From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: This appeals involves Jeff seeking to have the time   
   Health Canada ripped off his permit restituted. Judge Brown   
   ruled that damages for not getting the full period   
   prescribed by the doctor was trivial. Jeff pointed out that   
   up to 11 months ripped-off when a permit can cost over   
   $2,000 isn't trivial.   
      
   The Crown then cross-appealed Judge Brown's decision that   
   them just telling him they found the damages claims for   
   delays in processing were frivolous without offering him any   
   reason why wasn't good enough. They're asking the Appeal   
   Court to rule he didn't need to be given any reasons, he   
   should have just done what they asked! Really.   
      
   This is long, repetitive but it's your government's money at   
   work. So two ongoing issues in the appeal, Jeff Harris on   
   the restitution of the time ripped off being not trivial to   
   victims including Steve Vetricek whose application wasn't   
   started until 9 months after he'd sent it!   
      
   CR: Jon Bricker and Wendy Wright   
      
   PART I- OVERVIEW   
      
   PART II-STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   A. The Regulation of cannabis for medical purposes   
   1) The former Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes   
   Regulations   
   2) The current Cannabis Act and Cannabis Regulations   
   3) The registration process for personal and designated   
   production   
   B. The present claim   
   C. Other claims   
   D. The motions judge partially grants Canada's motion   
   E. Other motions   
   PART III - POINTS IN ISSUE   
   PART IV - SUBMISSIONS   
   A. Standard of appellate review   
   B. The principles on a motion to strike   
   C. The Motions Judge erred in failing to strike the claim   
   concerning the registration processing time   
   1) No constitutional right to produce cannabis,   
   2) No violation of section 7   
   a) No deprivation of life, liberty or security of the person   
   b) The claim concerning renewal is speculative and now moot   
   c) No violation of a principle of fundamental justice   
   3) The Motions Judge erred in failing to strike the claim   
   for Charter damages   
   D. No reasonable cause of action concerning the period of   
   registration   
   2) The claim concerning the period of registration is now   
   moot   
   E. Leave to amend should be refused   
   PART V-ORDER SOUGHT   
   PART VI-LIST OF AUTHORITIES   
   APPENDIX A-STATUTES AND REGULATIONS   
      
   CR: PART I-OVERVIEW   
      
   1. It is plain and obvious that this claim fails to disclose   
   a reasonable cause of action.   
      
   JCT: Imagine saying it's plain and obvious when you're   
   calling a judge unreasonable!! "It's not even hard, it's   
   plain and obvious, and he didn't see it." Says the Crown.   
   I'd bet many defendants in criminal matters may raise that   
   but it must be rare to say it's "plain and obvious" he was   
   wrong. Usually, you're more apologetic with some a peek at   
   your cards.   
      
   CR: The claim alleges that the processing time for   
   registration to personally produce cannabis for medical   
   purposes violates section 7 of the Charter. However, it   
   contains no material facts to show that the processing time   
   for registration deprived the plaintiff of life, liberty or   
   security of the person, or that the processing time in his   
   case was inconsistent with the principles of fundamental   
   justice.   
      
   JCT: And wants damages for the losses incurred during the   
   unconscionable delay. Did she forget?   
      
   CR: 2. Canada brought a motion to strike. The Motions Judge   
   largely dismissed the motion and in so doing, made three   
   legal errors. First, he erred in finding that courts had   
   already confirmed a constitutional right for patients to   
   produce cannabis.   
      
   JCT: It does say that if the patient fulfils the condition,   
   the Minister must register the license. What else can that   
   mean?   
      
   CR: Second, having incorrectly held that a constitutional   
   right to produce cannabis was already established, the   
   Motions Judge failed to consider whether the claim contained   
   material facts to demonstrate a violation of the plaintiffs   
   section 7 rights. Third, in allowing the claim for Charter   
   damages to proceed, the Motions Judge failed to consider the   
   absence of any material facts to show that damages would be   
   appropriate and just.   
      
   JCT: Even if Plaintiffs hadn't already asked? Or because   
   they asked for damages officially did the Crown appeal his   
   decision to allowing the showing of damages would be   
   appropriate.   
      
   CR: 3. However, the Motions Judge properly struck the other   
   portion of the claim, which concerned the period of   
   registration.   
      
   JCT: It actually converned restitution of the period of   
   registration. But why focus on the right issue when you're   
   trying to muddy the water.   
      
   CR: He acknowledged that the period of registration was   
   shorter than the period of use authorized by the plaintiffs   
   health care practitioner. However, he found that this merely   
   resulted in the plaintiff having to renew his registration   
   sooner, which was perhaps inconvenient but did not violate   
   the Charter.   
      
   JCT: All he had to do was order them to give what they'd   
   stopped ripping off from newbies back to those who'd been   
   ripped off. Order them to restitute the time stolen. And he   
   says it wasn't big enough a rip-off to warrant Charter   
   protection? Is why we're appealing.   
      
   CR: The plaintiff has identified no error in this   
   conclusion, and subsequent legislation has rendered this   
   aspect of the claim moot.   
      
   JCT: Only because the old legislation with the flaws is gone   
   and we're now stuck with the new legislation with the old   
   flaws back on without having been resolved by the courts   
   last time.   
      
   CR: The claim should therefore be struck in its entirety,   
   without leave to amend.   
      
   So their 3 reasons are   
   1) finding that courts had already confirmed a   
   constitutional right for patients to produce cannabis.   
   2) failed to consider whether the claim contained material   
   facts to demonstrate a violation of rights.   
      
   JCT: They asked the judge to adeem Medical License "Start   
   Date and "Expiry Date as insufficient facts to demonstrate a   
   too-short "period" of time. Wants these three judges to say   
   those aren't facts enough.   
      
   CR: Third, in allowing the claim for Charter damages to   
   proceed,   
      
   JCT: The part of the claim she forgot to introduce earlier.   
   CR: the Motions Judge failed to consider the absence of any   
   material facts to show that damages would be appropriate and   
   just.   
      
   JCT: Damages for delays in obtaining medication by screw-ups   
   in government bureaucracy was asked for and not deemed   
   inappropriate. This isn't damages over bad legislation, it's   
   damages over bad administration. No need to show malice.   
   Just incompetence.   
      
   PART II - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   A. THE REGULATION OF CANNABIS FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES   
      
   1) The former Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes   
   Regulations   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)