From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Jeff Harris filed a claim for (A) damages due to short-   
   staffing delays in processing permits.   
      
   Then the template was changed to include the claim for (B)   
   restitution of the time off the full period ripped off by   
   back-dating and Igor was first to file it. Jeff was then   
   granted leave to amend his claim to include the (B).   
      
   The Crown filed motions to strike both their claims. In   
   Harris, Judge Brown let the damages claims in but not the   
   restitution claims. Then applied his decision to Mozajko.   
      
   Jeff appealed for (B) restitution of full term and the Crown   
   cross-appealed for (A) strike the damages claim. Then the   
   Crown filed an appeal against letting the (A) damages claims   
   in and Igor cross-appealed against throwing the (B) back-   
   dating claims out.   
      
   Jeff's appeal for (B) full term was dismissed and the   
   Crown's appeal against not striking the claims was granted.   
   But Igor now had the chance to respond to weaknesses the   
   Harris Court of Appeal had cited in his own appeal trying to   
   overturn the Harris appeal.   
      
   Today, he filed his Memorandum of 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 MEMORANDUM   
      
   WHEREAS this appeal has exactly the same facts but for the   
   grow permit's dates of application, issuance and expiry as   
   the Harris v. HMTQ appeal (Appeal File No.: A-258-18) which   
   was dismissed on Sep 18 2019, but presents different   
   arguments to counter that decision, Respondent/Cross-   
   Appellant moves the Chief Justice of this Court to Order a   
   5-judge panel to hear this appeal. While the judicial comity   
   generally requires that the court follow its prior decisions   
   on questions of law, it may depart from a prior decision   
   where there are cogent reasons for doing so to overturn a   
   previous decision of the court that is manifestly wrong. One   
   would expect a 3-judge panel to be more reticent about   
   overturning another 3-judge panel's decision than if they   
   were a 5-judge panel with no question on not having their   
   jurisdiction bound by stare decisis, issue estoppel or   
   judicial comity.   
      
   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 6-month 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 than 4 months, I received   
   the "1-year" permit effective date Jan 09 2018 that was   
   back-dated to Sep 02 2017 for expiry after 12 months on Sep   
   02 2018. Just over 11 months to get 7 months authorized out   
   of 18 months that were prescribed. Almost one year lost.   
      
   4. On May 31 2013, the time to process an application to   
   produce marijuana under the MMAR, was touted before Mr.   
   Justice Roy by Dr. Stephane Lessard, Controlled Substances   
   and Tobacco Directorate, as "done in under 4 weeks."   
      
   5. Since August 2017, more than 300 self-represented   
   plaintiffs have filed virtually identical statements of   
   claim in the Federal Court based on "kits" downloaded from   
   the website of medical cannabis activist John Turmel,   
   seeking (A) a declaration that the over-long processing time   
   for registration to produce cannabis under the Access To   
   Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations ("ACMPR") violates   
   the plaintiffs' rights under section 7 of the Canadian   
   Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"). The claims also   
   seek damages under s. 24(1) "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."   
      
   6. The claims are being collectively case-managed by the   
   Honourable Mr. Justice Brown. By Orders dated November 24   
   and December 11, 2017, Brown J. designated the action of   
   Allan J. Harris with Court File No. T-l379-17 as the lead   
   action, and ordered that the other actions be held in   
   abeyance with no further proceedings permitted without leave   
   of the Court, pending final determination of the lead   
   action. Judge Brown allowed the amendment of the Lead   
   Plaintiff's claim.   
      
   7. Lead Plaintiff Allan J. Harris submitted an initial   
   application for registration to produce cannabis on June 11,   
   2017. After 13 weeks, he filed the present "Turmel Kit"   
   Statement of Claim on September 11, 2017. The Registration   
   was granted on Oct 11 2017 and expired on March 23 2018, 5.5   
   months later. At a preliminary hearing, Mr. Justice Brown   
   also ordered Defendant to explain the back-dating of permits   
   under S.8(2b) to shorten the period of exemption in any   
   motion to strike as frivolous or vexatious compared to the   
   old MMAR S.33(a) that started the permit when issued.   
      
   8. On Jan 17 2018, I filed a Statement of Claim for (A)   
   Damages for the undue delay and for (B) a declaration that   
   the "backdating" of registration certificates pursuant to   
   ACMPR S.8(2b): "The period of use begins on the day on which   
   the medical document is signed by the practitioner" violates   
   section 7 so patients never get a full term, and an order   
   that the plaintiffs' registration certificates remain valid   
   for the full period of time indicated in the medical   
   document pursuant to MMAR S.33(a): "A personal-use   
   production licence expires (a) 12 months after its date of   
   issue."   
      
   9. On March 2 2018, Health Canada issued three Class   
   Exemptions under s.56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances   
   Act (Supplementary Appeal Book TabS 1/2/3) Despite there   
   being no mention of any exemption from S.8(2b) in those   
   orders on Page 7 of Exhibit A of Canada's motion to strike,   
   it was heralded as changing the start from ACMPR S.8(2b)   
   when the doctor signed back to MMAR S.33(a), when the permit   
   was issued.   
      
   10. 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!   
      
   11. Canada filed a motion to strike the Mozajko claim as   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)