From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Vetricek Reply to Crown seek dismiss before Mozajko   
      
   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.   
      
   Igor Mozajko is appealing the Harris decision to strike the   
   Delay Damages Statement of Claim at the Supreme Court and   
   the Crown wants Steve's action struck before that decision.   
      
   Steve Vetricek   
      
   May 3 2021   
      
   Chief Administrator   
      
   Dear Registrar   
      
        Re: VETRICEK, Steve v. HMTQ File No: T-1371-18   
      
   Could you please place this letter before the Case   
   Management Judge Brown.   
      
   1. The Defendant "Canada" seeks once again to have my action   
   dismissed prematurely. Back in 2020, Canada wrote:   
       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.   
      
   2. I am not identifying the errors in the Harris appeal   
   decision, Mozajko is doing that and that final decision is   
   still "outstanding."   
      
   3. Canada points out:   
       As noted above, the Harris registration-delay claim was   
       the lead claim among this group of claims and has now   
       been finally struck. While Mr. Mozajko now seeks leave   
       to appeal the separate Federal Court of Appeal decision   
       striking his own claim, his leave application does not   
       take issue with that Court's conclusion that the   
       requested declarations would be meaningless,   
      
   4. The Mozajko application, of course, takes with issue with   
   the Harris Court's conclusion. Mozajko applied for a 5-judge   
   panel so "Stare Decisis" would not apply to his appeal of   
   the Harris 3-judge panel's decision. He was told another 3-   
   judge panel could contradict a first 3-judge panel.   
      
   5. Canada focuses on Mozajko's trivial (B) issue:   
       and his leave application is instead largely concerned   
       with his requests for damages and "restitution" of lost   
       production time.   
      
   6. Because the Harris Court of Appeal failed to deal with   
   the (B) restitution of short-changed time issue doesn't mean   
   Mozajko was largely concerned about it. Compared to the (A)   
   Delay Damages issues, it was minor enough to have been   
   dismissed as too trivial for constitutional remedy. So there   
   is no large concern for the Restitution (B) of trivial time   
   short-changed and much concern for the large Damages from   
   Delay (A) issue.   
      
   7. Defendant mis-characterizes my claim for damages:   
       As the plaintiff in the present claim seeks only   
       declaratory relief, and does not seek damages or   
       "restitution" for lost production time, the Mozajko   
       leave application (and any appeal) will have no bearing   
       on the present claim, and an adjournment pending the   
       Mozajko leave application would serve no purpose.   
      
   8. I am seeking damages for the 9 months of lost production   
   time before Health Canada even opened my letter.   
      
   9. In this Court's decision:   
       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. "   
      
   10. I agree a Direction should be issued to adjourn the   
   Defendant's motion to strike pending a determination by the   
   Supreme Court in Mozajko like this Court adjourned the   
   Defendant's motion to strike pending a determination by the   
   Supreme Court in the Harris 150-gram cap challenge.   
      
   11. The cases are related in that both deal with a marijuana   
   complaint, both have Harris as Lead Plaintiff, and both have   
   the same case management decision on adjourning pending a   
   Supreme Court result.   
      
   12. But the Crown mis-characterized "related" to mean   
   related by the remedy sought. Having wrongly characterized   
   the relation, Canada then spent much time explaining why   
   their mis-characterization of the Court's decision was   
   wrong:   
       Canada's request to dismiss the plaintiff's claim   
       without leave to amend should not be adjourned pending   
       the outcome of Allan J Harris v HMQ (T-1765-18) (the   
       "Harris 150-gram claim").   
      
   13. It would seem unlikely that this Court would adjourn   
   pending an a decision on an unrelated 150-gram cap   
   challenge but likely pending the decision on the   
   related Delay Damages challenge.   
      
   Dated at Mississauga on May 3 2021.   
   _________________________   
   Steve Vetricek   
   CC: Jon Bricker, jon.bricker@justicce.gc.ca   
      
   JCT: This should be rejected as premature like the last   
   time. And the Crown dissing his decision after mis-   
   characterizing it is icing on the cake.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)