From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown opposes Harris and Jackes medpot appeals heard together.   
      
   JCT: Since all his documentation is ready to requisition his   
   appeal hearing, Art Jackes filed a motion to have the   
   hearing of his appeal with that of Jeff Harris rather than   
   Requisition his own hearing right now.   
      
   The point is that Jeff is presenting the case for damages   
   due to having Donald Cote's application rejected and "not   
   original signatures" four times when they were and Art's   
   claim for damages for the same reason was thrown out and he   
   wants back in with Donald.   
      
   This is the Crown's Response to why his issue shouldn't be   
   heard with Jeff's:   
      
   Court File No.: A-294-18   
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:   
                          ARTHUR JACKES   
                                                     Appellant   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Respondent   
      
            WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OF THE RESPONDENT,   
             HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA   
      
   1. The respondent, Her Majesty The Queen in Right of Canada   
   ("Canada"),asks that the appellant's motion be dismissed.   
   The motion requests that this matter be heard together with   
   Allan J. Harris (A-258-18). However, the appellant has not   
   filed his requisition for hearing or moved to extend the   
   time for doing so, such that the Harris appeal may be   
   unnecessarily delayed if the matters were heard together.   
      
   JCT: He wants to be joined with Harris before filing his own   
   Requisition.   
      
   CR: PART I - FACTS   
      
   A. THE JACKES CLAIM AND APPEAL   
      
   2. The appellant filed his statement of claim on Oct 31 2017   
   (the "Jackes claim"). The claim alleged that the appellant   
   applied to amend his registration to produce cannabis for   
   medical purposes, but that Health Canada rejected his   
   application as it included non-original signatures. The   
   claim sought a declaration "that delaying his application...   
   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   
   applications are prohibited from using blue ink is an   
   unconstitutional violation of the patient's right to Life.   
   No other relief was sought.   
      
   JCT: Wants damages for the delay due to wrong rejection.   
      
   CR: 3. Canada brought a motion to strike the Jackes claim.   
   By order dated Aug 28 2018, the case-management judge in   
   Federal Court, Mr. Justice Brown, granted Canada's motion   
   and struck the Jackes claim without leave to amend. The   
   claim was struck on the grounds that it was plain and   
   obvious that the rejection of the appellant's application by   
   Health Canada and the suggestion he re-submit using blue   
   ink, was at most a trivial violation of his Charter rights.   
      
   JCT: The improper rejection caused a loss of time that was   
   too trivial to violate his Charter right to his meds.   
      
   CR: 4. The appellant now appeals the decision to strike his   
   claim. The Notice of Appeal requests that the appeal be   
   heard in Toronto. The appellant has filed an appeal book and   
   the parties have filed the required memoranda of fact and   
   law. However, the appellant failed to serve and file his   
   requisition for hearing, which was due on February 25 2019.   
      
   JCT: Because he wants to be heard with Harris's Requisition.   
      
   CR; B. THE HARRIS CLAIM AND APPEAL   
      
   5. In addition to the Jackes claim, Brown J. is currently   
   case-managing more than 250 other claims related to access   
   to medical cannabis. The other claims - which are based on a   
   kit downloaded from the website of medical cannabis activist   
   John Turmel - allege that general processing times for   
   registration to produce cannabis for personal medical use,   
   and Health Canada's former approach to calculating the   
   period of registration, are unconstitutional.   
      
   JCT: And Art alleges that general processing times for   
   registration to produce cannabis for personal medical use   
   are too long due to improper rejections.   
      
   CR: 6. Brown J. has designated Allan J. Harris (T-1379-17)   
   (the "Harris claim") as the lead claim among this group of   
   claims, and has stayed the other claims pending   
   determination of the Harris claim. However, as noted above,   
   the Jackes claim was not stayed, and proceeded in parallel   
   with the Harris claim.   
      
   JCT: And though his motion for interim exemption pending his   
   renewal was mooted by delivery, his action for damages   
   should not have also been dismissed.   
      
   CR: 7. Canada brought a motion to strike the Harris claim.   
   By Order and Reasons dated July 20 2018, the Federal Court   
   partially granted Canada's motion. Brown J. declined to   
   strike the portion of the Harris claim concerning the   
   processing time for registration,   
      
   JCT: The part Art wants to get in on.   
      
   CR: but struck the portion concerning the period of   
   registration, without leave to amend.   
      
   JCT: I think he'd want his short-changed time back too.   
      
   CR: 8. Mr. Harris has appealed this decision, and Canada has   
   cross-appealed (the "Harris appeal"). The parties have   
   completed all steps in the Harris appeal and are awaiting a   
   hearing date. At Mr. Harris' request, the Harris appeal will   
   be heard in Vancouver. Brown J. has ordered that the other   
   250-plus claims in Federal Court will remain stayed pending   
   the Harris appeal.   
      
   C. APPEAL SCHEDULING   
      
   9. In a series of letters to the Court, Mr. Jackes   
   requested that this appeal be heard together with the Harris   
   appeal. By Direction dated April 1 2019, the Court denied   
   this request and directed that the Registry proceed to   
   schedule only the Harris appeal as it is ready for hearing.   
   Stratas J.A. observed that the other appeals involved   
   different plaintiffs, different first-instance decisions,   
   were likely to be heard in different locations and were   
   at different stages of process. To the extent that a ruling   
   in one appeal affected the other, Stratas J.A. observed that   
   this could be brought to the attention of the panel hearing   
   the later appeal. He also directed any party desiring   
   procedural relief to file a formal motion in writing.   
      
   JCT: Which Art and Igor both did.   
      
   CR: PART II - ISSUES   
      
   10. The issue in this motion is whether the Jackes appeal   
   should be heard together with the Harris appeal. The legal   
   and factual issues in the appeal are distinct and the   
   appellant has not filed a requisition for hearing is out of   
   time to do so.   
      
   JCT: The legal and factual issues of Art Jackes and Donald   
   Cote are identical.   
      
   CR: PART III - SUBMISSIONS   
      
   11. Rule 105 of the Federal Court Rules provides that the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)