From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Harris Memorandum for restitution of ripped-off time   
      
   JCT: Lead Plaintiff Jeff Harris filed the Memorandum for his   
   appeal against the dismissal of the claim for restitution of   
   the ripped-off time that Health Canada have stopped ripping   
   off for everyone after March 2 2018.   
      
   File No.: A-258-18   
   FCC: T-1379-17   
      
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:   
                         ALLAN J. HARRIS   
                                                     Appellant   
                              (Respondent to the Cross-Appeal)   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                   Respondent   
                                            (Cross-Appellant)   
      
                      APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   1. Since August 2017, more than 200 self-represented   
   plaintiffs have filed virtually identical statements of   
   claim in the Federal Court based on "kits" downloaded from   
   the website of medical cannabis activist John Turmel,   
   seeking a declaration that the over-long processing time for   
   registration to produce cannabis under the Access To   
   Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations ("ACMPR") violates   
   the plaintiffs' rights under section 7 of the Canadian   
   Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The claims also   
   seek damages under s. 24(1) "in the amount of the value of   
   the Applicant's prescription and lost site rent and expenses   
   during any delay which this Court may rule inappropriate"   
      
   2. In addition, the claims also seek a declaration that the   
   "backdating" of registration certificates pursuant to ACMPR   
   S.8(2b): "The period of use begins on the day on which the   
   medical document is signed by the practitioner" violates   
   section 7 so patients never get a full term, and an order   
   that the plaintiffs' registration certificates remain valid   
   for the full period of time indicated in the medical   
   document pursuant to MMAR S.33(a): "A personal-use   
   production licence expires (a) 12 months after its date of   
   issue."   
      
   3. The claims are being collectively case-managed by the   
   Honourable Mr. Justice Brown. By Orders dated November 24   
   and December 11, 2017, Brown J. designated the action of   
   Allan J. Harris with Court File No. T-l379-17 as the lead   
   action, and ordered that the other actions be held in   
   abeyance with no further proceedings permitted without leave   
   of the Court, pending final determination of the lead   
   action.   
      
   4. On March 2, 2018, the Minister of Health issued a class   
   exemption under s. 56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances   
   Act, which allegedly provided for the issuance of   
   registration certificates with a period of use beginning on   
   the date that the registration certificate is issued (the   
   "March 2 class exemption").   
      
   5. On April 27, 2018, Canada filed an motion to strike the   
   statement of claim in the lead action on the grounds that it   
   did not disclose a reasonable cause of action and was   
   frivolous and vexations, and on the further grounds that the   
   request for a declaration relating to the alleged   
   "backdating" of registration certificates had been rendered   
   moot by the March 2 class exemption.   
      
   6. Despite there being no mention of any exemption from   
   S.8(2b) in those orders on Page 7 of Exhibit A of Canada's   
   motion to strike, it was heralded as ending the back-dating   
   and starting the period on date of issuance for all those   
   registered after March 2 2018. Those registered before March   
   2 were to remain short-changed by the back-dating that was   
   no longer being committed against new registrants.   
      
   7. By Order dated July 20, 2018, the Federal Court granted   
   Canada's motion in part. The Court declined to strike the A)   
   portion of the claim concerning the long processing time for   
   registration to produce cannabis for personal medical use,   
   but struck the B) portion of the claim concerning the   
   restitution of the time subtracted from the period of use by   
   the admitted "backdating" of registration certificates as   
   too trivial for constitutional remedy, not mooted by such   
   relief now being provided for those registered after March 2   
   2018 ruling:   
       [20] The Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that back-   
       dating the period of registration and renewal from the   
       effective date for registration or expiry date for   
       renewals to the date the doctor signed the prescription   
       under the ACMPR violates his section 7 Charter rights   
       and claims remedy for the full term of the prescription   
       to take effect on the effective date of the registration   
       and on the expiry date of a renewed registration.   
       [25] He states that the MMAR permits began on the   
       effective date of issuance and renewed on the same date   
       each year. In contrast, he states that the ACMPR permits   
       and renewals are back-dated to when the doctor signed   
       the medical document, reducing the term of registration   
       and renewal by the time to process the application. I   
       note in this case his permit lasted only five or so   
       months. We do not know when his medical document was   
       signed.   
        [26] He states that not only is over 6 months to key in   
       the data unconscionable but by shortchanging from the   
       full-term registration under the MMAR to a half-term   
       registration under the ACMPR, applicants or renewals   
       always get less than the full term of medication   
       prescribed by the measure of the unconscionable amount   
       of time spent for processing.   
       [27] The Plaintiff says that the two 1-year   
       prescriptions should end up being 24 months of   
       registration and asks the Court to return the time   
       short-changed from patients' permits and renewals and   
       prevent any further short-changing.   
       [28] The Plaintiff says that having to see the doctor   
       more often does cost the Plaintiff more money and having   
       to wait for the mail to find out if the registration was   
       renewed before its expiry date when everything would   
       have to be destroyed does cause the Plaintiff more   
       stress.   
      
       C. Is the allegation of short-changing moot having   
       regard to subsequent changes?   
       [48] On the facts pleaded in respect of the short-   
       changing issue, the Plaintiff seeks a declaration that   
       the dating of the permit back to the date that the   
       medical document was signed to coincide with the time   
       period for use stated by his health care practitioners -   
       the alleged "back-dating" of the permit - violates his   
       section 7 Charter rights.   
       [49] In response, the Defendant's evidence is that on   
       March 2, 2018, the Minister of Health Canada issued   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)