From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Federal Court of Appeal nixes Art Jackes appeal   
      
   JCT: Jeff Harris is Lead Plaintiff for over 300 other   
   plaintiffs for damages from unconscionable delays in   
   processing their medpot permits and a few were delayed by   
   the rejection of original signatures as not-original. Most   
   egregious is Donald Cote's application being rejected for   
   his original signatures deemed not-original four times over   
   8 months.   
      
   Art Jackes was only jerked around for 11 weeks and his case   
   was specifically challenged by the Crown and struck. So Art   
   filed an appeal, prepared all his documentation, then asked   
   to be spoken for by Jeff Harris too.   
      
   Date: 20190619   
   Docket: A-294-18   
   Ottawa, Ontario, June 19, 2019   
      
   CORAM:  GAUTHIER J.A. STRATAS J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A.   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                          ARTHUR JACKES   
                                                     Appellant   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
      
      
   Respondent   
      
                              ORDER   
      
   COURT: UPON motion by the appellant for an extension of time   
   to file a requisition for hearing, and for the appeal to be   
   heard at the same time as the appeal in Allan J. Harris v.   
   Attorney General of Canada (A-258-18);   
      
   AND UPON reading the appellant's motion record, the   
   responding motion record of the respondent, and the   
   appellant's reply;   
      
   AND UPON noting that for an extension of time to be granted,   
   the Court must consider: (1) whether there has been a   
   continuing intention to pursue the appeal; (2) whether the   
   appeal has some merit; (3) whether any prejudice arises from   
   the delay; and (4) whether there is a reasonable explanation   
   for the delay (Canada (Attorney General) v. Hennelly, [1999]   
   FCJ No. 846, at para 3);   
      
   AND UPON finding that the appellant has neither demonstrated   
   that the appeal has merit,   
      
   JCT: The fact Judge Brown dismissed the Crown motion to   
   strike the actions for damages as no cause of action   
   certainly demonstrates that his claim below should not have   
   been dismissed.   
      
   COURT: nor that there is a reasonable explanation for the   
   delay.   
      
   JCT: Moving to he beard with Harris isn't reasonable.   
      
   COURT: There is not a scintilla of an argument purporting to   
   establish a reviewable error in the Federal Court's   
   conclusion that any violation of the appellant's Charter   
   rights is, at best, trivial.   
      
   JCT: But so is adding his 11 weeks subtracted from the   
   period of his permit back to his next permit. Which is what   
   Jeff is asking for all the other plaintiffs.   
      
   COURT: Moreover, the appellant had until February 25, 2019   
   to file his requisition for a hearing, yet he delayed his   
   bringing of the present motion until May 17, 2019 despite   
   numerous occasions to do so prior to that date.   
      
   JCT: By filing a motion to be heard with Harris in case he   
   didn't need his own hearing.   
      
   COURT: THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion be dismissed. As a   
   result, the appeal is also dismissed, with costs.   
   "Johanne Gauthier" J.A. "DS" "YdM"   
      
   JCT: I would bet that this is the first time in federal   
   court history that a ready-to-go appeal was dismissed for   
   failure to book the hearing on time, after refusal to grant   
   an extension of time to file the ready-to-go appeal late.   
      
   I much appreciate all the running around he did to stay in   
   the game. I think I'll have to take up a collection to help   
   Art cover the costs if comes the time to pay.   
      
   So if Jeff wins the return of the subtracted time, Art might   
   still get it if it applies to all permits. Easily done.   
   There were only several thousand of permits at the time that   
   would need remedy.   
      
   And the argument that there is no need to tolerate "trivial"   
   violations of rights if it's "trivial" to remedy.   
      
   As well, the Crown has to show that Judge Brown should have   
   struck the actions because they had 1 paragraph saying so.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)