From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
                                           File No: _________   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   Between:   
               LIMITS ON PATIENTS PER GROWER & SITE   
                                                Plaintiff   
                               AND   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                Defendant   
                        STATEMENT OF CLAIM   
           (Pursuant to S.48 of the Federal Court Act)   
      
   1. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the limits on   
   patient licenses per grower in Section 184(b) and licenses   
   per site in Section 184(c) of the Access to Cannabis for   
   Medical Purposes Regulations ("ACMPR") unconstitutionally   
   violate the S.7 Charter Right to Life, Liberty, Security of   
   cannabis-using patients not in accordance with principles of   
   fundamental justice to not be arbitrary, grossly   
   disproportional, conscience-shocking, incompetent,   
   malevolent and contemptuous of the courts.   
      
   PARTIES   
      
   2. The Plaintiff is a person Possessing ACMPR Authorization   
      
   MCR-___________ to produce cannabis.   
      
   3. The Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada,   
   as represented by the Attorney General of Canada, is named   
   as the representative of the Federal Government of Canada   
   and the Minister of Health for Canada who is the Minister   
   responsible for Health Canada and certain aspects of the   
   Controlled Drugs and Substances Act including the Narcotic   
   Control Regulations and the ACMPR.   
      
   BACKGROUND   
      
   HITZIG V. HMTQ   
      
   4. On Oct 7 2003 in Hitzig v. HMQ, the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal struck down the 1 patient per grower cap in MMAR   
   Section 41 and the 3 licenses per site cap in Section 54   
   which had unconstitutionally limited supply to the extent   
   the exemption was ruled illusory.   
      
   5. On Dec 10 2003, only 2 months later, Health Canada re-   
   imposed the same 1 patient per grower and 3 licenses per   
   site caps that had been declared unconstitutional in Hitzig.   
      
   SFETKOPOULOS V. CANADA [2008]   
      
   6. On Jan 10 2008, the Federal Court in Sfetkopoulos v. Canada   
   once again struck down the re-imposed cap of 1 patient per   
   grower as unconstitutionally limiting after patients   
   had suffered another 5 years.   
      
   R. V. BEREN [2009]   
      
   7. On Feb 2 2009, in R. v. Beren, the B.C. Superior Court   
   once again struck down the re-imposed the S.54 cap of 3   
   licenses per site as unconstitutionally limiting after   
   patients had suffered another 6 more years. Justice   
   Koenigsberg stated:   
      
       [126] The trial decision of Sfetkopoulos concluded the   
       impugned provisions were not in accordance with the   
       principles of fundamental justice and violated the   
       applicant's S.7 rights to liberty and security of the   
       person, found at paragraphs 19-21:   
      
            19. Consequently, I have concluded that the   
            restraint on access which paragraph 41(b.1)   
            provides is not in accordance with the principles   
            of fundamental justice. First, it does not   
            adequately respond to the concerns motivating the   
            Ontario Court of Appeal judgment in Hitzig: that is   
            it leaves those ATP holders who cannot grow for   
            themselves and who cannot engage a designated   
            producer because of the restrictions imposed on the   
            latter by the MMAR, to seek marihuana in the black   
            market. The Ontario Court of Appeal said that this   
            is contrary to the rule of law, to pressure a   
            citizen to break the law in order to have access to   
            something he medically requires. The only factor   
            which has changed since the Hitzig case arose is   
            the advent of PPS as a licensed dealer. The   
            Minister argues that any ATP holder, who cannot   
            grow for himself or cannot find a designated   
            producer prepared to dedicate himself solely to   
            that ATP holder, may obtain his dried marihuana or   
            seed from a government contractor, namely PPS. That   
            certainly does provide an alternative avenue of   
            access. But the evidence shows that after four   
            years of this new policy of the government supply   
            of marihuana, fewer than 20% of ATP holders resort   
            to it. The applicants take the position that the   
            PPS product is inferior and not to the taste of   
            most users. They say that PPS only makes available   
            one strain of marihuana for medical use whereas   
            there are several strains which have different   
            therapeutic effects depending on the condition of   
            the user. The evidence as to the quality of the PPS   
            product was almost all hearsay and anecdotal. The   
            expert scientific evidence as to the different   
            therapeutic effects of various strains mainly   
            indicates that there is great uncertainty and the   
            subject requires further research. I am therefore   
            not prepared to lead a judicial incursion into yet   
            another field of medicine and pass judgment on the   
            quality of the PPS product. In my view it is not   
            tenable for the government, consistently with the   
            right established in other courts for qualified   
            medical users to have reasonable access to   
            marihuana, to force them either to buy from the   
            government contractor, grow their own or be limited   
            to the unnecessarily restrictive system of   
            designated producers. At the moment, their only   
            alternative is to acquire marihuana illicitly and   
            that, according to Hitzig, is inconsistent with the   
            rule of law and therefore with the principles of   
            fundamental justice.   
      
            20. I also find that paragraph 41(b.1) is   
            inconsistent with the principles of fundamental   
            justice because it is arbitrary in the sense that   
            it causes individuals a major difficulty with   
            access while providing no commensurate furtherance   
            of the interests of the state.   
      
            21. For these reasons I find paragraph 41(b.1) to   
            infringe the applicants' rights to liberty and   
            security under section 7 of the Charter and   
            therefore to be invalid.   
      
       [127] Adopting the reasoning in Hitzig and Sfetkopoulos,   
       further bolstered by the evidence before this court, I   
       find ss. 41(b.1) and 54.1 of the MMAR contrary to s. 7   
       of the Charter.   
      
       [133] The discussions set out above, in both Hitzig and   
       then Sfetkopoulos, suggest the admissibility of finding   
       a means by which compassion clubs can be licensed or   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)