Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    can.legal    |    Debating Canuck legal system quirks    |    10,932 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 10,546 of 10,932    |
|    John KingofthePaupers Turmel to All    |
|    TURMEL: Crown Response to Vince Reimer "    |
|    29 Aug 19 07:39:36    |
      From: johnturmel@gmail.com              JCT: Vince filed his motion for interim permit on Aug 19 and       Wendy informed him they issued his permit on Aug 20. A next       day Hop-to-it! She wanted him to abandon his motion so she       could avoid explaining the delay. He did not and she did       not:              CR: Department of Justice              August 28 2019              VIA FAX              The Honourable Justice Brown              Dear Mr. Justice Brown:              Re: Reimer, Vincent v. HMTQ        Court File No.: T-1081-19              Further to the Direction of the Court dated August 9 2019,       please accept the following as the response of the       defendant, HMTQ to the plaintiff's motion for interim       relief.              The plaintiff requests a "personal constitutional       exemption"from the Cannabis Act pending the outcome of his       application for an amendment to his registration to produce       cannabis for his personal medical use, or an order in the       nature of mandamus for Health Canada to grant his       application.              JCT: No, Court can't order them to grant it, but he can       order them to immediately process his application.              CR: As detailed in the enclosed Affidavit of Michael       McGuire, Health Canada issued a Registration Certificate to       the plaintiff on March 19 2019. This registration was       scheduled to expire on March 19 2020. However on June 3       2019, Health Canada received an application from the       plaintiff to change his production site and designate a new       individual to produce cannabis on his behalf. As this       application contained insufficient information concerning       the proposed production site.              JCT: The only reason "this application contained       insufficient information concerning the proposed production       site" is because it wasn't asked for on the original       application form. It's a handy Step 2 to stall permits used       many times before.              CR: Health Canada sent a letter to the plaintiff's proposed       designated producer on July 9 2019 requesting further       information.              JCT: Why don't they require the Hydro bill in the original       application? Why Step 2?              CR: The plaintiff's proposed designated Producer responded       on July 11 2019.              Upon reviewing this response, Health Canada determined that       the plaintiff's application for an amendment met the       requirements for registration under the Cannabis       Regulations. Health Canada therefore issued an amended       Registration Certificate to the plaintiff on August 20 2019.              JCT: So, July 11 to Aug 20, 40 days, almost 6 weeks, to       verify the address on a Hydro bill after 5 weeks before       being told they needed to now complete Step 2.              CR: This Registration Certificate superseded the       Registration Certificate issued on March 19 2019 which had       remained valid while Health Canada was processing the       amendment application.              JCT: He could still grow at his old spot.. Maybe              CR: As his application to amend his registration has now       been granted, the plaintiff's motion is moot and Canada       requests that it be dismissed.       Wendy Wright.               AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL MCGUIRE              JCT: He says all the usual stuff about what they have to do       in processing an application.              MM: 8. Reviewers are responsible for:       - verifying that the proposed production site complies with       S. 317(h) which prohibits more than four..              JCT: It doesn't say verifying the address pursuant to S.xxx              - verifying              - confirming signatures...              JCT: Doesn't say how they do that to get so many originals       declared as not.              12. require the full address of production site.              13. Staff verify this information to confirm that the       proposed site is a valid address.              JCT: How? By demanding a Hydro bill in Step 2?              The plaintiff's application              14. a) On March 19 2019, H.C. issued certificate to produce.       b) On June 3, application to amend...       c) During review, H.C. concluded it had insufficient       information to verify that the unit at the proposed       production site is distinct from other units in the       building. Accordingly, on July 9, H.C. sent a letter to Mr.       Reimer's proposed Designated Producer              JCT: It's actually "Designated Person" to produce though       "Producer" would have been the better word.              CR: requesting information to verify whether the unit at the       proposed production site was in fact a distinct address.              JCT: Why is the Hydro bill not requested on the form?              d) On July 11, response to the July 9 letter.              e) H.C. reviewed the response and determined that the       amendment application met the requirements of the       Regulations. The Registration Certificate was issued on       August 20 2019 and sent to Mr. Reimer by Xpresspost.              JCT: That's nice. How many permits come by Xpresspost? Where       they in a rush?              CR:This Registration Certificate superseded Mr. Reimer's       prior Registration Certificate which remained valid until       this new Registration Certificate was issued.              JCT: So that's it. 5 weeks to tell him they need the Hydro       bill, 2 days to deliver it, 6 weeks to verify the address on       the Hydro bill before being prodded by Justice to move their       asses before the response so they could have it dismissed       as mooted.              Judge Brown has seen all of the "hop-to-its" as well as the       stalls with Step 2.              So Vince gets to file a Reply accepting the dismissal as       mooted but also condemning the "Step 2 Stall!"              Applicants should be warned to include a Hydro bill so you       can avoid the Step 2 Stall before they ask!              --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05        * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca