From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Igor Mozajko's Reply to the Crown Response was emailed   
   to the Court and Crown today:   
      
   Igor Mozajko   
      
   VIA EMAIL   
      
   Monday November 28, 2022   
   Ms. Chantal Carbonneau, Registrar   
   Supreme Court of Canada,   
   301 Wellington Street   
   Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0J1   
      
   Dear Registrar:   
      
   Re: MOZAJKO, Igor v His Majesty the King, File No. 40395   
      
   Please accept this letter as the Reply of Igor Mozajko to   
   the Response for the application for leave to appeal in this   
   matter.   
      
   The Respondent argued there was an:   
      
       absence of pleaded facts capable of supporting a section   
       7 infringement..   
      
   Paragraph 35 lists 18 facts taken by justice Brown as   
   proven.   
      
   Respondent further argued:   
      
       The applicant suggests the FCA decision is in conflict   
       with Chaoulli v Quebec and Allard v Canada. However, he   
       has identified no conflict between the FCA decision in   
       this case,   
      
   Chaoulli concluded that delays in obtaining medical   
   treatment do cause harm to violate rights and the FCA   
   concluded the Applicant was not harmed by 11 month delay.   
      
   Respondent further argued:   
      
       The proposed appeal does not raise an issue of public   
       importance,   
      
   Chaoulli established that delays in obtaining medical   
   treatment do raise an issue of public important and over 300   
   other plaintiffs about the delays in processing their   
   permits add to the point.   
      
   Respondent also argues:   
      
       the ACMPR had been repealed, which rendered the   
       requested declarations meaningless.   
      
   The fact that the ACMPR has been replaced by a new regime   
   does not make the damages suffered under the old regime   
   meaningless.   
      
   Respondent finally argues:   
      
       these issues would be better addressed in a future case   
       that has been properly pleaded and that is based on   
       extant regulations rather than the former ACMPR.   
      
   There is no reason to await a future case based on extant   
   regulation rather than the ACMPR when the claimed damages   
   were suffered under the old regulation.   
      
   Dated at Dieppe New Brunswick Nov 28 2022.   
      
      
   _____________________________________   
   Applicant:   
   Igor Mozajko   
      
   Cc: Jon Bricker,   
   Jon.Bricker@justice.gc.ca   
   For the Respondent   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)