From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: This is the second medpot case where the Crown is going   
   after the grower's home.   
      
   https://groups.google.com/g/can.legal/c/jC9lpDgjzUA/m/qixQIRwMDgAJ   
   is the Memorandum I prepared for Renee Cyr's appeal against   
   the Court ordering the confiscation of half her property   
   which is awaiting hearing at the Quebec Court of Appeal.   
      
   https://groups.google.com/g/can.legal/c/XMSZOethKQU/m/gc2pGnb5BAAJ   
   TURMEL: Crown seeks Gisele Pilon's home after Health Canada   
   permit delay. It said:   
      
   JCT: You'll remember Gisele had filed with Health   
   Canada for a grow permit, nothing happened for months so she   
   started growing anyway. Then she got busted. She asked   
   Federal Court for a retroactive permit to a month after she   
   applied but Justice Brown said he couldn't. Then she got her   
   permit.   
      
   But I'd hoped the Crown wouldn't charge her now that they   
   knew she had gotten her exemption. But they not only   
   charged her with S.7 Production and S.5(2) Possession for   
   the Purpose of Trafficking (how could they know that since   
   she hadn't reaped her first crop?) but when she refused to   
   plead and decided to put up a fight, they then they filed a   
   Criminal Court motion to seize her house!   
      
   Yesterday, she had her Preliminary Inquiry where she told   
   the Court she was admitting the facts (she grew without a   
   permit) and was sent to Superior Court for jury trial. The   
   Crown also added a S.4 Possession Charge (good fall-back   
   since trafficking didn't happen). And it lets them drop the   
   jury trial production charge and offer her a deal without   
   criminal record to plead to the least Possession charge.   
   Maybe give a couple of hundred to a charity..   
      
   Big advantage over Renee Cyr. Her charges were dropped but   
   then the Crown moved under Civil Law to seize her home. It   
   was shown that had a motion been made to a criminal court   
   and refused, they couldn't then go to civil court any more.   
   So now that they have filed for confiscation in Criminal   
   Court where she doesn't have to respond, if it's refused, no   
   Civil Court suit.   
      
   Of course, Gisele can answer.   
      
   Since her doctor did give her a medical document before the   
   bust, when Hitzig resurrected the 2-year-dead law, Para. 170   
   says "establish medical need to simply be exempt." So her   
   medical document established medical need to make her   
   exempt before the bust.   
      
   And she can also blame the Health Canada delay in processing   
   her permit. If they had kept up to their 2015 performance   
   standard of 4 weeks to process a permit she'd have had her   
   permit and there would have been no raid.   
   ---   
      
   Here is her constitutional motion:   
      
   CANADA   
   PROVINCE OF QUEBEC   
   DISTRICT OF GATINEAU   
                                              SUPERIOR COURT   
   NO: 550-01-122287-214                   (Criminal Chamber)   
      
                                Between   
                                Gisele Pilon   
                                Applicant   
      
                                -and-   
      
                                Her Majesty The Queen   
                                Respondent   
      
      
            APPLICATION FOR CONSTITUTIONAL DECLARATION   
      
   TO ONE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF   
   QUEBEC (CRIMINAL CHAMBER), the Applicant states as follows:   
      
   This Application is well-founded in fact and law.   
      
   1. Applicant seeks an order staying the charges because the   
   prohibitions on marijuana Possession in S.8(1)b),   
   Distribution in S.9(2), and Production in S.12(5) are of no   
   force and effect.   
      
   2. The grounds are that the medical exemption to the   
   prohibitions is illusory.   
      
   FACTS:   
      
   3. Raymond Brunet had a Health Canada permit to possess and   
   produce marijuana for medical purposes at his home.   
      
   4. On Jun 25 2020, Gisele Pilon received a medical document   
   to use marijuana for medical purposes.   
      
   5. On Sep 23 2020, Gisele Pilon submitted an application for   
   a medical marijuana possession and production permit to   
   Health Canada.   
      
   6. On Dec 16 2020, Gisele Pilon and Raymond Brunet were   
   raided for growing cannabis.   
      
   7. On Feb 3 2020, Accused Gisele Pilon received a medical   
   exemption.   
      
   8. On June 28 2020, they were charged under Cannabis Act   
   prohibitions on Marijuana Possession in S.8(1)b),   
   Distribution in S.9(2), and Production in S.12(5).   
      
   9. On July 31 2000, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in R.   
   v. Parker that the prohibition on Possession of Marijuana   
   was invalid absent a functional exemption regime and gave   
   the Government a year to provide an exemption for those who   
   establish medical need. The Court granted Parker an interim   
   exemption for the year. On July 30 2001, the Medical   
   Marijuana Access Regulations ("MMAR") were promulgated.   
      
   10. On Dec 11 2000, in R. v. Krieger, Justice Action of the   
   Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta adopted the ruling in   
   Parker to declare the prohibition on Production of Marijuana   
   was invalid absent a functional exemption regime. It was   
   supported on Mar 18 2003 by the Alberta Court of Appeal.   
      
   11. On Oct 7 2003, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in   
   Hitzig v. HMQ that the exemption had not passed   
   constitutional muster and that the possession prohibition   
   had been invalid absent a functional exemption regime since   
   Aug 1 2001. On Dec 10 2003, the Globe and Mail reported:   
       "Ottawa stays pot charges in 4,000 cases. At the same   
       time, rules changed to improve patients' access to pot."   
      
   ISSUE IN QUESTION   
      
   12. Is medical exemption to the cannabis prohibitions   
   illusory?   
      
   ARGUMENT   
      
   13. Impediments to access and supply in past regulations are   
   still in the latest Cannabis Regulations.   
      
   1) RECALCITRANT DOCTORS AS GATEKEEPERS   
      
   14. S.312(1) requires a medical document for a non-lethal   
   substance. Applicant adopts the facts established by Taliano   
   J. in R. v. Mernagh not with respect to there being "not   
   enough doctors" but with respect to there being some doctors   
   allowed to opt out of the MMAR for non-medical reasons.   
      
   15. On Apr 11 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in R.   
   v. Mernagh:   
       "[9] On the Charter application, Mr. Mernagh did not   
       argue that the MMAR are unconstitutional as they are   
       drafted. Rather, he argued that the MMAR are   
       unconstitutional as they are implemented because   
       physicians have decided en masse not to participate in   
       the scheme."   
      
   16. The Court pointed out there was no evidence of the   
   number of people who need it, the number who asked for it   
   and were refused, no numbers proving a boycott. The Court   
   further noted:   
       "[28] In answer to the argument of the Hitzig appellants   
       that the concerns of the medical profession and its   
       governing bodies regarding the role of doctors as   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)