From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Here is our latest response to the Crown's motion to   
   strike all the actions for damages due to delay as   
   frivolous. Calling our complaints ridiculous is all they   
   have:   
      
   File No: T-1379-17   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                         ALLAN J. HARRIS   
                                           Respondent/Plaintiff   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                            Applicant/Defendant   
      
             SUPPLEMENTARY MOTION RECORD IN RESPONSE   
      
   1. May 10 2018 Harris Statement of Claim T-881-18.......(2)   
   2. May 24 2018 Kent Truman Reply........................(6)   
   3. Apr 4 2018 Kyle Duggan ipolitico article............(18)   
   4. Health Canada Market Data page......................(21)   
   5. Respondent's Supplementary Written Representations..(35)   
      
   For the Applicant: Jeff Harris   
   For the Respondent: Wendy Wright Attorney General for Canada   
      
        RESPONDENT'S SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   BACKGROUND   
      
   1. On Sep 11 2017, Allan J. Harris (Jeff) filed a Statement   
   of Claim for a declaration that the time to process his   
   ACMPR application to grow cannabis was too long compared to   
   the 4 weeks it used to take under the MMAR, Cause of Action   
   A; and for damages in the value of the marijuana that could   
   have been grown in the time past the 4 weeks. He was named   
   Lead Plaintiff for others too, now over 180 plaintiffs.   
      
   FIRST AMENDMENT   
      
   2.On Mar 5 2017, he filed an Amended Statement of Claim for   
   a declaration that the back-dating of his permit to when the   
   doctor signed rather than when issued unconstitutionally   
   reduced his growing period; and for damages by restitution   
   of the reduced time.   
      
   LATER AMENDMENTS   
      
   3. During preliminary motions, the Crown pointed out some   
   plaintiffs should have claimed the Rights to Liberty and   
   Security, when Life didn't fit, so later plaintiffs claimed   
   those rights were engaged.   
      
   4. The Crown argued the claims failed to state which   
   principles of fundamental justice were being violated by the   
   short-staffing, so later plaintiffs stated such principles   
   that had been violated.   
      
   5. The Crown had pointed out Harris had not claimed any   
   fixed expenses, only the ambiguous value of the cannabis not   
   grown, so later plaintiffs claimed site rent and expenses.   
      
   6. The Crown had stated that S.178 required the period to   
   start when the doctor signed. It was determined that   
   S.8(2)(b) had the requirement so later plaintiffs added the   
   need to strike S.8(2)(b) as unconstitutional.   
      
   7. The Defendant's Motion Record failed to contain the Mar 5   
   2018 Amended Claim they were seeking to strike and had   
   substituted an outdated claim without Cause of Action B.   
   Brown J. ordered that the Amended Statement of Claim be   
   included in the motion record and that the outdated claim be   
   replaced with a more representative one.   
      
   8. Rather than include one of the latest claims with all the   
   amendments as representative of the group, Canada included   
   claims before Harris' March Amended claim from January and   
   February which included Cause of Action B but none of the   
   later amendments.   
      
   APPENDIX A HARRIS CLAIM T-881-18   
      
   9. Appendix A is the first such updated Statement of Claim   
   T-881-18 filed by Lead Plaintiff Harris on May 10 because of   
   another new delay in amending his permit and so he should   
   not need to amend his original Claim in order to present all   
   the arguments in his updated most representative claim for   
   the whole group.   
      
   FRIVOLOUS CAUSE OF ACTIONS   
      
   10. Canada has argued that the start and end dates are   
   insufficient facts insisting what illnesses the patients   
   had, why they opted for herbal rather than chemical and why   
   they opted for self-grow and not purchase from a Licensed   
   Producer were needed to be able to determine whether the   
   processing period was too long and the exemption period too   
   short. Lead Plaintiff pointed out the lack of relevance in   
   the facts they sought and the relevance of the dates   
   provided. We should not have to disclose our illness in a   
   public forum. The health care practitioner signed stating   
   the patient has a qualifying illness should not be   
   dismissed.   
      
   11. Plaintiffs further stress that in Chaoulli, delays in   
   medication were found to infringe on rights, so Plaintiffs   
   should not have to show the personal harms which Chaoulli   
   has already determined and should only have to show the   
   delays were too long.   
      
   BACK-DATING ISSUE   
      
   12. After Brown J. ordered the Defendant to explain the   
   back-dating in their Motion to Strike, rather than comply   
   with the order to explain the back-dating, the Crown writes:   
       11. since these proceedings were commenced, the Minister   
       of Health issued several class exemptions under s. 56 of   
       the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act;   
       12. the section 56 exemptions apply to anyone with a   
       Registration Certificate issued on or after March 2,   
       2018, and allow Health Canada to issue Registration   
       Certificates with a period of use that begins on the   
       date the Registration Certificate is issued, instead of   
       on the date that the medical document was signed by the   
       health care practitioner;   
      
   13. If the period start and end dates were sufficient for   
   Health Canada to identify the problem of Cause of Action B,   
   too little period of time exempted, why should the dates not   
   be sufficient to identify the problem of Cause of Action A,   
   too long period of time to process?   
      
   APPENDIX B TRUMAN MOTION REPLY   
      
   14. Appendix B is the Reply in Kent Truman's motion for   
   interim remedy where he explains that it was the Health   
   Canada Notice that misled him into thinking that his claim   
   had been mooted by his permit being extended to what the   
   doctor had "authorized" to only later find out that permits   
   were being extended to what the doctor authorizes for future   
   applicants, not past plaintiffs. Our previous Response does   
   point out how no longer back-dating does not help those   
   whose permits before March 2 were back-dated and that the   
   S.56 Orders do not even deal with the start time at all.   
      
   15. He sought the documentation for the Defendant's   
   assertion that the claims of the group had been mooted by   
   the the S.56 orders. Instead, the Crown offered reasons why   
   he should not be allowed to ask. His permit was allowed to   
   expire after his renewal was sent in 4 weeks early and   
   remains unrenewed.   
      
   16. But with only the dates of the periods in the claims,   
   Health Canada were able to deduce that:   
       the time it takes to process an application can reduce   
       the period of time available to produce a limited amount   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)