From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Art Jackes Appeals against "Not-Original" rejections of "Original"   
   Signatures   
      
   JCT: One technique Health Canada uses is to return   
   applications saying that their forensic department has shown   
   that the signatures were not original. Notice you can't   
   prove it was because they say it might be a new signature!   
   Shows the malevolent attitude of Health Canada rulers.   
      
   So Art Jackes had had his amendment to move delayed by 13   
   weeks on the basis of a return as not-original. Twice. So he   
   filed an Action for damages due to the delay their wrong   
   conclusion had cost him.   
      
   Last month, Judge Brown granted the Crown motion to strike   
   his action ruling it damages done by having to write it next   
   time in blue ink was too trivial when he actually was   
   complaining about damages due to the delay by improper   
   rejections.   
      
   File No: DEL   
   FCC: T-1564-17   
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:   
                          Arthur Jackes   
                                                   Appellant   
                               And   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                  Respondent   
      
                         NOTICE OF APPEAL   
      
   1. THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Federal Court of Appeal from   
   the Aug 28 2018 Order of Federal Court Justice Brown in the   
   motion in T-1564-17.   
      
   2. Plaintiff sought a declaration that delaying his   
   application to amend Plaintiff's ACMPR permit Number MCR:   
   16335 for over 13 weeks by rejecting the originality of   
   signatures in black ink and suggesting a new application be   
   signed in blue ink when Licensed Producer Security Clearance   
   Applicants are prohibited from using blue ink is an   
   unconstitutional violation of the patient's S.7 Right to   
   Life.   
      
   3. Appellant's Ex. A was a copy of the Application to Amend   
   his ACMPR permit MCR-16355.   
    which was twice rejected.   
      
   4. Appellant's Ex. B was the Health Canada response   
   rejecting the application for alleged lack of original   
   signatures.   
      
   5. Appellant's Ex. C was his return letter explaining he   
   knew all pages had to be original with a note beside each   
   signature indicating it was original.   
      
   6. Appellant's Ex. D was the Health Canada response again   
   rejecting the application for alleged lack of original   
   signatures and the suggestion that the disagreement as to   
   the veracity of the signatures could be minimized by using a   
   pen with blue ink.   
      
   7. Appellant's Ex. E was from the Health Canada web page   
   "Instructions for Completion of Security Clearance Form   
   Under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes   
   Regulations (ACMPR) which mandated using black ink.   
      
   8. Appellant's Ex. F was a post by Jeff Harris stating on   
   Oct 26 at 12:17PM his and his wife's applications had been   
   accepted in black ink.   
      
   9. On Aug 28 2018, the Court ruled:   
       AND CONSIDERING the Plaintiff only alleges, which   
       allegations must be accepted as true, that he applied to   
       register for personal use or designated production under   
       the ACMPR, which application was returned to him because   
       the signature was deemed not to be original, that   
       thereafter, the Plaintiff was informed that submission   
       of a new application would result in the application   
       being treated at a higher priority and that it was   
       recommended to him that he use a blue ball-point pen   
       when filling out the application to minimize   
       disagreement as to the veracity of the signatures, but   
       that the instructions for completing the relevant Health   
       Canada form made it mandatory to complete the form in   
       black ink, not blue ink;   
      
       AND CONSIDERING that section 7 of the Charter,Part I of   
       the Constitutional Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the   
       Canada Act 1982 (UK) 1982, c 11 Charter "does not   
       protect against insignificant or trivial limitations of   
       rights" per Cunningham v. Canada [1993] 2 SCR 143 at   
       151, recently applied by this Court in Johnson v. Canada   
       (AG) 2018 FC 582 at para. 37;   
      
       AND BEING OF THE VIEW that the recommendation made to   
       the Plaintiff that he use a blue ball-point pen was, in   
       the first place, only a suggestion and not a   
       requirement, and that it is plain and obvious this   
       suggestion did not constitute a violation of Charter-   
       protected rights, and if it did, such violation would be   
       trivial such that it is plain and obvious that the   
       Plaintiff has no chance of success,   
      
       THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT is that:   
       1. This action is dismissed without leave to amend.   
       2. There is no order as to costs.   
      
   10. THE APPELLANT ASKS THAT the ruling be overturned and the   
   Statement of Claim for damages from rejection on a false   
   basis be returned for adjudication below.   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL are that the violation of rights   
   was not due the suggestion Appellant use blue ink but due to   
   the delay caused by the improper rejection of original   
   signatures as not original. Health Canada has also rejected   
   original signatures from other applicants including Donald   
   Cote and Nicole Van Edig. It's a sleazy way to stall   
   patients getting their medicine and the court let them get   
   away with it. Having a medical permit delayed over 3 months   
   on false premises with expiry and penal sanctions looming is   
   not a trivial violation of the patient's rights.   
   Dated at Oakville, Ontario on Sep 27 2018   
   ___________________________   
   For the Appellant   
   Arthur Jackes   
      
   For the Respondent:   
   Attorney General for Canada   
   3400-130 King St. W, Toronto.   
      
   JCT: So that's 3 appeals of Judge Brown's decisions:   
   A) Kent Truman appealing that the S.56 Class Exemption   
   changed the start date   
   B) Jeff Harris appealing that restitution of the time   
   substracted wasn't frivolous since they're still doing it on   
   the previous permit if not the new one.   
   C) Art Jackes appealing that false rejections cause improper   
   delays.   
      
   While the Action for damages due to the long delays goes on   
   below. With new people who may join for a lousy $2 to see if   
   they can get cash for the 4-11 months they were made to wait   
   for their permits.  http://johnturmel.com/timeback.pdf has   
   instructions on getting in on it. Crown tried to throw it   
   out, Judge Brown said no.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)