From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Medpot Delay claims will be stayed pending appeals   
      
   JCT: In the last report on the Federal Court claims, the   
   Crown had filed a cross-appeal against Judge Brown   
   dismissing their motion to strike our claims for damages due   
   to long delays in processing grow permits with our appeal of   
   his striking the claim for restitution of the ripped-off   
   time and they asked for stays on the actions pending their   
   cross-appeal in case they're thrown out.   
      
   We have to agree that in case they get thrown out, doubtful,   
   the actions below would have to be stayed.   
      
   So here's Lead Plaintiff Jeff Harris' Reply:   
      
   Allan J. Harris, Lead Plaintiff   
      
   Sep 10 2018   
      
   VIA E-FILING   
      
   Senior Registry Officer   
   Courts Administration Service   
   Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H9   
      
   Dear Registrar   
      
   Please accept this letter as the Reply to the Defendant's   
   letter of August 22 2018:   
      
   A) SHOULD ACTIONS BE STAYED?   
      
   1. On July 20 2018, this Court dismissed the Defendant's   
   motion to strike the claim for damages due to long delays in   
   processing ACMPR production permits.   
      
   2. The Defendant did not appeal nor file the required   
   Statement of Defence within the 30-day deadline.   
      
   3. After Health Canada announced it was no longer   
   subtracting time off patient permits after March 2 2018 by   
   back-dating the start of the permit from the date of   
   issuance to the date the doctor signed, the Court did strike   
   the claim for restitution of the short-changed time as too   
   trivial to merit Charter protection.   
      
   4. The Plaintiff did appeal on the grounds that:   
   1) often losing over half the term of a medical document   
   that may cost over $2,000 isn't that trivial a loss and   
   2) Health Canada continues to back-date renewals from the   
   expiry date of the previous permit to the issuance date of   
   the renewed permit, no longer subtracting time off the   
   beginning of the renewed permit but subtracting time off the   
   end of previous permit.   
      
   5. Defendant now cross-appeals against the dismissal of the   
   motion to strike and asks this Court to stay the actions   
   below pending those appeals because:   
       - the appeal and any potential cross-appeal could have   
       significant implications for the ongoing action;   
       - 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 which would have   
       significant implications for Canada's defence, discovery   
       and subsequent steps in the litigation.   
       - 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).   
      
   6. Since Defendant may no longer file a Statement of Defence   
   without an extension of time, why should they get to file a   
   Statement of Defence after the appeal without having   
   obtained an extension of time? The Plaintiff would not   
   oppose should the Defendant seek such extension of time but   
   their cross-appeal above is no reason to flout the rules   
   below.   
      
   B) SHOULD SITE LOSSES BE INCLUDED NOW OR LATER?   
      
   7. The Plaintiff asked for a Direction that the Defendant's   
   Statement of Defence respond to the claim in the actions of   
   later plaintiffs for lost rent and site expenses,   
   hereinafter dubbed "Rent Loss," with the claim for damages   
   for lost product, hereinafter dubbed "Product Loss" in the   
   action of the Lead Plaintiff when they are based on the very   
   same delays which this Court may find inappropriate.   
      
   8. Canada has responded:   
       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.   
       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.   
       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. 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. If, upon final   
       determination of the lead action, there are outstanding   
       allegations or issues that are the unique to the other   
       plaintiffs these may be addressed by the Court and   
       parties at that time.   
      
   9. There is no "if" about whether the claim for rent will be   
   outstanding. If Rent Loss is not addressed with Product   
   Loss, it must be outstanding. When both damages claims are   
   based on the same facts during the same delay, there is no   
   reason to split them into two cases. Naming me Lead   
   Plaintiff to present the arguments for all plaintiffs is not   
   served if the arguments are restricted to only the one claim   
   that applies to me? I have not raised the claim for Rent   
   Loss. Others have. Why would the Court wait to deal with the   
   claims for Rent Loss until after the claims for Product Loss   
   that resulted from the same facts? "Let's narrow the issues   
   by doing Claim One first and do Claim Two later?" could be   
   said about any claims for 2 sets of damages from the same   
   factual incident?   
      
   10. If Canada did not want to deal the rent in the claims of   
   others but not raised in mine, I suggested my claim could be   
   severed from the claims of others so Canada would then deal   
   with both claims in the actions of the others.   
      
   11. Plaintiff concedes that should the Defendant's appeal be   
   granted, any further action below would be wasted. Though I   
   have no argument against a stay of the actions below, I   
   would still ask this Court for a Direction that if the   
   Defendant wants to submit their Statement of Defence late,   
   that they seek the extension of time and then be directed to   
   defend against both claims sought by other plaintiffs.   
   ______________________________   
   Allan J. Harris   
   CC: Wendy.Wright   
      
   JCT: It's not as if the claim for damages during the delay   
   can go away during any delay. So we just sit tight while the   
   higher court decides but it does let us sign up more of the   
   15,000 patients who were improperly delayed for many many   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)