From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown failure to Strike MedPot Permit Delay claims parsed   
      
   JCT: Last July 21st, my "Judge Brown dismisses Crown's   
   Motion to Strike Delay Claims!!!" on the day after Judge   
   Brown's dismissed the Crown's motion to strike our claims   
   that delays in processing medical permits caused damages   
   that violated rights, I did a cursory parsing with the good   
   news.   
      
   With the Crown having to now enter a Statement of Defence,   
   we have 10 days to file a Reply to Close of Pleadings.   
   Then 10 days to provide Documents referred to in Pleadings.   
      
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-turmel/s4DNjv8STR4   
   has my original post with the whole decision. I'm only   
   going to reproduced the parts I'll be newly commenting on   
   here.   
      
   Date: 20180720   
   Docket: T-1379-17   
   PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown   
   BETWEEN:   
                         ALLAN J. HARRIS   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Defendant   
                        ORDER AND REASONS   
      
   JCT: Jeff Harris has been named Lead Plaintiff so that what   
   happens in his case may be applied to other cases.   
      
   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.   
      
   JCT: Now that the Crown has refused to deal with the claims   
   for damages for site rent and expenses, can't strike those   
   with.   
      
   [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: So that's the gist of the case.   
      
   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:   
       6. The Court has concluded that the Plaintiffs' liberty   
       and security interest are engaged by the access   
       restrictions imposed by the MMPR and that the access   
       restrictions have not been proven to be in accordance   
       with the principles of fundamental justice.   
      
   JCT: Key point that access restrictions not right.   
      
      
   [12] Suffice it to say that the right to access marijuana   
   and cannabis for medical purposes is guaranteed by the   
   Charter, an undoubted legal matter having been decided by   
   this Court, the Supreme Court of Canada, and as well, by   
   Superior Courts in the provinces.   
      
   JCT: Only if you find a doctor to say so. His decision, not   
   yours.   
      
   IV. The Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim   
      
   [19] The Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim is   
   relatively straightforward. Factual allegations, as noted,   
   are taken as proven. It starts with a claim for a   
   declaration that the long processing time for ACMPR   
   production permits (the Plaintiff refers to the approval   
   document as a "registration" which technically it is, but I   
   prefer to use the word "permit") and renewals violates his   
   section 7 Charter right to life, liberty and security. He   
   further claims a remedy of damages under section 24 of the   
   Charter in the amount of the value of his prescription   
   during any delay which the Court may rule inappropriate for   
   a reasonable processing time.   
      
   JCT: The long processing time is determined by the dates on   
   the permit, the only factual allegations taken as proven.   
      
   [20] The Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that back-dating   
   the period of registration and renewal from the effective   
   date for registration or expiry date for renewals to the   
   date the doctor signed the prescription under the ACMPR   
   violates his section 7 Charter rights and claims remedy for   
   the full term of the prescription to take effect on the   
   effective date of the registration and on the expiry date of   
   a renewed registration.   
      
   JCT: Yes, there are two kinds of back-dating. The new permit   
   is back-dated to the date the doctor signed before the first   
   permit has expired or back-dated to the date of issuance   
   before the first permit has expired!   
      
   [21] He alleges and it is taken as proven that he has a   
   medical document signed by an authorized health care   
   professional to use cannabis for medical purposes under the   
   ACMPR...   
   [22] He says, and I must accept it as true, that he   
   submitted an application under the ACMPR on June 11, 2017...   
   received a permit to grow marijuana for medical purposes   
   with an effective date of October 11, 2017, with an expiry   
   date of March 23, 2018.   
      
   [23] He states that under the MMAR, a predecessor form of   
   regulations under the ACMPR, the time to process an   
   application to produce marijuana was touted before this   
   Court by a named official of the Controlled Substances and   
   Tobacco Directorate, as "done in under 4 weeks. Renewals far   
   less." He adds, "Reported 2 weeks!" This again is taken to   
   be true.   
      
   JCT: The Lessard Card!   
      
   [24] He claims, and it must be taken as proven, that the   
   ACMPR may now take 30 weeks to process only 10 data fields:   
       - Name   
       - Date of birth   
       - Daily quantity   
       - Possession limit   
       - Name of healthcare practitioner   
       - Production area (outdoor)   
       - Production site address   
       - Maximum number of plants outdoor   
       - Maximum storage quantity   
       - Storage address.   
      
   JCT: Health Canada provides:   
   - Production area (outdoor)   
   - Maximum number of plants outdoor   
   - Maximum storage quantity   
   The doctor provides   
   - Name of healthcare practitioner   
   - Daily quantity   
   The only data that the applicant provides is   
   - Name   
   - Date of birth   
   - Storage address.   
   - Production site address   
      
   Don't you just wonder how 62% of all applicants in the second   
   half of 2017 got rejected with 92% rejected in November?   
   What are the odds 92% get name, birthdate, addresses wrong?   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)