From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Crown Jon Bricker informed Igor and the Court that he   
   couldn't attend today's Nov 13 hearing and it's been put   
   off.   
      
   Fascinatingly, the Crown started a special motion to   
   dismiss against Igor Mozajko and that gave us a second track   
   to raise the Harris issues when Jeff's was dismissed and   
   point out their errors at their own level before Jeff takes   
   the points to the Supreme Court. The funniest point is that   
   they didn't even deal with the Question of the appeal!!!   
      
   Igor filed this last week and Jeff files in the Supreme   
   Court next week virtually the same arguments!   
      
   Court File No.: A-339-18   
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                      Appellant   
                                     Respondent in Cross-Appeal   
                               and   
                           IGOR MOZAJKO   
                                                     Respondent   
                                                Cross-Appellant   
      
       RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM   
      
   PART I - FACTS   
      
   1. On Jan 24 2017, Plaintiff obtained a Medical Document   
   under the ACMPR for an Authorization to grow cannabis for   
   medical purposes for a period of 6 months.   
      
   2. Under the MMAR, the 6-month period began on the Effective   
   Date the permit was issued. Under the ACMPR, it is back-   
   dated to the date the doctor signed the medical document.   
   The Authorization was not processed by the July 24 2017   
   expiry date of the medical document and I had to obtain a   
   new medical document and start over.   
      
   3. On Sep 02 2017, Applicant submitted a second medical   
   document for 12 months. After more 4 months, I received the   
   "1-year" permit effective date Jan 09 2018 that was back-   
   dated to Sep 02 2017 for expiry on Sep 02 2018. Just over 11   
   months to get 8 months authorized out of 18 months that were   
   prescribed. Almost one year gone.   
      
   4. On May 31 2013, under the MMAR, the time to process an   
   application to produce marijuana was touted before Mr.   
   Justice Roy by Dr. Stephane Lessard, Controlled Substances   
   and Tobacco Directorate, as "done in under 4 weeks."   
      
   5. On Jan 17 2018, I filed a Statement of Claim for (A)   
   Damages for the undue delay and for (B) Restitution of the   
   time short-changed. As many others had also filed the same   
   template, Allan J. Harris was named Lead Plaintiff T-1379-17   
   by case-management Judge Brown.   
      
   6. On Jan 26 2018, after filing a motion to strike the   
   Statement of Claim of the Lead Plaintiff, the Defendant   
   filed a motion to strike my Statement of Claim.   
      
   7. On March 2 2018, Health Canada reverted to starting the   
   period of the permits on the date of issuance and no longer   
   short-changing patients. But patients registered before Mar   
   2 2018 remained short-changed. I lost over 11 months on my   
   18-months of medical prescription and sought its restitution   
   immediately or added to my next permit!   
      
   8. On July 20 2018, Justice Brown dismissed the motion to   
   strike the Harris (A) Damages claim but did strike the (B)   
   Restitution claim as too trivial for Charter relief.   
      
   9. On Oct 2 2018, Judge Brown adopted his reasons for the   
   Harris decision to allow the (A) Damages claim but strike   
   the (B) Restitution claim.   
      
   10. Harris appealed the dismissal of the claim for the (B)   
   Restitution and the Defendant cross-appealed the dismissal   
   of the motion to strike the claim for (A) Damages. In   
   Mozajko, Defendant appealed the dismissal of the motion to   
   strike the (A) remedy and Mozajko then cross-appealed the   
   dismissal of the (B) remedy.   
      
   11. Given that the issues raised were the same as those of   
   Appellant Allan J. Harris (Appeal File No.: A-258-18),   
   Respondent/Cross-Appellant herein adopted that Memorandum.   
      
   12. On Sep 18 2019, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed   
   the Harris appeal for (B) Restitution and granted the Crown   
   appeal to strike his (A) Damages claim.   
      
   13. My Respondent/Cross-Appellant's Supplementary Memorandum   
   deals with issues that may not have been addressed in the   
   Harris Memorandum.   
      
   PART II - ISSUES:   
      
   A) RESPONDENT'S REMEDY (A) ISSUES:   
   1) RIGHT TO GROW ESTABLISHED BY LEGISLATION   
   2) AFFORDABILITY AND STRAINS ALTERNATIVES   
   3) INEVITABLE DELAY V. ADDITIONAL DELAY   
   4) ACMPR v. CANNABIS ACT & REGULATIONS   
      
   B) CROSS-APPELLANT'S REMEDY (B) ISSUE:   
   1) (B) RESTITUTION REMEDY APPEAL WAS NOT ADJUDGED   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENTS   
      
   A) RESPONDENT'S REMEDY (A) ISSUES:   
      
   1) RIGHT TO GROW ESTABLISHED BY LEGISLATION   
      
   14. The Harris Court of Appeal stated:   
       [9] Based on this amended statement of claim, the   
       Federal Court judge, in paragraph 33 of his reasons,   
       started with the proposition that Mr. Harris:   
            has the right to a permit to grow marijuana for   
            medical purposes if he satisfies the criteria of a   
            Charter-compliant permit regime established under   
            the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act [S.C. 1996,   
            c. 19] and Narcotic Control Regulations [C.R.C., c.   
            1041]. This right has been confirmed by the Supreme   
            Court of Canada, in addition to the Federal Court   
            and various Superior Courts.   
       [16] Neither party provided any authority that would   
       support the proposition that Mr. Harris has a   
       constitutional right to grow his own cannabis.   
      
   15. Respondent accepts that no court before Justice Brown   
   has explicitly declared a right to grow. But on the right to   
   a permit to grow, the Harris Memorandum on Cross-Appeal   
   says:   
       13. Maybe those courts do not so clearly recognize a   
       constitutional right for patients to produce cannabis   
       but the new Cannabis Regulations does say the Minister   
       "must register" an applicant who met the requirements:   
            Registration with Minister   
            313(1) If the requirements set out in section 312   
            are met, the Minister must, subject to section 317,   
            register the applicant and issue them a   
            registration certificate.   
       14. If the Minister must register the qualified   
       applicant, then the qualified applicant has the right to   
       what the Minister must do. It's persuasive that the   
       Allard and Smith Courts interpret "must" in the same   
       way.   
      
   16. Judge Brown is the first court to proclaim an explicit   
   right to grow which the Minister "must" do for a qualified   
   patient. That other courts have found only an implicit right   
   to grow is not persuasive when the legislation itself   
   clearly enshrines the right to a grow permit.   
      
   2) AFFORDABILITY AND STRAINS ALTERNATIVES   
      
   17. The Harris Court wrote:   
       14... There is nothing in his statement of claim to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)