From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Heidi's medpot dispensary was raided. She filed a   
   motion to Quash and the Crown has responded. This is her   
   Reply:   
      
                 PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA   
   Between:   
                      Her Majesty the Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
                               and   
                         Heidi Chartrand   
                                                      Applicant   
      
             APPLICANT'S REPLY ON QUASH MOTION   
      
   1. The basis of the motion to quash the S.5(2) Possession   
   for the Purpose of Trafficking charge is that while the   
   s.4(1) Possession and s.7(1) Production offences have no   
   force and effect, that therefore Possession for the Purpose   
   of Trafficking of a substance that is not prohibited under   
   the CDSA should not be prohibited either. The Crown notes   
   that S.5(2) had never yet been declared of no force.   
      
   2. On July 31 2000 Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker   
   struck down the Possession prohibition in S.4(1) of the CDSA   
   absent a valid medical exemption.   
      
   3. On July 30 2001, the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations   
   were enacted.   
      
   4. On Mar 18 2003, Alberta Court of Appeal in R. v. Krieger   
   struck down the Production prohibition in S.7(1) of the CDSA   
   absent a valid medical exemption.   
      
   5. On Oct 7 2003, Ontario Court of Appeal in Hitzig v.   
   Canada declared only two aspects of the MMAR medical   
   exemption flawed.   
            [170] In R. v. Parker. supra, this court declared   
            the prohibition invalid as of July 31. 2001 if by   
            that date the Government had not enacted a   
            constitutionally sound medical exemption. Our   
            decision in this case confirms that it did not do   
            so. Hence the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 has   
            been of no force or effect since July 31. 2001.   
      
   6. The Crown cites the many courts that "the government had   
   not enacted a constitutionally sound medical exemption...   
   hence the marijuana prohibition in s.4 has been of no force   
   since July 31 2001" does not mean that a Bad Exemption means   
   No Offence, BENO, and notes how many courts have rejected   
   that Bad Exemption hence No Offence would mean ""the   
   government had not enacted a constitutionally sound medical   
   exemption... hence the marijuana prohibition in s.4 has been   
   of no force since July 31 2001."   
      
   7. On the same day, R. v. J.P. quashed the possession charge   
   because Hitzig had found the exemption to have been   
   defective when the accused was charged. On Dec 8 2003, the   
   Crown stayed the 4,000 remaining Possession charges laid   
   during the time the exemption was flawed but no Production   
   charges.   
      
   8. The Hitzig Court also ruled that their striking down the   
   flaws in the MMAR revived the prohibitions in the CDSA:   
       there will immediately be a constitutionally   
       valid exemption in effect and the marihuana prohibition   
       in s. 4 of the CDSA will immediately be constitutionally   
       valid and of full force and effect.   
      
   9. Yet the Interpretation Act states:   
       For the purposes of this Act, an enactment that S.5(3):   
       has been replaced is repealed and an enactment that has   
       expired, lapsed or otherwise ceased to have effect is   
       deemed to have been repealed.>   
       S.32(a): Where an enactment is repealed in whole or in   
       part, the repeal does not (a) revive any enactment or   
       anything not in force or existing at the time when the   
       repeal takes effect.   
      
   POLCOA   
      
   10. Parliament Only Legislates, Courts Only Abrogate is the   
   argument to quash raised herein. The Ontario Court of Appeal   
   had no power to revive the CDSA prohibitions that were not   
   in force at the time.   
      
   11. In R v. Nielson [2004] when asked where the Court of   
   Appeal got the power to revive a law that had been of no   
   force for 2 years, the Crown argued "they wouldn't have if   
   they couldn't have so they can."   
      
   12. So the Possession and Production prohibitions were never   
   re-enacted by Parliament after they were struck down by the   
   Parker and Krieger orders taking effect upon the Hitzig   
   order finding the exemption flawed.   
      
   INTERPRETATION ACT OR HITZIG ORDER   
      
   13. The Crown notes the many courts who were asked to quash   
   the charges on the grounds the prohibitions remain of no   
   force and unknown to law until re-enacted by Parliament when   
   Courts may not revive dead laws and who chose to obey the   
   Hitzig Order and disbey Parliament's Interpretation Act. Not   
   a laudable precedent.   
      
   RESURRECTING BENO   
      
   14. The Crown says the Quash motion is resurrecting the BENO   
   argument but the ACMPR has not yet been declared flawed as   
   was the MMAR in Hitzig, Sfetkopoulos, Beren, Mernagh and the   
   MMPR in Allard have been and is not raised herein.   
   Challenging the ACMPR awaits a constitutional challenge   
   should the S.601 quash motion fail.   
      
   15. The Crown keeps repeating that the whole regime was not   
   toppled, only aspects were found to be faulty. But there   
   were only two aspects making the MMAR unworkable in Hitzig,   
   the same two in Sfetkopoulos and Beren, one, non-   
   participation by doctors in Mernagh, and one, prohibition of   
   best use, in Smith. There is no reason to show the whole   
   regime is flawed as found in Allard with respect to the   
   MMPR. That it isn't working right is all that needs to be   
   shown. The Crown hints the prohibition cannot depend on just   
   one aspect of error in Smith. But only two aspects of   
   failure in Hitzig resulted in the prohibitions being during   
   the 2 years of that time.   
      
   MOST OTHER COURTS DID NOT FOLLOW PARKER/KRIEGER   
      
   16. Repeatedly the Crown cites other courts that ruled the   
   exemption faulty but did not follow Parker and Krieger to   
   declare the prohibitions invalid while the exemption was   
   invalid, BENO, mainly because the courts in Hitzig,   
   Sfetkopoulos, Beren and Smith were not asked to. Only in   
   Mernagh was a declaration striking Possession and Production   
   prohibitions of the CDSA sought and granted upon the finding   
   by Ontario Superior Court Justice Taliano that the MMAR was   
   again faulty. That finding was overturned because 90% of all   
   refusing doctors could have had sound medical reasons since   
   the medical patients were not asked for the non-medical   
   reasons their doctors had used to refuse.   
      
   17. Applicant submits that prohibiting Trafficking in an era   
   when Possession and Production are not prohibited brings the   
   administration of justice into disrepute.   
      
   Dated on Dec 5 2018.   
   ____________________________   
   For the Applicant   
      
   To the Respondent:   
   Michael Taylor, QC   
   Public Prosecution Service  of Canada   
      
   JCT: The Crown office was only 20 minutes away and it was   
   easy to serve the Crown. But Kentville provincial law courts   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)