From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: The last you heard, Federal Court Justice de Montigny   
   had ruled that Laurence Cherniak's MMAR Authorizations and   
   PUPL grower license be extended by Health Canada to Feb 28   
   2014 but instead, they sent him a letter exempting him from   
   S.4(1) possession and 7(1) production under the CDSA but not   
   S.5(2) Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking such a   
   large amount as the 25K of which he could be found in   
   possession.   
      
   Justice de Montigny also ordered Laurence had until Jan 31   
   to file his amended application which he did.   
      
   In the meantime, Laurence has filed the following   
   Application in Federal Court for the extension of his ATP   
   and PUPL slated for hearing at General Sittings in Toronto   
   on Tuesday Feb 18 2014 9:30am.   
      
   File No:  T-164-14   
                         FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                       Laurence Cherniak   
                                                   Applicant   
                              and   
      
                  Attorney General of Canada   
                                                  Respondent   
      
        APPLICATION UNDER S.18 OF THE FEDERAL COURT ACT   
      
                     NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on Wednesday Feb 5 10:00am or as soon   
   thereafter as can be heard the Applicant's application to   
   the Court on short notice.   
      
   THE MOTION SEEKS:   
   a) an Order declaring that the Letter of Exemption issued   
   to Applicant under S.56 of the CDSA does not satisfy the   
   Court's Order dated Jan 20 2014 that Applicant's   
   Authorization To Possess and Personal-Use-Production-   
   License under the MMAR shall be extended;   
   b) an Order of Mandamus that the original order of the   
   court dated Jan 20 2014 be complied with.   
      
   THE GROUNDS ARE that the relief provided under the CDSA   
   does not convey the same rights and privileges as the   
   relief ordered under the MMAR would have.   
   Dated at Toronto on Feb _______ 2014.   
   Applicant   
   Laurence Cherniak   
   TO: Registrar of this Court,   
   Attorney General of Canada   
   For the Respondent:   
   James Gorham, Counsel   
      
                  AFFIDAVIT OF LAURENCE CHERNIAK   
      
   I, Laurence Cherniak, make oath as follow:   
      
   1. Ex. A is the Order dated Jan 20 2014 of Justice de   
   Montigny which states:   
   "The Applicant's authority to possess and to produce   
   dried marijuana for medical purposes under his current   
   Authorization To Possess dried marijuana for medical   
   purposes and Personal Use Production License, both issued   
   under the MMAR and both due to expire on Jan 26 2014,   
   shall be extended by Health Canada to Feb 28 2014."   
      
   2. Ex. B is, instead, a Letter of Exemption pursuant to   
   the CDSA, provided by Health Canada:   
   "In accordance with Mr. Justice de Montigny's court order   
   dated Jan 20 2014, (Docket T-164-14), and subject to   
   conditions herein, you are hereby exempted pursuant to   
   S.56 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act from the   
   application of subsection 4(1) and 7(1) of the CDSA and   
   subsection 8(1) and section 69 of the Narcotic Control   
   Regulations starting Jan 26 2014."   
      
   3. Ex. C is my email documenting my objection at not   
   receiving the relief ordered.   
      
   4. Ex. D is the email from the Crown Counsel James Gorham   
   that the relief offered satisfied the demands of court   
   Order.   
      
   5. Applicant submits that the S.56 relief offered under   
   the CDSA does not convey the rights and privileges as   
   the relief ordered by the court under the MMAR would have   
   in that:   
      
   a) the S.56 CDSA Exemption does not qualify as a "medical   
   document" under S.255(1) of the new MMPR as an extended   
   ATP under the MMAR would have;   
      
   b) the S.56 CDSA Exemption does not permit the legal   
   transfer of seed and plant genetics to a Licensed Grower   
   under S.262(1) of the MMPR as an extended PUPL under the   
   MMAR would have.   
      
   The S.56 Exemption fails to provide exemption to S.5(2).   
   R. v. Turmel(2003), OCA said 7 pounds is Possession for   
   the Purpose of Trafficking such a large amount even when   
   there is no offence under S.4(1) and S.7(1)!   
   An officer who finds me in my garden with 55 pounds would   
   charge me under S.7(1) Production, S.4(1) Possession, and   
   S.5(2) Possession for the Purpose of Trafficking. At my   
   trial, I would be exempted from S.7(1) and S.4(1) but not   
   S.5(2).   
      
   Laurence Cherniak   
   Sworn before me at Toronto on Feb ______ 2014.   
   A COMMISSIONER, ETC.   
      
              APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   1. The Order of Justice de Montigny dated Jan 20 2014   
   states:   
   "The Applicant's authority to possess and to produce dried   
   marijuana for medical purposes under his current   
   Authorization To Possess dried marijuana for medical   
   purposes and Personal Use Production License, both issued   
   under the MMAR and both due to expire on Jan 26 2014,   
   shall be extended by Health Canada to Feb 28 2014."   
      
   2. Rather than extending Applicant's ATP and PUPL pursuant   
   to the court's order, Health Canada chose to instead   
   provide Applicant a Letter of Exemption from S.4 and 7 of   
   the CDSA pursuant to the S.56 CDSA which does not convey   
   the same rights and privileges as an extended ATP and PUPL   
   under the MMAR would have.   
      
   3. Applicant informed Respondent that the relief was   
   unacceptable and Respondent replied it was good enough.   
      
   4. Applicant submits that the Order was intended to   
   continue the status quo, not to allow the expiry of rights   
   and privileges that would continue to exist under the MMAR   
   by offering a different relief under the CDSA where:   
   a) the S.56 CDSA Exemption does not qualify as a "medical   
   document" under the new MMPR as would an extended ATP   
   under the MMAR;   
   b) the S.56 CDSA Exemption does not permit the legal   
   transfer of seed and plant genetics to a Licensed Grower   
   as would Applicant's extended PUPL under the MMAR.   
      
   JCT: On Feb 5, Health Canada sent him a letter of Intent to   
   Reject his application again for false or misleading   
   information and gave him until Feb 12 to file additional   
   information before they make an official decision by Feb 14   
   2014. From: MMAP-PAMM   
   Subject: Application for Authorization to Possess and   
   License to Produce Marijuana for Medical Purposes   
   Date: Feb 5 2014 2:29pm   
   To: webmaster@laurencecherniak.com   
      
   Dear Mr. Cherniak:   
      
   The information you provided on Jan 30 2014, pursuant to the   
   Court Order of Justice de Montigny, dated Jan 20 2014,   
   indicated the specialist you consulted in regard to your use   
   of marihuana for medical purposes was Dr. Tan, general   
   surgeon. You provided Dr. Tan's name in support of your use   
   of marijuana for medical purposes.   
      
   Health Canada has contacted Dr. Tan, who advises that his   
   area of specialization is not relevant to the treatment of   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)