From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   Jct: Crown wants Judge Brown to make everyone file documentation before   
   Igor's appeal is heard:   
      
   Ministry of Justice   
      
   Dec 3, 2019   
   VIA FAX   
      
   Federal Court   
      
   CR: Dear Sir/Madam:   
      
   re:  Igor Mozajkov. HMTQ T-92-18 and A-339-18   
      
   We write on behalf of the defendant, HMTQ ("Canada"). We ask   
   that you kindly place this letter before the case-management   
   judge in these matters, the Honorable Mr. Justice Brown.   
      
   In his letter dated Nov 29 2019, the plaintiff, Igor   
   Mozajko, suggests that the Federal Court of Appeal "omit[ed]   
   adjudicating the Remedy (B) issue" in its decision in Harris   
   v. Canada (the "Harris appeal decision").   
      
   This appears to be a reference to paragraph 1(B) of Mr.   
   Mozajko's Statement of Claim which seeks declarations   
   concerning the alleged "backdating" of registration   
   certificates under the former ACMPR.   
      
   However, Mr. Mozajko is incorrect to suggest that the   
   Federal Court of Appeal did not determine this issue in its   
   Harris appeal decision. The backdating issue was the focus   
   of Mr. Harris' appeal   
      
   At paragraphs 19-20, the Federal Court of Appeal concluded   
   that the facts pleaded were insufficient to support a claim   
   concerning either the registration-processing time or the   
   backdating issues.   
      
   At paragraph 21, the Court also noted that the ACMPR have   
   now been repealed and that any declaration concerning   
   backdating issue would accordingly be meaningless. The Court   
   dismissed Mr. Harris' appeal and struck the portions of his   
   claim concerning the registration-processing time and   
   backdating issues without leave to amend.   
      
   As there is no reason to believe that the Federal Court of   
   Appeal will depart from this decision in Mr. Mozajko's case,   
   we reiterate the requests for procedral relief contained in   
   our letter of Oct 3 2019.   
   Jon Bricker and Wendy Wright   
      
   JCT: Igor faxed in his response:   
      
   Igor Mozajko   
      
   Monday Dec 10 2019   
      
   VIA EMAIl FACSIMILE   
      
   Federal Court Court Administrator:   
      
   re:  Igor Mozajko. HMTQ T-92-18 and A-339-18   
      
   1. I write in reply to the Defendant's Dec 3 2019 letter   
   requesting procedural relief contained in their letter of   
   Oct 3 2019, such relief for self-represented patients to   
   file documentation in response to the Harris appeal   
   decision.   
      
   2. In the letter dated Dec 8 2019, Canada notes:   
       the plaintiff, Igor Mozajko, suggests that the Federal   
       Court of Appeal "omit[ed] adjudicating the Remedy (B)   
       issue" in its decision in Harris v. Canada (the "Harris   
       appeal decision"). This appears to be a reference to   
       paragraph 1(B) of Mr. Mozajko's Statement of Claim which   
       seeks declarations concerning the alleged "backdating"   
       of registration certificates under the former ACMPR.   
      
   3. Canada omits the Appellant's Appeal Issue for restitution   
   of the full term and in the Court's focus on the   
   Respondent's Cross-Appeal Issue to strike the claims, it   
   omitted the Appellant's Appeal Issue laid out in the Harris   
   Appellant's Memorandum:   
   A) Not all permit short-changing was mooted after March 2;   
   B) Damages not too trivial for remedy to be granted;   
   C) Remedy too trivial not to have been granted.   
      
   4. This Court knows that the backdating was not "alleged"   
   since this Court asked Canada to explain the backdating!   
   Canada responded that their new Class Exemption had stopped   
   the backdating for all new applicants after March 2 2018 and   
   argued that those short-changed by backdating before then   
   needed no restitution since they were not going to be short-   
   changed of the full term any more. This Court rejected that   
   argument.   
      
   5. Canada further states:   
   cites not text that addresses the backdating further states:   
       However, Mr. Mozajko is incorrect to suggest that the   
       Federal Court of Appeal did not determine this issue in   
       its Harris appeal decision.   
       The backdating issue was the focus of Mr. Harris' appeal   
       and is expressly addressed at several points in the   
       Harris appeal decision.   
       At paragraphs 19-20, the Federal Court of Appeal   
       concluded that the facts pleaded were insufficient to   
       support a claim concerning either the registration-   
       processing time or the backdating issues.   
      
   6. No text is cited that addresses backdating because   
   Paragraphs 19-20 contain nothing about the backdating   
   situation at all:   
       [19] However, these facts do not provide any indication   
       of how his "right to life, liberty and security of the   
       person and the right not to be deprived thereof except   
       in accordance with the principles of fundamental   
       justice", as provided in section 7 of the Charter, was   
       engaged. When a person grows his or her own marihuana   
       there will necessarily be a delay for the time that it   
       takes the marihuana plant to mature and produce a   
       useable product. Mr. Harris does not provide any facts   
       as support for his allegation that the additional   
       waiting time of four months for his registration (which   
       would then allow him to grow his own plants) deprived   
       him of his right to "life, liberty and security of the   
       person". There is nothing to indicate that Mr. Harris   
       would not have been otherwise able to obtain marihuana   
       during this waiting period from a person authorized to   
       sell marihuana under the ACMPR.   
       [20] The facts, as alleged by Mr. Harris, are   
       insufficient to support a claim based on section 7 of   
       the Charter in relation to his initial application for   
       registration under the ACMPR.   
      
   7. These paragraphs only deal with the delay of "his initial   
   application for registration under the ACMPR." and did not   
   address the backdating issue.   
      
   8. The Crown continues:   
       At paragraph 21, the Court also noted that the ACMPR   
       have now been repealed and that any declaration   
       concerning backdating issue would accordingly be   
       meaningless. The Court dismissed Mr. Harris' appeal and   
       struck the portions of his claim concerning the   
       registration-processing time and backdating issues   
       without leave to amend.   
      
   9. No text is cited because once again, Paragraph 21 also   
   only deals with the damages from delay situation:   
       [21] In this case, there is also an additional basis for   
       striking that part of Mr. Harris' amended statement of   
       claim related to his requested declarations with respect   
       to the ACMPR. Since these regulations have been   
       repealed, any declaration with respect to these   
       regulations would be meaningless. The Crown, however,   
       did not raise this issue.   
      
   10. Had the Court of Appeal kept in mind the claim for   
   restitution, a declaration that the back-dating under the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)