From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Jeff Harris got this response from the Crown:   
      
   Department of Justice   
   Adelaide Street West 120, Suite #400   
   Tel: 647-256-0577120   
      
   August 22, 2018   
   VIA FACSIMILE   
      
   Senior Registry Officer   
      
   Re: HARRIS, Allan v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   File No.: T-1379-17   
      
   CR: I am writing to request the Court's direction in light   
   of the Plaintiffs appeal of the Court's July 20, 2018,   
   decision in this matter, and to respond to the Plaintiffs   
   letters of August 17 and 21, 2018. Please place this letter   
   before his Honour Justice Brown.   
      
   On August 20, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal   
   of this Court's July 20, 2018, Order striking paragraphs   
   l(b), 8 and 9 of the Amended Statement of Claim. As a result   
   of the appeal, the Defendant Her Majesty the Queen in Right   
   of Canada ("Canada") is considering whether to cross-appeal   
   of the portion of the July 20, 2018, Order which dismissed   
   the balance of Canada's motion to strike.   
      
   JCT: There's a big difference between our appeal to bring   
   the restitution of ripped-off time back into the case and   
   them cross-appealing his refusal to call the actions for   
   delay as frivolous.   
      
   Remember, Judge Brown admitted that the rip-off happened and   
   the Defendant has committed to not doing it again and that   
   it was too trivial a loss to merit a constitutional   
   challenge to get it back. But he did say that the delays   
   were big enough to be considered and since their only   
   argument about it being frivolous was simply that they said   
   so. I doubt the Court of Appeal would overrule the judge who   
   says he sees a valid point to say that it's frivolous   
   because the Crown said so without explaining why.   
      
   CR: The Plaintiffs appeal and any potential cross-appeal   
   could have significant implications for the ongoing action.   
      
   JCT: If we lose our appeal or they lose their cross-appeal,   
   nothing would change below. If we win, another issue gets   
   added but for them to win, the higher court would have to   
   find Judge Brown's ruling ridiculous. I don't expect the   
   Court of Appeal to grant either so not going forward with   
   what's on the table is pure waste of time.   
      
   CR: A successful appeal would broaden the scope of the   
   action, while a successful cross-appeal may narrow the scope   
   or even dispose of the action.   
      
   JCT: Our appeal has reasons. They would be appealing without   
   showing any new reason why it's frivolous. Since they   
   couldn't show Brown any reasons, they can't introduce new   
   reasons to show the higher court either. Will they now come   
   up with sound reasons why it's frivolous which they chose   
   not to offer to Judge Brown?   
      
   They can't come up with any new reasons that it's frivolous   
   which they did not show to Judge Brown. Since they didn't   
   show Brown any reasons, they can't show the Court of Appeal   
   any other reasons to show he erred. "He rejected our motion   
   to strike because we had no reasons so we'd like you to   
   overturn his decision without any new reasons."   
      
   So they had no answer to the Delay claims to put before   
   Judge Brown, have now not filed any Statement of Defence,   
   and want to take their "throw it out for no reasons" to   
   another court. It can only be to stall facing their problem.   
      
   CR: An appeal or cross-appeal may also result in amendments   
   to the Plaintiffs claim.   
      
   JCT: Sorry, but their motion to strike could only talk about   
   there being nothing there for a cause of action. And the   
   judge already ruled there is something there. Our appeal   
   also could not result in any amendments to the claim, only   
   returning to claim to its full scope.   
      
   CR: Any of these outcomes would have significant   
   implications for Canada's defence, discovery and subsequent   
   steps in the litigation.   
      
   JCT: Actually, only our winning the appeal of the "trivial"   
   would return the subsequent steps to what they should have   
   originally been. Their chance of getting a higher court to   
   accept no reasons more readily than Judge Brown is zero.   
      
   CR: Canada submits that the just, most expeditious and least   
   expensive course in these circumstances is for the Court to   
   direct that no further steps be taken by the parties in the   
   action pending a Federal Court of Appeal decision, and that   
   Canada's statement of defence be filed within 30 days after   
   disposition of the appeal(s).   
      
   JCT: Sure, she'll get their Statement of Defence filed 30   
   days after the appeal like she didn't get it filed 30 days   
   after the judge dismissed their motion to strike. Since they   
   had no Statement of Defence when it was called for, why   
   should we believe she'll come up with one next time?   
      
   CR: In his letter of July 26, 2018, the Plaintiff also asks   
   the Court to direct that Canada file a defence in the lead   
   action that is also responsive to claims advanced by other   
   plaintiffs.   
      
   CR: In his letter of August 17, the Plaintiff requests in   
   the alternative that his action be severed from the other   
   actions and that the stay of the other actions be lifted so   
   that Canada may immediately defend each of the 200-plus   
   claims.   
      
   JCT: Jeff was named Lead Plaintiff so he could make the   
   cases for the group. Rather than leave out part of what the   
   group has raised, Jeff offered to be severed so they can   
   have their claims dealt with by the Crown. Jeff could always   
   abandon his claim and then let the Crown deal with the   
   claims of the others, couldn't he? Har har har. And when you   
   consider he's only asking that they deal not only with the   
   loss of pot from the delay but the loss of site rent and   
   expenses, you have to wonder why they're balking.   
      
   CR: Canada requests that the Plaintiffs action instead   
   remain as the lead action and that the other claims remain   
   in abeyance until such time as the above-noted appeal and   
   the lead action are finally determined.   
      
   JCT: So they want Jeff as Lead to make things easy for them   
   and only want to deal with the damages for site expenses   
   after the damages for lost pot are done. Wonder why they   
   don't want to deal with both kinds of damages at the same   
   time?   
      
   CR: A determination of the lead action has the potential to   
   significantly narrow the issues for determination in the   
   other actions while also avoiding the risk of inconsistent   
   outcomes if each action proceeds separately as proposed by   
   the Plaintiff.   
      
   JCT: Yes, determining lost pot damages eliminates that issue   
   and narrows the claims of the others. The question is why   
   the Court would want to deal with each kind of damage in two   
   different procedures. Couldn't that be said about any claims   
   for 2 sets of damages? Let's just do the first so as to   
   narrow the issues when we get to the second.   
      
   CR: If, upon final determination of the lead action, there   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)