From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: B.C. lawyer John Conroy has filed a class action   
   Statement of Claim in Federal Court as I'll be preparing a   
   kit for brother Ray and others who want to do their own with   
   any extra punches.   
      
   FEDERAL COURT   
      
   PROPOSED CLASS PROCEEDING   
      
   BETWEEN:   
   NEIL ALLARD   
   TANYA BEEMISH   
   J.M.   
   DAVID HEBERT   
   SHAWN DAVEY   
   PLAINTIFFS   
      
   AND:   
   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA   
   DEFENDANTS   
      
                       STATEMENT OF CLAIM.   
      
   The Plaintiffs claim on their own behalf and on behalf of   
   all of the Class Members (as defined below):   
      
   1. The Plaintiffs claim as follow:   
      
   a. A Declaration pursuant to s.52 (1) of the Canadian   
   Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter") that 'a   
   constitutionally viable exemption' from the provisions of   
   the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act must exist to enable   
   the medical use of Cannabis, by medically approved persons,   
   in any of its effective forms. This constitutional right   
   includes the right of the patient (or a person designated by   
   the patient as a caregiver 'person responsible for the   
   patient' where the patient is unable to exercise this   
   right), to both possess and use Cannabis in any forms and   
   also to cultivate or produce and possess Cannabis in any   
   form, for the treatment of the patient's medical condition.   
      
   JCT: A Declaration that 'a constitutionally viable   
   exemption' must exist to enable the medical use of Cannabis?   
   Terry Parker already won that one so there's no use asking   
   for it a second time though getting the exemption for   
   caregivers is new, if not already implied.   
      
   b. A Declaration, pursuant to s.52 (1) of the Charter, that   
   the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) that   
   came into force on June 19, 2013, (and run concurrently with   
   the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR) until March   
   31, 2014 when the MMAR will be repealed by the MMPR) are   
   unconstitutional to the extent that:   
      
   (i) They fail to provide for the continued personal   
   production of their medicine by the patient or a designated   
   caregiver 'person responsible for the patient' where the   
   patient is unable to exercise this right, as provided for   
   currently in the MMAR;   
      
   JCT: If medically-useful cannabis were available at the   
   pharmacy for $1 a gram, I don't see how growing it oneself   
   could be a right. Patients can get morphine but aren't   
   allowed to produce it themselves. So, is there a right to   
   produce if there is access and supply already available? I   
   don't think so.   
      
   (ii) The MMPR unreasonably restricts the s. 7 Charter   
   constitutional right of a medically approved patient to   
   reasonable access to their medicine by way of a safe and   
   continuous supply and, and are inconsistent with the s.7   
   Charter right and are not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.   
      
   JCT: Well, that makes the allegation without stating what   
   makes it so. We'll cover the unreasonable restriction later.   
      
   c. A Declaration, pursuant to s.52 (1) of the Charter, that   
   the limits in the Narcotic Control Regulations (NCR), MMAR   
   and in the MMPR, to possessing, selling or providing only   
   "dried marihuana" are arbitrary and constitute an   
   unreasonable restriction on the s. 7 Charter rights of these   
   patients and are inconsistent therewith and in violation   
   thereof and not saved by s. 1 of the Charter, in accordance   
   with the principles and findings underlying the judicial   
   decision in R. v. Smith 2012 BCSC 544.   
      
   JCT: Good, it establishes the right to all forms of cannabis   
   for all Canadians.   
      
   d. A Declaration, pursuant to s.52 (1) of the Charter, that   
   the provisions in the MMPR that specifically limit   
   production by a 'Licenced Producer' of Cannabis to   
   "indoors", prohibiting any, even temporary, outdoor   
   production and prohibiting production in "a dwelling house,"   
   are unconstitutional, to the extent that they might be found   
   to be applicable to a patient generally, a patient personal   
   producer or his or her designated caregiver as such limits   
   and restrictions amount to arbitrary unreasonable   
   restrictions on the patients s.7 Charter right to possess,   
   produce and store for their medical purposes, and are   
   inconsistent therewith and these limitations are not saved   
   by section 1 of the Charter;   
      
   JCT:  Again, if medically-useful cannabis were accessible in   
   sufficient supply, I don't see how complaining about the   
   restriction could apply. Bring up how not being to use the   
   Great Solar Lamp in the Sky adds to cost is an argument.   
      
   e. A Declaration, pursuant to s.52 (1) of the Charter, that   
   the provisions in the MMPR that specifically restrict the   
   amounts relating to possession and storage by patients,   
   including the "30 x the daily quantity authorized or 150   
   gram maximum, whichever is the lesser", and other   
   limitations applicable or imposed upon 'Licenced Producers'   
   in relation to their registered clients / patients are   
   unconstitutional, to the extent that they are applicable to   
   a patient generally, a patient personal producer or his or   
   her designated caregiver as such limits in the MMPR amount   
   to arbitrary unreasonable restrictions on the patients s.7   
   Charter right to possess, produce and store for their   
   medical purposes, and are inconsistent therewith and these   
   limitations are not saved by section 1 of the Charter.   
      
   JCT: Again, if it were accessible and in full supply, who'd   
   care though a month's worth restriction should be challenged   
   on its silliness.   
      
   f. An Order pursuant to s.24(1) of the Canadian Charter of   
   Rights and Freedoms, as the appropriate and just interim   
   remedy, in the nature of:   
      
   i. An interim constitutional exemption from ss.4,5 and 7 of   
   the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act for all persons   
   medically approved under the Narcotic Control Regulations   
   C.R.C., c.1041 (NCR), the MMAR or the MMPR, including those   
   patients who have a caregiver 'person responsible' for them   
   designated to produce for them, including an exemption for   
   that caregiver 'person responsible' designated producer,   
   pending trial on the merits of the action.   
      
   JCT: Not quite sure how he can ask for an exemption from   
   trafficking under S.5. I can understand S.4 possession and   
   S.7 cultivation by a patient but I don't see lumping in   
   being exempt from trafficking prohibition.   
      
   or alternatively,   
      
   ii. an interlocutory exemption/injunction preserving the   
   provisions of the MMAR relating to personal production,   
   possession, production location and storage, by a patient or   
   designated caregiver 'person responsible for the patient'   
   and related ancillary provisions, and if necessary, limiting   
   the applicability of certain provisions of the MMPR to such   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)