From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: So Steve got the Crown's Reply to his Response   
   challenging the motion to dismiss his action based on the   
   Harris decision in order to wait for the Mozajko appeal.   
      
   Department of Justice   
   Feb 20 2020   
   VIA FAX   
      
   Federal Court   
      
   CR: Dear Sir/Madam:   
      
   Re: Steve Vetricek v. HMTQ T-1371-18   
      
   Further to the Directions dated Dec 16 2019 and Jan 23 2020,   
   in this matter, August 21 2018, please accept the following   
   as the reply submissions of the defendant "Canada". We ask   
   you kindly place this letter before the case management   
   judge, the Honourable Mr. Justice Brown.   
      
   Overview   
      
   On Sep 18 2019, the Federal Court of Appeal struck the claim   
   in Allan J. Harris v. Canada ("Harris"), without leave to   
   amend, with costs. On Dc 16 2019, this Court invited the   
   plaintiffs in several related matters to make submissions by   
   Jan 21 2020 as to why their claims should not be dismissed   
   for the reasons given in the Harris appeal.   
      
   Of the plaintiffs, only the plaintiff in Steve Vetricek v.   
   HMTQ has filed submissions opposing the dismissal of his   
   claim. However, as detailed below, he has failed to show why   
   his claim should not be dismissed. In submissions dated Jan   
   20 2020, the plaintiff notes that others have recently filed   
   claims containing additional facts. However, these facts are   
   not contained in the plaintiff's own claim containing   
   additional facts.   
      
   JCT: Mozajko is arguing those additional facts we put in   
   that the Court said was needed are not really needed. Enough   
   to know the submission, issuance and expiry dates on a   
   question of whether a period was too long. So we put them in   
   in case they're needed, not because we accept they are when   
   we are challenging that they are.   
      
   CR: However, these facts are not contained in the   
   plaintiff's own claim and they are in any event insufficient   
   to address the defects noted by the Federal Court of Appeal   
   in Harris   
      
   JCT: A box to tick saying: I can't afford L.P.s isn't   
   acceptable to show there are no reasonable alternatives   
   during the unconscionable delay.   
      
   CR: The plaintiff also suggests that his claim should not be   
   struck while HMQ v. Igor Mozajko ("Mozajko") is outstanding.   
   However, the issues in the Mozajko appeal are identical to   
   those in the Harris appeal,   
      
   JCT: But the arguments aren't.   
      
   CR: and the plaintiff has identified no error in the Harris   
   appeal decision that would warrant a different result in   
   Mozajko. The plaintiff's claim should accordingly be struck.   
      
   JCT: Actually, Mozajko identified several errors of law in   
   his upcoming Memorandum:   
      
   1) The right to grow is established by the right to a grow   
   permit from S.33 of the Cannabis Regulations;   
   2) There are sufficient facts to establish the delay and   
   Chaoulli is precedent that delays in medication violate   
   rights;   
   3) Should not need to show alternatives   
   4) Inevitable delay v objectionable additional delay   
   5) Court of Appeal had wrong Statement of Claim with ACMPR,   
   not the latest Cannabis Act format.   
   6) Want restitution of full period. We won't mention the   
   Harris Court missed and only raise it now.   
   7) Both Harris 150-gram cap appeal court justices Pelletier   
   and Gauthier raised the issue that there was no Notice of   
   Constitutional Question for their motion to strike a   
   constitutional claim. Seems that in moving to strike a S.52   
   claim of constitutional violation, Notice of Constitutional   
   Question should be given. The constitutionality must be   
   argued to some extent if the Crown says my claim of   
   unconstitutionality is frivolous, said Judge Gauthier. The   
   Crown saying that the facts do not show a constitutional   
   violation is as constitutional as me saying that the facts   
   do show a constitutional violation.   
      
   Wow, what a technicality Igor gets to raise. So lots of   
   reversible error.   
      
   And Igor is asking for a 5-judge panel with jurisdiction to   
   over-rule the Harris 3-judge panel.   
      
   CR: The recent claims by others do not assist the plaintiff   
      
   The Federal Court of Appeal struck the Harris claim on the   
   grounds that the facts pleaded were insufficient to support   
   a claim based on S.7 of the Charter, and that the requested   
   declarations concerning the former ACMPR were in any event   
   meaningless.   
      
   JCT: The Crown is aware that this Court did permit the   
   amendment of the Harris Statement of Claim to switch   
   "Cannabis Act & Regulations" for "ACMPR." I would hope that   
   the amendments of the Lead Plaintiff's claim upon which my   
   claim depends would also extend to me.   
      
   CR: In his Jan 20 submissions, the plaintiff notes that   
   others have recently filed claims that contain additional   
   facts and seek declarations concerning the current Cannabis   
   Regulations rather than the former ACMPR.   
      
   JCT: No, Lead Plaintiff's Claim was amended from the former   
   ACMPR to the latest Cannabis Regulations, I'm hoping mine is   
   deemed amended too, not just these new plaintiffs!   
      
   CR: However the plaintiff's own claim, which pleads a bare   
   violation of his right to "life," does not contain these   
   additional facts and seeks declarations concerning only the   
   former regulations.   
      
   JCT: Again, Steve presumes the Harris ACMPR amendment   
   applies to his claim and hopes Mozajko wins the point those   
   new facts on not affordable alternatives are not needed.   
      
   CR: It is not open to the plaintiff to rely on facts alleged   
   by others in support of his own claim.   
      
   JCT: He's not relying on the new facts, he's relying on   
   Mozajko proving those new facts aren't even needed.   
      
   CR: To the extent he is instead suggesting that the other   
   claims should be allowed to proceed, the Federal Court rules   
   to not permit him to make submissions on behalf of others.   
      
   JCT: But the Court could make Steve the new Lead Plaintiff!   
      
   CR: In any event, the facts in the recent claims are   
   insufficient to address the defects noted by the Federal   
   Court of Appeal in Harris. The only additional "facts" in   
   the new claims are two check-boxes in which a plaintiff may   
   indicate either that they cannot afford commercially   
   produced cannabis or that they want to avoid taxes and   
   shipping costs.   
      
   JCT: And get their own strains without pesticides and   
   irradiation.   
      
   CR: However, the claims do not contain facts to explain how   
   the alleged inability to access cannabis engages the   
   plaintiff's life, liberty or security of the person,   
      
   JCT: Chaoulli precedent that medication delays violate   
   rights and we've proven medication delays, not how the   
   delays have violated rights.   
      
   CR: or show that the registration-processing time in each   
   plaintiff's case is not in accordance with the principles of   
   fundamental justice.   
      
   JCT: That's what the claims are about, that the extra delay   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)