From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Art Jackes' "Originals Rejected" appeal Memorandum    
      
   JCT: Art was a Plaintiff seeking damages for delay of permit    
   not on the grounds of short-staffing but on the grounds they    
   wasted time by rejecting an original for being not-original.     
      
   Judge Brown dismissed his "rejected for no good reason"    
   claim. Art appealed seeking to have the damages for delay    
   due to faulty verification procedures put back on the docket    
   below with the other 250 seeking damages for delay.    
      
   File No: A-294-18   
   FCC: T-1654-17    
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:     
                          Arthur Jackes    
                                                   Appellant   
                               And   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                  Respondent   
      
      
                      APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM    
      
   PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS    
      
   1. The Appellant appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal from    
   the Aug 28 2018 Order of Federal Court Justice Brown in the    
   action 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 by willful delay not in accordance with the principals    
   of fundamental justice.   
      
   3. Appellant's Ex. A was a copy of the Application to Amend    
   his ACMPR permit MCR-16355.    
      
   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 and included the    
   application 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. Health Canada has also rejected original signatures from    
   other applicants for non-original signatures including    
   Donald Cote four times. T-377-18, T-684-18.    
      
   11. It's a small but sleazy way to stall patients getting    
   their medicine. "Though a pin-prick may be only a pin-prick,    
   a series of pin-pricks creates a wound."    
      
   12. In dismissing my claim for damages for the delay    
   caused by their false rejection, the court is letting them    
   get away with doing it to possibly thousands of others.    
   11,500 rejected applicants in 6 months did not get their    
   names, addresses or birthdates wrong. And having a medical    
   permit delayed over 3 months on false premises with expiry    
   and penal sanctions looming is not a trivial nor    
   insignificant violation of the patient's rights.    
       
   13. Though other plaintiffs in the 270 actions case-managed    
   by Justice Brown claim damages for delays in rejection due    
   to non-originality, I just happen to have caught Health    
   Canada red-handed and called them out but they were let go    
   because the pin-prick to me was deemed too trivial.    
      
   PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE    
      
   14. Is Health Canada rejecting medical applications on false    
   claims of non-originality too insignificant or trivial a    
   limitation of rights to invoke the protection of the Charter    
   S.7. and ask this court to consider the wound.    
      
   15. If the violation alleged was not due to the right of    
   Appellant not to use blue ink but due to the delay caused by    
   the improper rejection of original signatures as not    
   original, should Health Canada be made to justify their    
   decision and explain how many applications were at some    
   point rejected for not being original without any forensic    
   investigation done on the document.    
      
   PART III - SUBMISSION   
      
   HEALTH CANADA MARKET DATA    
      
   16. The Market-Data page at Health Canada provides useful    
   information.    
   https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-   
   health-products/medical-use-marijuana/licensed-   
   producers/market-data.html    
       This information is collected under the Access to    
       Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations, which    
       replaced the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)