From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Talk about good news:   
      
   Date: 20180720   
   Docket: T-1379-17   
   Citation: 2018 FC 765   
   Ottawa, Ontario, July 20, 2018   
   PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                         ALLAN J. HARRIS   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Defendant   
                        ORDER AND REASONS   
      
   I. Introduction   
      
   [1] This is a motion by the Defendant for an Order striking   
   the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim, i.e., his   
   action, which may also result in the Court striking some 200   
   similar case-managed actions. These actions are in most   
   cases identical and are copied from a website on the   
   internet.   
      
   [2] The motion is brought on the basis that it is plain and   
   obvious that the claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause   
   of action. In addition it is alleged that the Plaintiff's   
   action is frivolous and vexatious. Finally, in respect of   
   what I will refer to as the "short-changing" pleadings, the   
   Defendant argues this issue is moot because of a regulatory   
   or policy change. Because I am not persuaded the Defendant   
   has established her case, the motion to strike must be   
   dismissed. There is no merit to the argument that the   
   pleadings are frivolous and vexatious. The Court must also   
   reject the Defendant's submission that the short-changing   
   claim is moot; while for some it may be moot, for this   
   Plaintiff it is not.   
      
   JCT: Wow. It's not frivolous and vexatious to claim damages   
   for the delays of permits! And though newbies aren't being   
   short-changed by Section 8, everyone before March 2 was!   
      
   [3] The Defendant's motion is brought pursuant to Rule   
   221(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106 [Rules].   
   Rule 221 of the Rules permits the Court to strike a claim on   
   certain grounds:   
       221(1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order that   
       a pleading, or anything contained therein, be struck   
       out, with or without leave to amend, on the ground that   
       it   
       (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence,   
       as the case may be,..   
       (c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,..   
       (2) No evidence shall be heard on a motion for an order   
       under paragraph (1)(a)   
      
   [4] The action sought to be dismissed, stripped to its   
   essentials, claims Charter-damages for alleged   
   unconscionable delays in the processing time taken between   
   the filing of an application for, and obtaining a permit   
   allowing an applicant to grow marijuana for medical   
   purposes. In addition, the claim alleges delays in the   
   processing time taken between the filing of an application   
   to renew such a permit and when it is obtained.   
      
   [5] The permits requested are issued under the Access to   
   Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2016-230   
   [ACMPR]; these in turn are enacted pursuant to subsection   
   55(1) of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 2015, c   
   22, s. 4(1).   
      
   [6] Also in terms of background, drugs and controlled   
   substances are primarily regulated by the Controlled Drugs   
   and Substances Act, the Food and Drugs Act, RSC 1985, c F-27   
   and related regulations. At the present time, cannabis   
   (marijuana) is a controlled substance scheduled under the   
   Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and is a narcotic   
   subject to the Narcotic Control Regulations, CRC, c 1041.   
      
   [7] In addition, ACMPRs may permit an applicant to grow and   
   store marijuana for medical purposes, or to allow another   
   person to do so for an applicant.   
      
   [8] Permits under the ACMPR are available to persons who   
   demonstrate their need for cannabis marijuana to treat their   
   medical conditions. Applications for these permits must be   
   supported by a medical document from an authorized health   
   care practitioner - basically a prescription.   
      
   [9] It is also germane that permits, once granted, have an   
   expiry date established under the ACMPR; such permits may be   
   renewed upon their expiry with a new prescription.   
      
   [10] The effect of the ACMPR for the purposes of this motion   
   is to authorize the possession and cultivation of marijuana   
   where both possession and cultivation is illegal under the   
   Controlled Drugs and Substances Act and Narcotic Control   
   Regulations without such a permit. Unauthorized possession   
   and or cultivation of marijuana exposes an individual such   
   as the Plaintiff to the possibility of both fines and   
   imprisonment.   
      
   II. History and basis of right to medical marijuana   
      
   [11] The right to possess and cultivate marijuana for   
   medical purposes has been litigated in Canada for almost two   
   decades. A brief overview of this history is provided by   
   Phelan J. of this Court in Allard v Canada, 2016 FC 236,   
   from which I take the following:   
       1 This is a Charter challenge to the current medical   
       marihuana regime under the Marihuana for Medical   
       Purposes Regulations, SOR/2013-119 [MMPR] brought by   
       four individuals. It is important to bear in mind what   
       this litigation is about, and equally, what it is not   
       about.   
       2 This case is not about the legalization of marihuana   
       generally or the liberalization of its recreational or   
       life-style use. Nor is it about the commercialization of   
       marihuana for such purposes.   
       3 This case is about the access to marihuana for medical   
       purposes by persons who are ill, including those   
       suffering severe pain, and/or life-threatening   
       neurological conditions. Such persons also encompass   
       those in the very last stages of their life.   
       4 This is another decision in a line of cases starting   
       with R v Parker, (2000) 49 OR (3d) 481, 188 DLR (4th)   
       385 (ONCA) [Parker], and culminating in R v Smith, 2015   
       SCC 34, [2015] 2 SCR 602 [Smith], that have examined,   
       often with a critical eye, the efforts of government to   
       regulate the use of marihuana for medical purposes and   
       the various barriers and impediments to accessing this   
       necessary drug.   
       5 Like other cases, this most recent attempt at   
       restricting access founders on the shoals of the   
       Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the   
       Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada   
       Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [the Charter], particularly s   
       7, and is not saved by s 1.   
            1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms   
            guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it   
            subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed   
            by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free   
            and democratic society.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)