From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Here is the Notice and Memorandum I prepared for the   
   Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court:   
      
                                          File Number:   
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA   
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)   
   BETWEEN:   
                         Allan J. Harris   
                                                      Applicant   
                                            Appellant in appeal   
                               And   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
      
            NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that Allan H. Harris applies for leave to the   
   Supreme Court of Canada, under Rule 25 of the Supreme Court   
   Rules from the judgment of the Federal Court of Appeal A-   
   175-19 made on July 21 2020 and for an Order:   
      
   A) dismissing the Crown Motion to strike the action;   
      
   B) re-instating the interim constitutional exemption to   
   permit the Applicant to carry a 10-day cannabis supply   
   pending the resolution of the action.   
      
   AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that this application for leave is   
   made on the following grounds:   
      
   1) Respondent failure to give Notice of Constitutional   
   Question;   
   2) Facts were sufficient to show violations;   
   3) Brown J. correct to follow "Garber."   
   Dated at Burnaby on Nov 13 2020   
   __________________________   
   For the Applicant:   
   Allan J. Harris,   
      
                      APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM   
      
   PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   1. Under the MMAR, medpot exemptees could possess and   
   transport a 30-day supply just like any heavy narcotic.   
      
   2. Upon enactment of the MMPR, the same 30-day carry was   
   retained but a 150-gram cap was added thereby causing a new   
   distinction between low-dose and high-dose patients where   
   the days of supply limited by the cap is determined by the   
   equation: Cap (grams) / Dose (grams/day) = # days   
      
   3. If patients can carry a 30-day supply of Methadone or   
   Vicodin or any heavy narcotic, why the distinction for   
   cannabis? Why do all other drug users get to carry a 30-day   
   supply but some cannabis users get to carry less?   
      
   4. Pending the adjudication of the "Allard" action to strike   
   the MMPR, Federal Court Justice Manson extended the MMAR but   
   imposed the 150-gram cap on MMAR patients. Parliament did   
   not impose the new cap, Judge Manson did. Then, in striking   
   the MMPR, Judge Phelan kept the 150-gram cap imposed on MMAR   
   patients by Justice Manson. The cap was then retained in the   
   later ACMPR legislation and is herein now challenged under   
   the Cannabis Regulations regime.   
      
   5. In the B.C. Supreme Court Garber challenge to the 150-   
   gram cap, Chief Justice Cullen granted constitutional   
   exemptions to possess and ship a 10-day supply to 4 high-   
   dose applicants.   
      
   6. Applicant, with other plaintiffs, used a template for an   
   action to strike the 150-gram cap leaving only the old 30-   
   day cap. As Lead Plaintiff, Applicant moved for an interim   
   remedy for the same 10-day carry as granted the Garbers   
   pending the adjudication of the action for the old MMAR 30-   
   day supply cap.   
      
   7. The Crown filed a motion to strike for no cause of action   
   due to insufficient facts and opposed the motion for 10-day   
   interim relief. The Crown failed to file a Notice of   
   Constitutional Question to strike a constitutional action.   
      
   8. On May May 7 2019, Judge Brown dismissed the Crown motion   
   to strike the action and, citing the Garber precedent,   
   granted Harris the same interim 10-day cap on possession and   
   shipping ruling:   
       [28] Harris submits (for himself and others, a point to   
       which I will return) their claims raise sufficient   
       facts. While the Defendant criticizes their alleged   
       "dearth" of facts, the Plaintiffs submit the real issue   
       is whether the facts are "enough" to support the   
       essential elements of the constitutional causes of   
       action. The facts in the Harris claim are the same   
       necessary facts found sufficient in Garber: (a) the   
       Plaintiff has a medical authorization for (b) 100 grams   
       per day meaning he cannot carry enough for more than 1.5   
       days away from home and needs 20 costly couriers a month,   
       240 per year. These were the same facts relied upon by   
       Garber plaintiff Boivin (who likewise had permission to use   
       100 grams per day) which was sufficient to establish a   
       possible violation of Boivin's section 7 and 15 rights.   
      
       [63] In effect Harris is under a form of home arrest   
       brought about solely because of the inadequately low   
       cumulative total possession limit manifesting itself in   
       the circumstances of his particular case. With respect,   
       this is an injustice, and more to the point on the   
       motion to strike, this fact likely establishes a   
       material breach of Harris' rights to liberty guaranteed   
       by section 7 of the Charter....   
       [64] The restrictions imposed on Harris' right to travel   
       outside his home town affect important and fundamental   
       life choices.   
      
       [68] I find no merit in the Defendant's submission that   
       Harris does not in detail explain how shipping costs   
       infringe his section 7 rights. In fact, Harris pleads in   
       his Amended Statement of Claim:   
            [44] The shipping costs for a 150-gram package by   
            Priority Post is about $35. A 50 gram per day   
            patient needs a shipment every 3 days, a minimum 10   
            shipments a month. A 100-gram per day patient needs   
            20 shipments a month, every day and a half. A per   
            day patient needs 40 shipments a month, one every   
            every [sic] 18 hours. A 300-gram per day patient   
            needs 60 shipments a month, every 12 hours.   
            [45] Canada Post does not deliver on week-ends. A   
            50-gram patient would need 150 grams delivered on   
            Friday to last 3 days until Monday. A new 100 grams   
            delivered on Monday to last until Wednesday, and   
            100 grams delivered on Wednesday to last to Friday.   
            Three Priority Posts a week, 156 a year! At $35 per   
            delivery, that's over $5,000 a year in shipping   
            costs. With over 50 grams per day, it is impossible   
            not to run short over a weekend.   
       [69] The fact the treatment afforded to Harris arises   
       because he suffers from a medical condition leads me to   
       strongly suggest that the cumulative cap also offends   
       his rights under section 15 of the Charter: there is in   
       this case what appears to be a distinction based on a   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)