From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown seeks $150 costs for Igor Mozajko Amendment   
      
   JCT: Way back, Igor moved to New Brunswick and file with   
   Health Canada to amend his permit address. Of course, even   
   though he has as case still ongoing in the Supreme Court for   
   damages due to permit processing delay over 1 month, again   
   there was no action after months. So he filed a Statement of   
   Claim for an interim exemption until his official permit   
   arrives.   
      
                         NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT the Applicant will make a motion by   
   teleconference at a time set by the Court with leave of the   
   judge to lift any stay or on short notice if necessary.   
      
   THE MOTION IS FOR an Order granting Applicant interim   
   relief:   
      
   1) a personal constitutional exemption to continue growing   
   marijuana pursuant to the conditions for the plaintiff's   
   permit #26021 until the Health Canada processes the needed   
   amended permit address, or, in the alternative,   
      
   2) an amendment of the address on Applicant's permit; or,   
      
   3) an Order of Mandamus that Health Canada immediately do   
   its duty not to violate Applicant's S.7 rights by processing   
   the amended permit.   
      
   THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE that   
      
   1) under the MMAR, the time to process an application to   
   produce marijuana was touted at a May 31 2013 hearing before   
   Justice Roy of this Court in Raymond Turmel v. HMQ T-977-13   
   that Dr. Stephane Lessard, Controlled Substances and Tobacco   
   Directorate, as done in under 4 weeks, and renewals, far   
   less. Presumably, amendments far less too;   
      
   2) Health Canada is wasting time on criminal investigations   
   leaving no time to process permits.   
      
                     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   1. Applicant is a person Possessing a Health Canada permit   
   #26021 to produce marijuana for medical purposes under the   
   Cannabis Act & Regulations who mailed in an application to   
   amend a production permit on Feb 8 2021 and has not received   
   it yet.   
      
   2. At a May 31 2013 hearing before this Court in Raymond   
   Turmel v. HMQ T-977-13, Justice Roy was informed that Dr.   
   Stephane Lessard, Controlled Substances and Tobacco   
   Directorate, said: Most Exemptions are done in under 4   
   weeks, and renewals, far less." Presumably, amendments far   
   less too.   
      
   3. Under the Cannabis Act & Regulations, with only   
   production permits to deal with, it should not take longer   
   time than that.   
      
   4. Applicant has been waiting for my amended permit over 12   
   weeks. Applicant submits that so many weeks for processing   
   to amend a permit which took under 4 weeks under the MMAR is   
   a violation of the Patient's Charter S.7 Right to Life,   
   Liberty and Security.   
      
   5. Not wishing to continue waiting, Applicant seeks an Order   
   granting Applicant the interim relief..   
      
   Dated on May 19 2021.   
      
   JCT: The Crown   
      
   Department of Justice   
   Canada   
   Jon.Bricker@justice.gc.ca   
      
   Via Email Our File Number: LEX-500053869   
   May 14, 2021   
      
   Federal Court   
   fc_reception_cf@cas-satj.gc.ca   
      
   Dear Registrar:   
      
        Re: MOZAJKO, Igor v Her Majesty the Queen, T-692-21   
      
   I am writing on behalf of the defendant, Her Majesty the   
   Queen in Right of Canada (Canada), to request that the Court   
   dismiss this claim. I ask that you kindly place this letter   
   before the case-management judge, the Honourable Mr. Justice   
   Brown.   
      
   The statement of claim in this matter is substantially   
   similar to the claim in Allan J. Harris v HMQ (T-1379-17),   
   which the Federal Court of Appeal struck without leave to   
   amend on the ground that it failed to disclose a reasonable   
   cause of action.1 It is also virtually identical to several   
   other claims recently dismissed by this Court on the same   
   ground.2 Canada requests that the present claim be similarly   
   dismissed, with costs of $150 for the reasons recently given   
   by this Court in Gisele Pilon v HMQ (T-193-21).   
      
   To the extent that the Court may be considering adjourning   
   Canada's request to dismiss the claim pending the recently   
   served Supreme Court of Canada leave applications in Allan   
   J. Harris v HMQ (T-1765-18) or Igor Mozajko v HMQ (T-92-18),   
   Canada hereby submits that its request should not be   
   adjourned. Canada relies for this submission on its letter   
   of May 13, 2021, in the matters with Court Files Nos. T-   
   1465-21 at T-1466-21. A copy of this letter is enclosed.   
   Sincerely,   
   Jon Bricker   
   Counsel, National Litigation Sector   
      
   JCT: Igor answered   
      
   Igor Mozajko (Plaintiff)   
      
   May 19, 2021   
      
   Federal Court   
   fc_reception_cf@cas-satj.gc.ca   
      
   Dear Registrar:   
      
        Re: MOZAJKO, Igor v Her Majesty the Queen, T-692-21   
      
   Canada has asked that my action be dismissed as it is   
   similar to that of Harris v. HMQ.   
      
   I would point out that this is not a case of a delayed   
   permit but of a delayed amendment.   
      
   As my amended permit was delivered yesterday May 18, almost   
   4 months after I applied, I have no more use for the action   
   as damages for a few months of delay may not amount to much.   
      
   Now that delivery of the permit has mooted my action, I   
   would ask that it be abandoned.   
   _____________________________________   
   Igor Mozajko   
      
   JCT: The Crown has now asked for the dismissal but has asked   
   for $150 in costs for his having filed while awaiting his   
   permit.   
      
   Department of Justice   
   Our File Number: LEX-500053869   
      
   February 28, 2022   
      
   Federal Court   
   180 Queen Street West   
   Toronto, Ontario M5V 1Z4   
      
   Dear Registrar:   
      
        Re: MOZAJKO, Igor v Her Majesty the Queen, T-692-21   
      
   I am writing on behalf of the defendant, Her Majesty the   
   Queen in Right of Canada ("Canada"), to respond to the   
   Court's oral direction dated February 1, 2022. I ask that   
   you kindly place this letter before the case management   
   judge in this matter, the Honourable Mr. Justice Brown.   
      
   The February 1 direction notes that the Court is prepared to   
   determine a motion but asks the parties to advise whether   
   the motion or draft order require amendment, and requests   
   confirmation that the defendant has been served.   
      
   If the direction is referring to a motion by the plaintiff,   
   please be advised that Canada has not been served with and   
   is generally unaware of such a motion. Alternatively, if the   
   direction is referring to Canada's own May 14, 2021, letter   
   in which it requested that the plaintiff's claim be   
   dismissed, Canada confirms that a copy of this letter was   
   provided to the plaintiff, and notes that the plaintiff   
   responded by letter dated on May 19, 2021.   
      
   Canada also hereby encloses a draft order in support of this   
   request. Sincerely,   
   Jon Bricker   
   Senior Counsel, National Litigation Sector   
      
   c.c. (via email) Igor Mozajko   
      
                           DRAFT ORDER   
      
   UPON motion by the defendant to dismiss, without leave to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)