From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Reply to Crown on motion to carry 10-day supply   
      
   JCT: Half a dozen plaintiffs have filed to be able to strike   
   the 150-gram cap and carry the same 30-day supply of   
   marijuana as for narcotics which has no cap.   
      
   The Crown has filed a motion to strike the actions as   
   frivolous and Lead Plaintiff Allan Jeff Harris has to file   
   the response for the group by Feb 1. Then the Crown Replies   
   by Feb 22 and the judge can have a hearing or decide.   
      
   And Jeff also filed a motion to be able to carry the same   
   10-day supply as granted to the Garber Four by the B.C.   
   Superior Court pending trial of the action for 30 days.   
      
   The Crown filed a Response motion and this is the Reply.   
   Case Management Judge Brown can then decide but I'd expect   
   him to put it off until after the Crown's strike motion. But   
   it would certainly hurt them if he grants the 10 days.   
      
   T-1765-18   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                           ALLAN HARRIS   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                                                (Moving Party)   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Defendant   
                                            (Responding Party)   
      
                        APPLICANT'S REPLY   
      
   1. Allan Harris is Lead Plaintiff for other "Hi-Dosage"   
   plaintiffs seeking the same 30x daily-dosage possession cap   
   as had existed under the MMAR when marijuana was regulated   
   as severely as the 30-day supply cap for "narcotic"   
   prescriptions. Justice Manson had extended the MMAR but   
   imposed the 150 gram possession cap from MMPR S.5(e). When   
   the MMPR was struck, the 150 gram cap was struck with it. We   
   are left with a court-imposed cap, not by Parliament, though   
   subsequent regimes kept the limit.   
      
   2. Pending the trial of the action for 30x daily dosage,   
   Applicant then moved the court for the same 10-day   
   possession limit in excess of the 150 grams granted by B.C.   
   Superior Court to the four patients in Garber v. Canada and   
   that such remedy apply to all plaintiffs for whom he was   
   appointed Lead Plaintiff or for all patients with Medical   
   Authorizations.   
      
   3. Defendant's Response states three issues:   
       10. The issue on this motion is whether the Court should   
       grant the plaintiff's request for an interim "personal   
       constitutional exemption" from the possession and   
       shipping limits in the Cannabis Regulations. In   
       particular:   
            (a) whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant   
            the requested relief;   
            (b) if this Court has jurisdiction to grant the   
            requested relief, whether the plaintiff has   
            established that it should be granted; and   
            (c) whether the plaintiff may seek interlocutory   
            relief on behalf of the other plaintiffs.   
      
   (A) THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS UNAVAILABLE   
      
   4. Canada argues exemption akin to declaration:   
       2... The requested exemption is instead akin to a   
       request for an interlocutory declaration, which this   
       Court has no jurisdiction to grant.   
      
   5. Even if akin to an interlocutory declaration which this   
   court has no jurisdiction to grant, an interlocutory   
   exemption was granted by this court in Allard which the   
   Crown later mentions in paragraph 24:   
       24. This Court has previously refused a request for an   
       interlocutory exemption from the 150 gram possession   
       limit. In Allard...   
      
   6. Applicant submits the court continues to have the   
   jurisdiction it had in Allard to hear this Application for   
   Interlocutory Exemption even if akin to an Interlocutory   
   Declaration.   
      
   7. Canada mis-states the Applicant's claim:   
       11. The plaintiff seeks an interim "personal   
       constitutional exemption" from the criminal prohibitions   
       on publicly possessing and on shipping over 150 grams of   
       cannabis for medical purposes.   
       13. The requested relief is tantamount to an   
       interlocutory declaration that the plaintiff may possess   
       in public and ship over 180 grams of cannabis.   
      
   8. Applicant is not seeking to possess and ship any amount   
   "over 150 grams" but rather seeks to possess and ship "not   
   less than the 10 days worth while seeking to ship pending   
   trial for not less than 30 days worth as for all   
   prescription narcotics as in the former MMAR. Imagine   
   getting less days of cannabis than the 30 days for oxycodone   
   or benzos?   
      
   9. Crown argues right to 30-days supply is now gone:   
       12. While this Court has clear jurisdiction to issue   
       interlocutory injunctions to preserve existing rights   
       pending the outcome of ongoing proceedings, the   
       plaintiff does not have an existing right to possess in   
       public or to ship cannabis in amounts exceeding 180   
       grams (150 grams pursuant to the Regulations and 30   
       grams pursuant to the Act). Nor has he established such   
       a right pursuant to the Charter. An injunction is   
       unavailable in these circumstances.   
      
   10. Yet Canada notes "seeking interlocutory recognition of a   
   right not currently enjoyed":   
       30. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that courts   
       should not lightly order that laws enacted for the   
       public good are inoperable in advance of a complete   
       constitutional review, and that interlocutory relief   
       from allegedly unconstitutional laws should be granted   
       only in clear and exceptional cases.32   
       31. While the Supreme Court's analysis was made in the   
       context of injunction proceedings to preserve existing   
       rights, it is as applicable, if not more so, where the   
       plaintiff seeks interlocutory recognition of a right not   
       currently enjoyed.   
      
   11. Applicant does seek interlocutory recognition of a right   
   formerly enjoyed by all but not currently enjoyed other than   
   by the Garber Four. So the Garber Four and Allard Four   
   claimed an existing right under the MMAR that would be taken   
   away from Harris so he could no longer claim an existing   
   right under the MMPR once it had been taken away.   
      
   12. No legislation took the right to 30-day supply away, one   
   judge did. Then later regimes kept it. The unconstitutional   
   MMPR tried to take away the 30-day cap but failed yet the   
   judge had imposed the new legislation on the permit holders   
   under the old MMAR pending trial, Parliament did not. So the   
   150-cap was not enacted by constitutional legislation, it   
   was empowered one judgment.   
      
   13. Defendant decries exemption akin to declaration:   
       13.. This relief is unavailable. It is well established   
       that declaratory remedies are not available on an   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)