home bbs files messages ]

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