From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: McCluskey had asked the Court to remove Jeff Harris as   
   the Lead Plaintiff for the 150-gram cap challenge group as   
   well as dismiss everyone's claims. Crown must have loved   
   that. But Judge Brown left Jeff as "representative   
   plaintiff," not "representing plaintiff" for the group and   
   only cut Scott from the group.   
      
   Date: 20190924   
   Docket: T-1900-18   
   Ottawa, Ontario, September 24, 2019   
   PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                     SCOTT STANLEY MCCLUSKEY   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                               AND   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Defendant   
                              ORDER   
      
   J: [1] This is a motion by Mr. McCluskey, a self-represented   
   litigant, to remove Mr. Allan J. Harris as representative or   
   lead plaintiff in action T-1900-18 in which Mr. McCluskey   
   claims against the Defendant Her Majesty the Queen. He also   
   seeks procedural relief in terms of service and filing his   
   material. Both requests are granted for the reasons that   
   follow.   
      
   [2] Mr. McCluskey's underlying action seeks a declaration   
   that a number of provisions of what used to be called the   
   Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations,   
   SOR`2016-230 CACMPRu imposing a 150-gram cap on possession   
   and shipping of medical cannabis, regardless of the amount   
   prescribed for medical purposes, offend his rights under   
   sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and   
   Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being   
   Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11.   
      
   [3] By operation of the current legislation and regulations   
   governing medical access to marijuana, Cannabis Act, SC   
   2018, c 16 and Cannabis Regulations, SOR`2018-144, Mr.   
   McCluskey is permitted to use 200 grams of marijuana per   
   day, that is he is the holder of a medical document issued   
   by a provincial health care provider to that effect. I   
   stress that he is permitted this large quantity by operation   
   of these federal provisions and with a medical document or   
   prescription issued by a health care provider of a class   
   authorized by this federal statute and regulation.   
      
   [4] By way of background, Mr. McCluskey's action is one of   
   close to if not over four hundred actions commenced in this   
   Court challenging various provisions of the previous and   
   current statutory and regulatory regimes by which Canadians   
   are permitted to access cannabis for medical purposes. A   
   common feature of these actions is that they are brought by   
   self-represented litigants. Another common feature is that   
   they appear to be drawn from precedents prepared by one John   
   Turmel and found on the World Wide Web.   
      
   [5] By Order dated November 1, 2018, after a case management   
   hearing to discuss how these actions should proceed, I   
   concluded the most efficient course to follow as case   
   management judge was to appoint two plaintiffs with claims   
   similar to that of Mr. McCluskey and others, one of whom is   
   Mr. Harris, as representative or lead plaintiffs. As such, I   
   ordered Mr. Harris and another representative plaintiff, one   
   Raymond Lee Hathaway, action number T-1716-18, to file   
   amended statements of claims, following which the Defendant   
   would bring a motion to strike. The amendments were required   
   because at that time the ACMPR had been repealed and   
   replaced with the Cannabis Regulations, which came into   
   force with the general legalization of cannabis for   
   recreational purposes in 2018.   
      
   JCT: Remember when the Court of Appeal didn't have the true   
   amended Statement of Claim which was "required because at   
   that time the ACMPR had been repealed and replaced with the   
   Cannabis Regulations, which came into force with the general   
   legalization of cannabis for recreational purposes in 2018.   
   Pretty obvious Brown granted the amendment to change from   
   the ACMPR the Court of Appeal thought was under discussion   
   and the Cannabis Regulations!   
      
   J: [6] The same Order provided that no proceedings may be   
   brought by parties in the group of actions, which included   
   Mr. McCluskey, without leave of the Court.   
      
   [7] By Order dated May 7, 2019, in Allan J. Harris v Her   
   Majesty the Queen, 2019 FC 553, I dismissed the Defendant's   
   motion to strike because, in my view, Mr. Harris' claim had   
   some chance of success. In addition, because of the   
   inflexibility of the 150-gram possession and shipping cap   
   and my view that this inflexibility infringed the section 7   
   rights of the representative plaintiffs - who in the case of   
   Mr. Harris could not leave home for more than a day and a   
   half and had to reorder his government sanctioned medical   
   marijuana 20 times a month - I granted an interlocutory   
   constitutional exemption to Mr. Harris, which would also   
   likely be of benefit to Mr. McCluskey who is seeking the   
   same relief as Mr. Harris.   
      
   [8] The Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal dated May 16,   
   2019, in the Federal Court of Appeal seeking the reversal in   
   part of my Order of May 7, 2019. The Defendant also applied   
   for and was granted a stay of material parts of my May 7,   
   2019 Order, by a single judge of the Federal Court of   
   Appeal, Justice David Near.   
      
   [9] Turning to the motion at hand, Mr. McCluskey has filed a   
   great deal of material in support of the essence of his   
   allegation, which I take to be that an acrimonious, hostile   
   and unproductive relationship now exists between Mr.   
   McCluskey and Mr. Harris. This material includes postings on   
   social media by Mr. Harris critical of Mr. McCluskey and   
   insulting to him. For his part, Mr. McCluskey complains that   
   Mr. Harris is a puppet of and is taking improper and perhaps   
   inaccurate alleged legal advice from Mr. Turmel, the alleged   
   author of the web-based kits for instituting such actions.   
      
   [10] The Defendant submits that Mr. McCluskey's request is   
   misplaced, as the Order dated November 1, 2018 did not have   
   the effect of making Mr. Harris or Mr. Turmel legal   
   representatives for Mr. McCluskey. However, while this   
   submission relates to Mr. McCluskey's issues with Mr.   
   Turmel, in my respectful view it is beside the point because   
   it is Mr. Harris' status as representative or lead plaintiff   
   that is in dispute; neither Mr. Harris nor Mr. Turmel were   
   appointed "legal representatives."   
      
   JCT: And yet Scott will keep screaming that Jeff did do his   
   due legal representation.   
      
   J: [11] I agree with Mr. McCluskey that Mr. Harris' posts   
   and other comments demonstrate that Mr. Harris is now   
   antagonistic to Mr. McCluskey. The reciprocal complaints   
   about Mr. Harris by Mr. McCluskey compound the matter. While   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)