From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Reply to strike MedPot Permit Delay claims   
      
   JCT: This is the Crown's Reply to our Response to their    
   Motion to strike our claims about unconscionable delays in    
   processing and then back-dating permits.     
      
   Remember, the complaints are about the period of time to    
   process permit and the period of time granted that are not    
   full terms. So the issues are periods of time and the only    
   facts we have provided are the start and end dates on the    
   permits. Without once mentioning what facts we have    
   provided, the Crown says it's insufficient and they need    
   more, like what illness you have. Without knowing what    
   illness you have, how can they tell is the processing period    
   is too long and the permit period too short! Har har har.    
      
   Crown Wendy Wright writes:    
      
   CR: T-l379-17   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                         ALLAN J. HARRIS   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Defendant   
           MOVING PARTY'S REPLY ON THE MOTION TO STRIKE   
      
   June 13, 2018    
                WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS IN REPLY   
      
   PART I - OVERVIEW   
      
   1. This is the reply of the Defendant. Her Majesty the Queen    
   in Right of Canada ("Canada") to the lead plaintiffs "Motion    
   Record in Response" served and filed on May 11, 2018, and    
   "Supplementary Motion Record in Response" served and filed    
   on June 6, 2018 in response to Canada's motion to strike.   
      
   2. Canada submits that:   
   a) the motion to strike should be determined in writing;   
   b) the lead plaintiffs newly filed evidence is improper and    
   should be disregarded;   
   c) the plaintiffs still have not provided material facts to    
   ground the alleged deprivations of life, liberty and    
   security of the person;   
      
   JCT: She wants more facts about how not getting your permits    
   for meds on time deprives patients of life, liberty and    
   security.    
      
   CR: d) the plaintiffs still have not pleaded any principles    
   of fundamental justice or facts capable of supporting them;    
   and   
      
   JCT: Actually, Jeff's second Statement of Claim like all the    
   later ones do plead principles of fundamental justice with    
   the dates of their permits supporting them were violated by    
   slow and short permits. But she's still working with the    
   earlier claims and so this statement isn't true for the    
   later claims or Jeff's second Statement of claim.    
      
   CR: e) the Court should not hear the claims relating to the    
   alleged "backdating'" of registration certificates.   
      
   JCT: She still says it's "alleged" back-dating and why    
   shouldn't the Court hear the claims for restitution from    
   shorted permits by back-dating?    
      
   CR: PART II - SUBMISSIONS   
      
   A. AN ORAL HEARING IS NOT REQUIRED   
      
   3. Canada's motion to strike should be heard in writing    
   because the case can easily be determined on the basis of    
   the written record and because disposition in writing would    
   be the just, most expeditious, and least expensive means to    
   determine the issues before the Court.1   
      
   JCT: What she really means is that we should not get to    
   rebut what she says in this Reply. We could counter the bull    
   in here at a live hearing. Written, no more necessary after    
   she got her last say.     
      
   CR: 4. This Court has held that a request for an oral    
   hearing of a written motion must be supported by substantial    
   evidence that the matter cannot adequately be dealt with in    
   writing.2 The Court has held that a request for an oral    
   hearing may be granted, for example, where the case is    
   complex, where witness credibility must be assessed and full    
   legal argument is required, or where the matter is urgent.   
      
   5. The lead plaintiff has not identified a reason why    
   Canada's motion should proceed orally.    
      
   JCT: We did identify a few reasons in our Response:    
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-   
      
   turmel/89QrqibqJGw    
      
   CR: Although he suggests that the motion should be heard    
   orally because "150 plaintiffs should be able to witness and    
   participate in what could be the one and last hearing of    
   their claims,'    
      
   JCT: That would seem to be one pretty good reason. She wants    
   people who filed about being short-changed to find out    
   they're going to stay short-changed without having been    
   served a copy of these arguments, to find out with a    
   Judgment of Dismissal without knowing what happened.    
      
   CR: the lead plaintiff has not identified any specific    
   issues raised by Canada's motion that cannot be adequately    
   addressed in writing nor explained why he would be any    
   better able to address the issues at an oral hearing.   
      
   JCT: Hope the judge remembers this point we did make:    
       the Honourable Marshall Rothstein (recently retired from    
       the Supreme Court of Canada) has spoken about oral    
       advocacy and on one occasion in a speech entitled "Some    
       Tips on Oral Advocacy" made the following observations:   
            First, some preliminary observations: it is safe to    
            assume that Appeal Court judges will have read your    
            factum before the appeal. But the judges won't have    
            spent the time reading it that you did writing it.    
            Unless the case is unusually simple, the judges    
            will only have an impression of each side's case.    
            The judges will come into the courtroom, having had    
            a brief discussion. They will likely have a    
            predisposition toward one side or the other, but    
            only a predisposition. However, the judges want to    
            be sure, if at all possible, that when they leave    
            the courtroom, they know exactly which side will    
            win and the reasons why. So oral argument is very    
            important.   
            My own experience is this. I hear better than I    
            read. Many of you speak better than you write.    
            There will be subtleties in your factum that don't    
            come across on a reading but that should, if they    
            are significant, come out in oral argument or in    
            answers to questions. Last week I was in Calgary    
            and Edmonton. Of the three cases we heard in    
            Calgary, two are being decided opposite to what our    
            predisposition as a panel was based on the factums.    
            And the other case almost got decided that way too.   
            So, with all the emphasis on the importance of a    
            factum, don't underestimate the importance of oral    
            argument.   
      
   CR: 6. The lead plaintiff alleges that in a similar    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)