From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Judge Brown dismissed the Crown's motion to strike the   
   Statements of Claim of Jeff Harris and other plaintiffs on   
   Schedule A and granted an interim exemption for Jeff to   
   possess a 10-day supply like the B.C. Garber plaintiffs. And   
   is considering granting the same 10-day remedy to the other   
   plaintiffs.   
      
   The Crown has appealed his not striking the claims and for a   
   stay of the interim remedy granted to Jeff pending their   
   appeal. Justice Near's decision:   
      
   Date: 20190614   
   Docket: A-175-19   
   Citation: 2019 FCA 182   
   Present: NEAR J.A.   
   BETWEEN:   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Appellant   
                               and   
                         ALLAN J. HARRIS   
                                                     Respondent   
      
       Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.   
      Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 14, 2019.   
      
                        REASONS FOR ORDER   
      
   NEAR J.A.   
      
   J: [1] In order to establish entitlement to a stay, the   
   Attorney General must show: (1) that there is a serious   
   issue to be tried, (2) that it would suffer irreparable harm   
   if the stay is not granted; and (3) that the balance of   
   convenience favours a stay (RJR MacDonald v. Canada   
   (Attorney General), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 311 at para. 43, 1994   
   CanLII 117 [RJR MacDonald]). I address each issue in turn.   
      
   I. Serious Issue   
      
   [2] The threshold for establishing a serious issue pending   
   appeal is low, and requires only that the party seeking the   
   stay establish that their appeal is not destined to fail or   
   that it is neither frivolous nor vexatious (RJR MacDonald at   
   para. 50). The Attorney General alleges that a serious issue   
   arises as the Federal Court erred in law and made palpable   
   and overriding errors of fact in finding that Mr. Harris   
   established entitlement to interim constitutional relief   
   from the application of certain provisions of the Cannabis   
   Regulations, SOR/2018-144, which impose a 150-gram limit on   
   the public possession and shipment of medical cannabis   
   authorized by a patient's health care practitioner.   
      
   [3] I would agree with the Attorney General's submissions   
   that a serious issue is raised in this matter given the   
   ongoing litigation in this and other cases concerning the   
   possession and shipment limits in question. In particular, I   
   am of the opinion that Mr. Harris may not have satisfied the   
   test for granting interim constitutional relief, which   
   requires that he establish: (1) a strong prima facie case;   
   (2) irreparable harm; and (3) that the balance of   
   convenience lies in his favour (R. v. Canadian Broadcasting   
   Corp., 2018 SCC 5 at para. 12, [2018] 1 S.C.R. 196; RJR   
   MacDonald).   
      
   [4] In my view, Mr. Harris may not have established that he   
   would suffer irreparable harm as a result of the 150-gram   
   limit.   
      
   JCT: Even though Judge Brown said he had.   
      
   J: Evidence of irreparable harm must be "clear and   
   compelling" and "of a convincing level of particularity that   
   demonstrates a real probability that unavoidable harm will   
   result" if the relief is not granted (Hache v. Canada, 2006   
   FCA 424 at para. 11; United States Steel Corporation v.   
   Canada (Attorney General), 2010 FCA 200 at para. 7; Gateway   
   City Church v. Canada (National Revenue), 2013 FCA 126 at   
   para. 16).   
      
   JCT: Even if it's obvious, you have to show it in detail..   
      
   J: [5] It appears that the only evidence before the Federal   
   Court on Mr. Harris' motion was a three-paragraph affidavit   
   stating that Mr. Harris is authorized to use 100 grams of   
   cannabis per day. As the Attorney General submits, "there   
   was no other evidence as to his medical circumstances,   
   whether his condition is temporary or chronic in nature, or   
   the health impacts   
      
   JCT: Judge thinks cancer patients would be more persuasive   
   than mere arthritis patients. Looks bad that Judge Near   
   wants to play doctor.   
      
   J: or treatment alternatives available if he is unable to   
   access this quantity of cannabis pending this action"   
   (Written Submissions at para. 31).   
      
   JCT: He hasn't fully explained how not being to leave home   
   for more than 1.5 days harms his personal security. Has to   
   show how he could not work around a non-working regime, it's   
   not enough to just show it isn't working, have to show the   
   objectionable conditions it imposes on patients like Garber   
   did. Seems courts love nothing better than duplication.   
      
   J: Further, there was "no evidence [Mr. Harris] [.] cannot   
   use the various alternatives available under the Act and   
   Regulations for accessing cannabis while travelling" which   
   "[.] include shipping or having a designated or licensed   
   producer ship cannabis to his travel location, purchasing   
   cannabis from a provincially regulated online store or   
   retail outlet [.]."   
      
   JCT: Judge Brown found the alternatives not reasonable. But   
   maybe he didn't show enough of how the unreasonable   
   alternatives were not reasonable.   
      
   J: Absent this evidence, it is questionable whether it was   
   open to the Federal Court to find irreparable harm.   
      
   JCT: Maybe he didn't notice that the judge in Garber found   
   irreparable harm and Judge Brown quoted him. You know he   
   can't bring in the Garber precedent.   
      
   J: Given this conclusion it is unnecessary to consider the   
   other two elements, strong prima facie case and balance of   
   convenience, which are necessary to grant interim   
   constitutional relief. As such, I find that a serious issue   
   in this matter has been established.   
      
   JCT: It's a serious issue that Judge Brown didn't care what   
   sickness the person stuck at home had suffered. It was   
   established in Garber. But notice Judge Near didn't tackle   
   the reason used by Judge Brown: the Garber precedent.   
      
   J: II. Irreparable Harm   
      
   [6] The Attorney General alleges that by granting Mr.   
   Harris' request for a constitutional exemption, the Federal   
   Court's Order causes irreparable harm to the public   
   interest.   
      
   JCT: How is going back to the way it was harming the public   
   interest other than making its stewards look incompetent.   
      
   J: I agree.   
      
   JCT: Not using the new limit causes irreparable harm to the   
   public interest. "Irreparable!"   
      
   J: Irreparable harm to the public interest is presumed where   
   legislation is restrained (RJR MacDonald at para. 71).   
      
   JCT: So irreparable harm doesn't have to be shown, the court   
   accepts that irreparable harm is presumed!   
      
   J: Further, courts should not lightly order that laws   
   enacted for the public good are inoperable in advance of a   
   complete constitutional review, which includes section 1   
   justification if a breach is found (Harper v. Canada, 2000   
   SCC 57 at para. 9, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 764).   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)