From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Judge asks for Reply to Crown on 10-day permits to others   
      
   JCT: After Federal Court Justice Brown had dismissed the   
   Crown's motion to strike the claims to carry the old MMAR's   
   30-day supply like all other prescription drugs and granted   
   Jeff Harris's motion for an interim exemption to carry the   
   10-day supply as granted to the 4 Garber plaintiffs in B.C.,   
   he gave the Crown 20 days to explain why he shouldn't grant   
   the same 10-day remedy to the other plaintiffs with Jeff.   
      
   The Crown filed their response which I posted at   
   https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-turmel/Egu3VMwYM_Y   
      
   Then yesterday morning, Jeff got a message from the court   
   that Judge Brown had asked for Jeff's Reply to their   
   Response.   
      
   Another issue is that the judge gave Jeff 15 days to delete   
   certain offensive texts from his Amended Statement of Claim.   
   I erred in just not striking it out but kept most of the   
   sentence and change a few words. So the Statement of Claim   
   got rejected. I've since fixed it and Jeff submitted his   
   second Amended Statement of Claim and mentioned it in his   
   Reply to their May 24 2019 letter in Response:   
      
      
   Allan Harris, Lead Plaintiff   
   May 28 2019   
      
   VIA E-FILING   
      
   Senior Registry Officer   
   Courts Administration Service   
   Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H9   
      
   re: Allan J. Harris, T-1765-18   
      
   Dear Registrar   
      
   1. Please accept this letter as a Reply to the Defendant's   
   letter of May 24 2019 and place this letter before the case-   
   management judge, the Honourable Mr. Justice Brown.   
      
   SHOULD ACTIONS REMAIN IN ABEYANCE PENDING THE HARRIS APPEAL?   
      
   2.The Plaintiff agrees with Defendant that further   
   proceedings on the actions should be placed in abeyance   
   pending the resolution of the appeals.   
      
   SHOULD THE COURT NOT EXEMPT THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS?   
      
   3. Plaintiff does not agree that the interim relief for   
   other high-dosage plaintiffs should be held in abeyance and   
   each filing their own separate Motion template, though   
   possible, would put an unnecessary documentary burden on the   
   Registry and the parties.   
      
   4. On May 7 2019, the Court did already rule:   
       [83].. In my view the restraints imposed on Harris by   
       operation of the  Cannabis Regulations' 150-gram   
       possession and shipping cap may constitute a breach of   
       his section 7 Charter rights at the present time, which   
       breach will certainly continue to the date of trial   
       judgment and thereafter if left unrelieved. In other   
       words I am unable to envisage a trial judgment that   
       differs from my determination on this interim motion.   
      
   5. The breach of the section 7 Charter rights at the present   
   time, which breach will certainly continue to the date of   
   trial judgment and thereafter if left unrelieved would also   
   cause harm to the other high-dosage plaintiffs.   
      
   IS SHIPPING LIMIT BASED ON REGISTERED PERSON LIMIT?   
      
   6. Paragraph 6 of the Order provides:   
       [91] Allan J. Harris is hereby exempted from the 150-   
       gram shipping limits in paragraph 290(1)(e), subsection   
       293(1), and subparagraph 297(1)(e)(iii) of the Cannabis   
       Regulations such that the said Allan J. Harris may be   
       shipped 1,000 grams of dried marijuana until such time   
       as a decision in this action is rendered.   
      
   7. The Crown notes subsections 290(1)(e) and subsection   
   293(1) have 150-gram limits applicable to Licensed   
   Producers; that subparagraph 297(1)(e)(iii) is not a   
   shipping limit; that Harris does not rely on commercial   
   licensed producers but the shipping limit applicable to   
   designated producers is found in S.322(1)(c).   
      
   8. There is no shipping limit applicable to designated   
   producers in S.322(1)(c) which states:   
       Production by designated person   
       322(1) A designated person is, in accordance with the   
       registration and the provisions of this Division,   
       authorized to (c) send, deliver, transport or sell to   
       the registered person - or an adult who is named in the   
       document that the designated person receives under   
       subsection 313(3) - a quantity of cannabis, other than   
       cannabis plants or cannabis plant seeds, that does not   
       exceed the equivalent of the maximum quantity of dried   
       cannabis that is specified in the document;   
      
   9. There is no shipping limit applicable to designated   
   producers in S.313(3) of the Regulations which state:   
       Document for designated person   
       313(3) If a designated person is named in the   
       registration certificate, the Minister must provide them   
       with a document containing information relating to the   
       production of cannabis that is authorized, including the   
       information referred to in paragraphs (2)(g)...   
      
   10. There is no shipping limit applicable to designated   
   producers in S.313(2)(g) of the Regulations which states:   
       Registration certificate   
       (2) The registration certificate must contain the   
       following information:   
       (g) the maximum quantity of dried cannabis, expressed in   
       grams, that the registered person is authorized to   
       possess by virtue of the registration, as determined in   
       accordance with subsection 266(3)(b)...   
      
   11. The shipping limit applicable to designated producers in   
   S.266(3)(b) of the Regulations states:   
       Registered person   
       266(3) The maximum amount of cannabis that an adult   
       referred to in paragraph (1)(b) is authorized to possess   
       in a public place, for their own medical purposes, is an   
       amount that is equivalent to the lesser of   
       (a) 30 times the daily quantity of dried cannabis   
       indicated in their registration certificate, and   
       (b) 150 g of dried cannabis.   
      
   12. The shipping limit in S.322(1) depends on the limit in   
   the S.313(3) Designated Person document which depends on the   
   limit in the S.313(2)(g) which depends on the limit in   
   S.266(3)(b) on the Registered Person document which happens   
   to be limited to the same 150 grams as set for shipping from   
   Licensed Producers! Plaintiff does not allege his designated   
   producer is handicapped by the commercial shipping limit   
   because his designated producer is handicapped by the same   
   150 gram limit under S.266(3) as the Registered Person.   
      
   JCT: I wonder if they dug down to the 4th level to find out   
   that the Designated Person's shipping limit was the   
   Registered Person's possession limit.   
      
   EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE NEW AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM   
      
   13. On May 13, 2019, I filed my Amended Statement of Claim   
   pursuant to the May 7 2019 Order of the court and received   
   an email on May 23 informing me that "Per oral directions of   
   the court dated May 17, the status was not accepted."   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)