From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: The Crown is trying to get the Court to dismiss   
   everyone's actions because the judge had named Jeff Harris   
   as Lead Plaintiff and his case was thrown out by the Court   
   of Appeal. But Igor Mozajko has his own case and is pointing   
   out the errors in Harris. But the Crown still wants the   
   Court to dismiss before Mozajko is heard. Steve replied:   
      
   Steve Vetricek   
   Feb 24 2020   
      
   Dear Registrar   
      
        Re: VETRICEK, Steve v. HMTQ File No: T-1371-18   
      
   Could you please place this response to the Defendant's   
   Feb 20 2020 reply to my Jan 20 and Jan 30 2020 filings   
   before the Case Management Judge Brown.   
      
   1. The Defendant argues:   
       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.   
      
   2. I am not yet not relying on the new facts of the latest   
   plaintiffs, I'm relying on Mozajko proving those new facts   
   are not even needed. Should his appeal court adjudge those   
   new facts necessary, I would then ask that my claim be   
   deemed amended to replicate the claims of new plaintiffs.   
      
   3. Crown states:   
       the latest claims by other plaintiffs since October 2019   
       do not address the defects noted by the Federal Court of   
       Appeal in Harris.   
      
   4. No court has yet ruled on whether the suggested defects   
   are addressed by the latest amendment.   
      
   5. The Defendant argues:   
       the plaintiff has identified no error in the Harris   
       appeal decision that would warrant a different result in   
       Mozajko.   
      
   6. I have not identified any errors in the Harris appeal   
   decision because Mozajko's Memorandum is due to be filed by   
   Feb 28 2020 that will identify those errors:   
   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 ruled delays in medication violate rights;   
   3) Plaintiffs 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) Seek restitution of full period.   
   7) No Notice of Constitutional Question! Two Justices   
   Pelletier and Gauthier on the Harris "150-gram cap" appeal   
   court raised the issue that there had been no Notice of   
   Constitutional Question for the Crown motion to strike a   
   constitutional claim. Justice Gauthier said: "The   
   constitutionality must be argued to some extent if the Crown   
   says the claim of unconstitutionality is frivolous." The   
   Crown saying that the facts do not show a constitutional   
   violation is as constitutional an argument as me saying that   
   the facts do show a constitutional violation.   
      
   7. Defendant argues:   
       The Federal Court of Appeal struck the Harris claim on   
       the grounds...that the requested declarations concerning   
       the former ACMPR were in any event meaningless.   
      
   8. Though this is true, the Appeal Book did not contain the   
   amended Statement of Claim which this court allowed to refer   
   to the Cannabis Act and Regulations instead of the ACMPR.   
      
   9. Crown states:   
       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.   
      
   10. Though true that all the latest claims refer to the   
   right regime, so do many of the earlier claims since the   
   amendment for the Lead Plaintiff's amendment was granted and   
   the template was then upgraded. I'm hoping my action is   
   deemed amended as the Lead Plaintiff's claim was amended.   
      
   11. Defendant argues:   
       that the Federal Court rules to not permit him to make   
       submissions on behalf of others.   
      
   12. Now that Mr. Harris has been removed as Lead Plaintiff,   
   I would submit that since I am the only plaintiff who has   
   filed a response, I should be named Lead Plaintiff and, as   
   with Harris, what happens to my action may apply to the   
   actions of the others.   
      
   13. Defendant argues:   
       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.   
      
   14. It also mentions they want their own strains without   
   pesticides and irradiation.   
      
   15. Defendant states:   
       but still do not contain facts to explain show how the   
       alleged inability to access medication engages the   
       plaintiff's life, liberty or security of the person.   
      
   15. Mozajko is raising the Chaoulli precedent that delays in   
   medication violate rights so he shouldn't have to prove it   
   again.   
      
   16. Defendant argues:   
       the new facts do not show that the registration-   
       processing time in each plaintiff's case is not in   
       accordance with the principles of fundamental justice..   
      
   17. No new facts are needed to show that the registration-   
   processing time is not in accordance with the principles of   
   fundamental justice, just the dates of medical   
   authorization, issuance, and expiry. Affordability should be   
   irrelevant. The claims do state the extra time delay is not   
   in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.   
      
   18. Defendant cites:   
       The Harris appeal decision also notes that production   
       necessarily involves delay while waiting for plants to   
       mature and produce a useable product. As in Harris, the   
       new claims contain no facts to explain how the   
       additional delay associated with the registration   
       process violates each plaintiff's S.7 rights.   
      
   19. Mozajko has challenged the notion that inevitable   
   systemic delay mitigates extra waiting due to bureaucratic   
   short-staffing inefficiencies.   
      
   20. Crown notes:   
       By orders dated Nov 24 and Dec 11, 2017, this Court   
       stayed the other claims pending Harris, and ordered that   
       determinations made in the Harris claim "shall be used   
       to determine" the remaining actions. The Harris claim   
       having been struck, the plaintiff now requests that the   
       Court further stay his claim pending the Mozajko appeal.   
       This request should be refused.   
       The Mozajko claim is substantially identical to the   
       Harris claim, and Mr. Mozajko has acknowledged that the   
       issues on appeal are similarly identical.   
      
   21. Though the Crown exhibit relies on a March 13 2019   
   statement that the issues on appeal were similarly identical   
   with those of Harris, the fact a new Memorandum has been   
   allowed should rebut any notion that with the same issues   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)