From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Phelan J. "No-Meds-for-Anyone" Order parsed   
      
   JCT: I did a video for the yahoogroup but this is the first   
   parsing in text I'll need for upcoming appeals.   
      
   Date: 20140604   
   Citation: 2014 FC 537   
      
   BETWEEN:   
      
   In the matter of numerous filings seeking a   
   declaration pursuant to s. 52 (1) of the Canadian   
   Charter of Rights and Freedoms (The Charter);   
   and   
   In the matter of numerous motions requesting   
   interim or interlocutory relief pursuant to   
   s. 24(1) of The Charter with regards to changes to   
   the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations   
   (MMAR) and the Marihuana for Medical   
   Purposes Regulations (MMPR.)   
      
   REASONS FOR ORDER   
      
   PHELAN J.   
      
   I. Introduction   
      
   [1] These are the reasons for this Court dismissing the   
   motions for interim relief brought by claimants in these   
   proceedings.   
      
   JCT: No mention of how many. We know 50 Affidavits got in   
   but have no idea how many were bounced with the N8s. Just   
   denying everyone meds. No one provided "sufficient evidence"   
   of medical need. Not a one.   
      
   II. Background   
      
   [2] Numerous self-represented litigants have commenced   
   proceedings in this Court challenging the constitutionality   
   of the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, SOR/2001-227   
   [MMAR] and the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations,   
   SOR/2013-119 [MMPR]. On March 31, 2014 the MMPR replaced the   
   MMAR.   
      
   [3] The constitutionality of the MMPR has been challenged in   
   Allard et al v Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada,   
   Federal Court File No T-2030-13 [Allard Litigation]. The   
   Allard plaintiffs brought a motion for an interlocutory   
   injunction or an interlocutory constitutional exemption,   
   together with an order in the nature of mandamus on January   
   31, 2014. In this motion as well as the underlying action,   
   the Allard plaintiffs seek to invalidate many changes   
   introduced in the MMPR, which they claim violate their   
   section 7 Charter rights.   
      
   JCT: Notice, "the Allard plaintiffs brought a motion for an   
   interlocutory injunction or an interlocutory constitutional   
   exemption!" We only want the personal exemption which saves   
   us, Conroy made sure to also ask for the Injunction   
   extending the MMAR to save Health Canada too when his   
   "without limitation exemption" got rejected! Neat, eh?   
      
   [4] The Allard plaintiffs' motion for interim relief was   
   heard by Justice Manson on March 18, 2014. In a decision   
   dated March 21, 2014 Justice Manson applied the test set out   
   in RJR-MacDonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1   
   SCR 311 [RJR MacDonald]. He found:   
   a) The Allard plaintiffs have established a serious issue to   
   be tried. Their section 7 liberty interests may be infringed   
   should they continue to produce marihuana, given the   
   possession offences of the Controlled Drugs and Substances   
   Act, SC 1996, c 19 [CDSA];   
   b) The Allard plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable   
   harm if interim relief is not granted. They had provided   
   sufficient evidence to show they will be unable to afford   
   marihuana produced under the MMPR, and that this inability   
   will likely affect either their health, endanger their   
   liberty or severely impoverish them (at para 92). This harm   
   could not be remedied given the difficulties in receiving   
   damages in constitution cases (at para 96);   
   c) The balance of convenience favours the Allard plaintiffs.   
   The harm they would suffer should interim relief not be   
   granted outweighed the public interest in upholding the   
   MMPR.   
      
   JCT: But Justice Phelan didn't think all those applied to   
   the 50 Affidavits on his desk attesting to illness nor the   
   Response to Stay Affidavits he bounced. Allard Affidavits   
   were good enough proving illness, not Terry's or Paddy's or   
   anyone else's.   
      
   [5] Having concluded that the Allard Plaintiffs meet the RJR   
   MacDonald requirements,   
      
   JCT: So how can Justice Phelan conclude Terry and Paddy did   
   not?   
      
   Justice Manson issued an injunction [Allard Injunction]. The   
   injunction provides that   
   a) Authorizations to Possess [ATP] medical marihuana that   
   were granted under the MMAR and were valid on March 21,   
   2014; and   
   b) Personal Use Production Licenses [PUPL] and Designated-   
   Person Production Licenses [DPPL] that were granted under   
   the MMAR and were valid on September 30, 2013 remain valid   
   under the terms of those authorizations. Effectively, the   
   injunction "grandfathered" MMAR permits which were valid on   
   the relevant dates pending trial of the Allard Litigation.   
      
   JCT: Justice Phelan omitted that without grandfathering the   
   Possess Permits back to the Grow Permits, it made the valid   
   Grow Permits no good for the Left-Outs like Paddy! Sad he   
   didn't mention the 5,000 patient supplies Judge Manson shut   
   down. Even John Conroy said it shut down more grow-ops (for   
   real patients) than all the illegal grow-ops shut down by   
   police! Quite the wipe out of patient meds!!   
      
   One exception is that the amount of marihuana that can be   
   possessed under an ATP is now limited to 150 grams.   
      
   JCT: Health Canada wins its cherished 5g/day limit   
   somewhere, even if only deliveries and not dosage. Should   
   still sufficiently impede supply, especially for anyone over   
   150 grams a day. As intended. Sure you can juice and oil 200   
   grams a day, you just can't get it..   
      
   The relevant dates were chosen to reflect amendments in the   
   MMAR regime; no PUPL or DPPL licenses were issued after   
   September 30th, 2013, unless the application for such a   
   license was received prior to that date.   
      
   JCT: Ah, that's why the Possess Permits weren't   
   grandfathered with the Grow-Permits???? Since no Grow   
   Permits had been issued after Sep 30, all those still legal   
   had to be grandfathered to that day. But since Possess   
   Permits had continued to be issued, then they should not be   
   grandfathered to the same day, he could demand a much later   
   date, like the last same day when the judgment came down.   
   Wiped out as many Left-Outs as possible by not   
   grandfathering them at all. Why not those who had stopped in   
   the last month? or 2 months? or 3?   
      
   [6] Only two of the four Allard plaintiffs were entitled to   
   the benefit of the Allard Injunction (Mr. Neil Allard and   
   Mr. Shawn Davey). The other two (Ms Tanya Beemish and Mr.   
   David Hebert), although having held MMAR permits at one   
   time, did not have a valid permit at the relevant dates and   
   accordingly were not entitled to the benefit of the Allard   
   Injunction. Their access to medical marihuana, as for all   
   first time applicants, is now governed by the MMPR.   
      
   JCT: And you have to wonder why Beemish and Hebert won't   
   apply for an exemption for Personal Medical Use when they   
   aren't even under Conroy's umbrella protecting now only   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)