From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown tries to dismiss Vetricek before Mozajko again   
      
   JCT: Steve Vetricek was one of our most aggrieved   
   plaintiffs. Health Canada hadn't even opened his application   
   in 9 months and he was suing for 60gram/day times 8 months   
   too much delay as well as grow site rent and expenses.   
      
   On Feb 20 2020 Crown wrote:   
        Re: Steve Vetricek v. HMTQ T-1371-18   
      
   CR: 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 and they are in   
   any event insufficient to address the defects noted by the   
   Federal Court of Appeal in Harris.   
      
   JCT: He's talking about our latest Statement of Claim delsc8   
   Eighth edition. The Court of Appeal said Harris should have   
   shown that he had no other alternatives because had be been   
   rich with other alternatives, then his rights were not   
   violated. Pretty thin reasoning. Harris did not appeal but   
   Mozajko, whose claim was dismissed because of the Harris   
   decision, did file and is appealing the Harris decision.   
      
   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, 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) whether there should have been a Notice of   
   Constitutional Question for their motion to strike a   
   constitutional claim. No, only if the motion results in a   
   law being struck down, not a motion to prevent it being   
   struck down.   
      
   Igor asked for a 5-judge panel with jurisdiction to over-   
   rule the Harris 3-judge panel. So Igor is appealing the   
   Harris decision.   
      
   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.   
      
   The Harris appeal decision also notes that production   
   necessarily involves delay while waiting for plants to   
   mature and produce a usable product.   
      
   JCT: Mozajko has challenged the notion that there being some   
   inevitable delay mitigates some extra delay.   
      
   CR: 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. While Mr. Vetricek suggests in his Jan   
   20 submissions that the Federal Court of Appeal may depart   
   from its Harris decision in Mozajko, he has not identified   
   any error in the former decision, let alone shown that it   
   was "manifestly wrong" which would be required for the   
   Federal Court of Appeal to reach a different result in   
   Mozajko.   
      
   JCT: That's for Mozajko to do. Not Steve. So Everyone was   
   stayed pending the Lead decision and when it lost, everyone   
   was dismissed without costs and only Steve dared the $150 to   
   wait for the Mozajko appeal of the Harris decision.   
      
   On April 1 2020, the Crown again wrote:   
      
   CR: The plaintiff's letter also reiterates his prior request   
   that his claim be stayed pending the Mozajko matter.   
   However, as detailed in our letter of February 20, 2020, the   
   plaintiff has identified no reason why his claim should be   
   stayed pending Mozajko. Canada accordingly reiterates its   
   request that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed for the   
   reasons given by the Federal Court of Appeal in Harris v   
   Canada, 2019 FCA 232.   
      
   JCT: And Judge Brown decided to await the Mozajko challenge   
   to the Harris decision. But again, the Crown asked to get   
   Steve's case dismissed before the Mozajko decision is   
   finalized at the top.   
      
   On April 21 2021, Judge Brown responded:   
       "The Court has an informal motion by letter dated   
       February 23, 2021 from counsel for the Defendant which   
       asks that this action be dismissed without leave to   
       amend.   
       I dealt with a related case in the attached Order 2021   
       FC 322 in the Harris matter on April 13, 2021, and am   
       considering a direction to adjourn the Defendant's   
       motion on the same terms as set out therein, pending   
       determination by the Supreme Court of Canada of the   
       application for leave to appeal referred to in 2021 FC   
       322.   
       Before doing so I invite comment from the parties. "   
      
   JCT: The related case he was talking about was Jeff Harris's   
   lead action to strike down the 150-gram cap on possession   
   which is unconstitutional for high-dosers like him with   
   100g/day! So he could only leave home with a 1.5 day supply.   
   In BC, a Superior Court Judge in Garber ignored the cap and   
   granted them a 10-day carry limit. So another 100-gram/day   
   patients got to carry 1Kg. Judge Brown refused the Crown   
   motion strike the challenge to the 150-gram cap and granted   
   the Lead Plaintiff the same 10-day carry as the Garbers in   
   BC.   
      
   Then the Court of Appeal overturned it with no reasons   
   including ignoring the Garber decision Judge had followed.   
   Jeff has appealed to the Supreme Court. Crown asked to   
   dismiss the other 34 high-dosers who had filed their claims   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)