From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Harris Memo on Crown appeal to strike Delay claims   
      
   JCT: This is the last filing in several proceedings now   
   going on. Below, we have Jeff leading two fights:   
   1) high-dosers against the 150-gram possession cap,   
   2) permanently-ill patients against 1-year annual cap.   
      
   1) Jeff made a motion to have a 10-day supply like the   
   Garber Four in BC while he argues for the same 30-day supply   
   as any other prescribed medication.   
      
   The Crown made a motion to strike the whole claim and argues   
   we don't qualify for interim remedy. All those arguments   
   are before Judge Brown. If he grants the Garber 10-day   
   supply, he can't strike the actions for the full 30 days.   
   And if he's going to strike the full 30 days, he pretty much   
   has to strike the interim remedy too.   
      
   Crown made a motion that challenging against the annual   
   medical documents is frivolous and all those arguments are   
   in.   
      
   And finally, the appeals of Judge Brown's June 20 decision.   
   Jeff for striking the restitution of ripped-off time as too   
   trivial and Crown cross-appealing the dismissal of the   
   motion to strike the delay claims. Hope it's self-   
   explanatory:   
      
   JCT: 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   
                   ON RESPONDENT'S CROSS-APPEAL   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   1. Since August 2017, more than 200 self-represented   
   plaintiffs for whom Allan J. Harris has been named Lead   
   Plaintiff 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   
   1) a declaration that the bureaucratic short-staffing   
   causing over-long delays for registrations to produce   
   cannabis under the Access To Cannabis for Medical Purposes   
   Regulations ("ACMPR") compared to next-day access from   
   Licensed Producers violates the plaintiffs' rights under   
   section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms   
   ("Charter"); "Cause of Action A."   
   2) damages under s. 24(1) "in the amount of the value of the   
   Applicant's prescription for cannabis not grown determined   
   by a formula such as "$Price * Grams/Day * Days = $Damages,"   
   lost site rent and expenses during any delay which this   
   Court may rule inappropriate."   
      
   2. In addition, the claims also sought a declaration that:   
   "B) 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" and sought damages by restitution of the full-period   
   of time prescribed.   
      
   3. Lead Plaintiff Allan J. Harris submitted an initial   
   application for registration to produce cannabis on June 11,   
   2017. After 13 weeks, he filed the present "Turmel Kit"   
   Statement of Claim on September 11, 2017. The Registration   
   was granted on Oct 11 2017 and expired on March 23 2018, 5.5   
   months later. At a preliminary hearing, Mr. Justice Brown   
   also ordered Defendant to explain the back-dating of permits   
   under S.8(2b) to shorten the period of exemption in any   
   motion to strike as frivolous or vexatious compared to the   
   old MMAR S.33(a) that started the permit when issued.   
      
   4. On March 2 2018, Health Canada issued three Class   
   Exemptions announcing the change of start from ACMPR S.8(2b)   
   when the doctor signed back to MMAR S.33(a), when the permit   
   was issued. Supplementary Appeal Book Tab 1, 2, 3,   
      
   5. On June 20 2018, Judge Brown ruled that the Class   
   exemptions announcing the change of period start date to   
   stop of the subtraction of time had mooted the action for   
   declaration that the subtraction violated rights. The claims   
   for restitution of the time substracted were dismissed as   
   too trivial a harm to warrant Charter protection and is the   
   subject of the originating appeal.   
      
   6. But Judge Brown did dismiss the Defendant's motion to   
   strike the claims as frivolous and vexatious for having no   
   reasonable cause of action due to insufficient facts, the   
   subject of this Defendant's cross-appeal. In his June 20   
   2018 Order and Reasons, he writes:   
       [1] This is a motion by the Defendant for an Order   
       striking the Plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim,   
       i.e., his action, which may also result in the Court   
       striking some 200 similar case-managed actions. These   
       actions are in most cases identical and are copied from   
       a website on the internet.   
       [2] The motion is brought on the basis that it is plain   
       and obvious that the claim fails to disclose a   
       reasonable cause of action. In addition it is alleged   
       that the Plaintiff's action is frivolous and vexatious.   
       Finally, in respect of what I will refer to as the   
       "short-changing" pleadings, the Defendant argues this   
       issue is moot because of a regulatory or policy change.   
       Because I am not persuaded the Defendant has established   
       her case, the motion to strike must be dismissed. There   
       is no merit to the argument that the pleadings are   
       frivolous and vexatious. The Court must also reject the   
       Defendant's submission that the short-changing claim is   
       moot; while for some it may be moot, for this Plaintiff   
       it is not.   
       [3] The Defendant's motion is brought pursuant to Rule   
       221(1)(a) of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106   
       [Rules]. Rule 221 of the Rules permits the Court to   
       strike a claim on certain grounds:   
            221(1) On motion, the Court may, at any time, order   
            that a pleading, or anything contained therein, be   
            struck out, with or without leave to amend, on the   
            ground that it   
            (a) discloses no reasonable cause of action or   
            defence, as the case may be,..   
            (c) is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,..   
       [4] The action sought to be dismissed, stripped to its   
       essentials, claims Charter-damages for alleged   
       unconscionable delays in the processing time taken   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)