From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Court consolidates 150-gram and 1-year max actions   
      
   JCT: Half a dozen plaintiffs have filed challenges to the   
   30-days or 150-gram maximum possession law while Mike   
   Spottiswood is the first permanently-ill patient to   
   challenge the 1-year maximum period of use.   
      
   The Crown asked to hear and file materials dealing with them   
   both at the same time. Mike consented to dealing with his at   
   the same time as the other challenge but didn't want to mix   
   up his arguments with those that have nothing to do with   
   his. It could only serve to confuse the Crown lawyers which   
   is what they want, an excuse to be confused and leave out   
   stuff they wouldn't be able to leave out if they were   
   dealing with it alone.   
      
   Justice Brown ruled   
      
   Date: 20181114   
   Docket: T-1913-18   
   Ottawa, Ontario, November 14, 2018   
   PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                         MIKE SPOTTISWOOD   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Defendant   
      
                              ORDER   
      
   UPON considering that in this action the Plaintiff seeks a   
   declaration that Cannabis Regulations subsection 273(2)   
   SOR/2018-144 requiring that the period of use must not   
   exceed one year is a violation of the right under section 7   
   of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of   
   the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada   
   Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, "to Life and Security for   
   permanently-ill patients not in accordance with principles   
   of fundamental justice to not be arbitrary, grossly   
   disproportional, conscience-shocking, incompetent while MMAR   
   patients whose permits were extended since 2014 have caused   
   no problems by remaining authorized without having to get   
   their doctor to renew their permits again";   
      
   AND UPON considering that on November 5, 2018, the Court   
   advised the parties that it was considering adding this   
   action to be managed along the same timelines as Hathaway   
   (T1716-18), Harris (T-1765-18), Jackes (T-1784-18), and   
   Abbott (T-1822-18), if the Crown intends to move to strike;   
      
   AND UPON considering that by letter dated November 9, 2018,   
   the Defendant advised a motion to strike this claim will be   
   brought on the same grounds as in the Hathaway (T-1716-18)   
   and Harris (T-1765-18) actions, namely, that it is an   
   attempt to re-litigate issues that have already been decided   
   by this and other courts, and that the claim fails to   
   disclose a reasonable cause of action. The Defendant   
   proposed that this action be case-managed together with the   
   Hathaway and Harris actions, and seeks leave to file one set   
   of motion materials addressing this action and the Hathaway   
   and Harris actions. The Defendant also requests that its   
   motion and the underlying action be subject to all of the   
   terms listed at paragraphs 3 to 10 of this Court's Order   
   dated November 1, 2018, in the Hathaway and Harris actions;   
      
   AND UPON considering the Plaintiff in reply said that it did   
   not object to the Defendant's wish to file a motion to   
   strike nor that it be heard with other "Turmel Kit"   
   challenges, but did object that it not be dealt with   
   separately from their motions to strike other non-related   
   claims;   
      
   AND UPON concluding that the Defendant's submission has more   
   merit than the Plaintiffs and will be more efficient and   
   less costly;   
      
   THEREFORE THIS COURT ORDERS that:   
      
   1. This action shall be case-managed together with the   
   Hathaway (T-1716-18) and Harris (T-1765-18) actions.   
      
   2. The Defendant has leave to serve and file one set of   
   motion materials addressing this action and the Hathaway (T-   
   1716-18) and Harris (T-1765-18) actions.   
      
   3. This Defendant's motion to strike the underlying action   
   shall be subject to all of the terms listed at paragraphs 3   
   to 10 of this Court's Order dated November 1, 2018, in the   
   Hathaway (T-1716-18) and Harris (T-1765-18) actions.   
      
   "Henry S. Brown" Judge   
      
   JCT: Mike's Response had indicated that there were going to   
   be other non-related actions coming.   
   - I've filed one to strike the prohibitions for impeding   
   juice supply;   
   - There's another ready for a DG to grow for more than 2   
   people and a site to host more than 4 licenses;   
   - There's another coming for people who had their   
   prescriptions cut off or reduced due to Health Canada's   
   harassing phone calls to the doctor;   
   - There's another for people with criminal records in the   
   past 10 years who want to go straight with jobs in the   
   industry they know so well;   
   And more.   
      
   The only common denominator is that they all deal with   
   marijuana. Can you imagine a Crown lawyer trying to deal   
   with them all in one set of materials when they've been   
   shown to be so easily confused by even one issue?   
      
   We'll see. But right now, the maximum 150-gram limit and 1-   
   year period of use have not been lumped together. At least   
   we won't be confused.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)