From: johnsadumbass@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, 28 November 2022 at 06:00:32 UTC-8, johnt...@gmail.com wrote:   
   > TURMEL: Mozajko Reply in Supreme Court MedPot Leave Application   
   >   
   > 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 the ACMPR had been repealed, which rendered the   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 The fact that the ACMPR has been replaced by a new regime   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.B...@justice.gc.ca   
   > For the Respondent   
   wanna bet you're going to lose?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)