the ripped-off were   
   going to get the full term "authorized" by the doctor.   
   Though they used past tense, Wendy made clear it really   
   meant full term for future registrants from when the doctor   
   "authorizes." Not his "authorized" medical document.   
      
   So I went digging. She'd said S.178(2) requires the period   
   start when the doctor signs. It did not, it only said:   
       (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);   
      
   So S.178 doesn't deal with start date, it deals with expiry   
   date. But in accordance with S.8(3) which might have the   
   doctor date requirement.   
      
   Checking S.8(3):   
       8(3) A medical document is valid for the period of use   
       specified in it.   
      
   So it stops there without saying a word about starting when   
   the doctor signs! She sent the court up a dead end. So if   
   she didn't give us the right section, which section does say   
   the period starts when the doctor signs?   
      
   I did a search for all occurrences of "medical document"   
   until I hit Section 8(s) that says the period of use:   
       (b) begins on the day on which the medical document is   
       signed by the practitioner.   
      
   So it's there but Wendy didn't cite the right statute for   
   the court. Wonder why? Before now, we didn't know the   
   statute where programmer got the instruction to start on   
   doctor date, we just asked the Court to make them return to   
   the old MMAR S.33 for date of issuance. Now we've found the   
   statute causing the problem which the court must strike: we   
   must ask to have S.8(2)(b) struck. So having identified the   
   errant statute, I made a fourth addition to strike  the   
   S.8.2b requirement the period start when doctor signs.   
      
   We file our Response to her Supplementary Motion Record to   
   strike our claims as laughable on June 6 (they reply June   
   13) but they must Respond on June 7 to explain why Jeff's   
   amendment is taking laughable 3 months (he replies June 14).   
      
   On the day before I was going to upload the latest version,   
   Jeff called to say that after 9 weeks, he'd filed an on-line   
   Statement of Claim that the amendment was taking too long.   
   He would pay his $2 in the morning. I told him to abort that   
   claim, not pay the $2, call it off and he could file the   
   latest claim of all plaintiffs I had just finished updating.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)