From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: When Judge Brown granted Jeff Harris the chance to   
   strike down the 150-gram medpot cap retaining the old MMAR   
   30=day carry limit and an interim   
   exemption to possess a 10-day supply as granted to 4   
   plaintiffs in the B.C. Garber case, the Crown appealed.   
      
   Then the Court of Appeal said Brown was wrong to follow   
   Garber and overturned his interim 10-day carry order and   
   kill his allowing the challenge to the 150-gram cap.   
      
   As long as Jeff sent in his Application for Leave to Appeal   
   to the Supreme Court of Canada on time, any errors are   
   fixable.   
      
   So it was received by the Court on last day Nov 13 but they   
   wrote back saying it can't be filed until we fix a few   
   errors and omissions, two of which are teaching me something   
   new.   
      
   Supreme Court of Canada   
      
   December 15, 2020   
      
   Allan J. Harris   
      
   Dear Mr. Harris,   
      
        RE: Allan J. Harris  v. Her Majesty the Queen   
      
   This will acknowledge receipt of your application for leave   
   to appeal materials on November 13, 2020. After careful   
   evaluation, we determined that your application cannot   
   be assigned a file number until you provide the documents   
   checked below:   
   Please note that all documents filed must be served on the   
   other parties.   
      
       ?  An amended notice of application for leave to appeal,   
       citing the correct section of law under which the   
       application for leave to appeal is made.   
      
   JCT: In the past applications, it said:   
      
   (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   which says:   
       Application for Leave to Appeal   
       25 (1) An application for leave to appeal shall be bound   
       and consist of the following, in the following order:   
       (a) a notice of application for leave to appeal in Form   
       25, citing the legislative provision that authorizes the   
       application for leave to appeal;   
      
   JCT: So S.25 is the enabling rule for the Application but   
   it's not the enabling section that lets us appeal. No other   
   clerk ever mentioned that the Notice was different from the   
   Application before.   
      
   So the enabling section here is S.40.1 of the Supreme Court   
   Act:   
       Appeals with leave of Supreme Court   
       40 (1) Subject to subsection (3), an appeal lies to the   
       Supreme Court from any final or other judgment of the   
       Federal Court of Appeal...   
      
   JCT: So only 1 line change on the 2-page Notice from:   
   (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
   to   
   (Pursuant to Section 40 of the Supreme Court Act)   
      
   It makes sense that though many other applications got   
   through without the Rule 25 from the Application being noted   
   on the Notice too, it makes sense that S.40 is the enabling   
   section for the appeal. So easily fixed and I won't make   
   that mistake in any future appeals.   
      
       ? Public Access to Information Form.   
      
   JCT: This is new. I never saw it in the list of things to be   
   filed. When I called the Registry, the clerk admitted that   
   the form basically states the same "no publication ban" as   
   Form 23a. So a simple 1-pager for Jeff to sign, serve, send.   
      
       ? A motion for extension of time to serve and file the   
       application for leave to appeal.   
      
   JCT: Funny but we've not needed an extension of time in   
   other cases to perfect an imperfect application that was   
   received on time. But easily done.   
      
   But why not first let Jeff submit the required new Notice   
   and Form with a letter asking if it's really necessary for   
   an the extension of time when he was in on time.   
      
   Good chance the Registrar may say: why bother when it's now   
   been perfected. But if he insists, no problem. But have to   
   try to minimize runaround.   
      
   These decisions by Justice Henry Brown have been the   
   greatest decisions we could have ever imagined. Sad to see   
   him overturned by a slower crowd of higher judges. Imagine   
   overturning him for following Garber without ever saying   
   anything was wrong with Garber!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)