From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Bad news but it doesn't affect anyone else yet. There   
   is recourse.   
      
   Date: 20190918   
   Docket: A-258-18   
   Citation: 2019 FCA 232   
      
   CORAM: WEBB J.A.   
   NEAR J.A.   
   DE MONTIGNY J.A.   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                         ALLAN J. HARRIS   
                                                     Appellant   
                               and   
                    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA   
                                                    Respondent   
      
   Heard at Vancouver, British Columbia, on June 27, 2019.   
   Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 18,   
   2019.   
      
   REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: WEBB J.A.   
   CONCURRED IN BY: NEAR J.A., DE MONTIGNY J.A.   
      
                       REASONS FOR JUDGMENT   
      
   WEBB J.A.   
      
   J: [1] The issue in this appeal is whether the amended   
   statement of claim, as filed by Mr. Harris with the Federal   
   Court, should be struck. Mr. Harris is seeking certain   
   declarations and unspecified damages related to the Access   
   to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations, SOR/2016-230   
   (ACMPR) (which were repealed on October 17, 2018 by   
   SOR/2018-147, s. 33).   
      
   JCT: No, amended to Cannabis Act & Regulations   
      
   J: The Crown had brought a motion to strike his statement of   
   claim. The Federal Court (2018 FC 765) allowed the motion in   
   part and struck the parts of the statement of claim related   
   to Mr. Harris' allegation that the ACMPR, in effect,   
   shortchanged his right to a permit to grow cannabis but   
   otherwise dismissed the Crown's motion.   
      
   JCT: Short-changed not "his right" but "his period" of   
   permit..   
      
   J: [2] Mr. Harris filed an appeal in relation to the parts   
   of his statement of claim that were struck.   
      
   JCT: The ruling that the time asked to be restituted was too   
   trivial a damage to warrant Charter protection and our   
   appeal that it was too trivial to tell them to add it back   
   to be denied.   
      
   J: The Crown filed a cross-appeal in relation to the parts   
   of the statement of claim that were not struck.   
      
   JCT: Notice they had not appealed the decision but only   
   cross-appealed at the last minute.   
      
   J: [3] For the reasons that follow, I would allow the   
   Crown's cross-appeal and dismiss Mr. Harris' appeal. As a   
   result, I would strike the amended statement of claim.   
      
   I. Background   
      
   [4] Mr. Harris filed a short amended statement of claim with   
   the Federal Court. It appears to be based on a form that was   
   copied from the Internet and it includes optional paragraphs   
   that do not apply to Mr. Harris. For example, the paragraph   
   identified as number 5 is marked as "optional for renewers".   
   None of the blanks in this paragraph have been filled in by   
   Mr. Harris.   
      
   JCT: So Harris did not tick the "optional for renewers" and   
   is therefore not a renewer complaining about slow renewal,   
   only an applicant complaining about slow registration.   
      
   J: [5] In paragraph 1, Mr. Harris indicates that he is   
   seeking:   
       A) a declaration that the long processing time for   
       Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations   
       ("ACMPR") Production Registrations and Renewals violates   
       the patient's S. 7 Charter Right to Life, Liberty,   
       Security with no principle of fundamental justice such   
       as war or emergency to necessitate and absolve such   
       violations; and claims remedy in unspecified damages   
       under S. 24 of the Charter in the amount of the value of   
       the Applicant's prescription during any delay which this   
       Court may rule inappropriate for a reasonable processing   
       time for Registrations for medication, and   
      
   JCT: Notice the claim says nothing about any renewal. And   
   that's the very first un-amended version of the Statement of   
   Claim. The new Amended Statement of Claim says:   
       A) a declaration that the long processing time for   
       Production Registrations under the Cannabis Act &   
       Regulations violates the patient's S.7 Charter Right to   
       Life, Liberty, Security not in accordance with   
       principles of fundamental justice to not be arbitrary,   
       grossly disproportional, conscience-shocking,   
       incompetent, malevolent; and claims remedy in   
       unspecified damages under S.24 of the Charter in the   
       amount of the value of the Applicant's prescription and   
       lost site rent and expenses during any delay which this   
       Court may rule inappropriate for a reasonable processing   
       time for Registrations for medication.   
      
   JCT: The Crown gave them the wrong unamended version! During   
   the course of the actions, every time we were told that   
   something was missing, I changed the Statement of Claim to   
   add it. The latest seventh version is delsc7! The next will   
   be delsc8!   
      
       J: B) a declaration that back-dating the period of   
       Registration and Renewal from the Effective Date for   
       Registration or Expiry Date for Renewals as under the   
       MMAR to the date the doctor signed under the ACMPR   
       violates the patient's S. 7 Charter Rights and claims   
       remedy for the full term of the prescription to take   
       effect on the Effective Date of the Registration and on   
       the Expiry Date of a Renewed Registration like the   
       Health Card, Driver's License and MMAR.   
       (underlining in the original document)   
      
   [6] Mr. Harris provides very few facts as support for this   
   claim.   
      
   JCT: But Judge Brown said there were enough.   
      
   J: The only facts that are identified in his amended   
   statement of claim and that are applicable to him are:   
        - he had a medical document to use cannabis for medical   
   purposes under the ACMPR;   
        - he submitted an application under the ACMPR for   
   registration to grow cannabis for medical purposes on June   
   11, 2017;   
        - his registration was received with an effective date   
   of October 11, 2017 and an expiry date of March 23, 2018;   
        - ten data fields (which presumably are from the   
   application form that he submitted under the ACMPR) are   
   identified; and   
        - under the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations   
   (SOR/2001-227 - repealed - SOR/2013-119, s. 267), the time   
   to process an application was shorter and the registration   
   began on the effective date of issuance, while under the   
   ACMPR the time to process an application was longer and the   
   registration was backdated to the date that the doctor   
   signed the medical document.   
      
   JCT: So, those are the facts for the two issues: A) delay of   
   medication and B) short-changing the period of exemption.   
   All the facts were about the period of exemption his permit   
   was good for showing the back-dating and that he got just   
   over 5 months.   
      
   J: [7] Mr. Harris refers to additional facts that are not   
   applicable to him. For example, he refers to a period of 30   
   weeks (and over 6 months) to process an application, but his   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)