From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Terry Parker is first to appeal Justice Phelan's Order   
   of No Meds for anyone and move for an interim exemption   
   denied below. He reprents the Never-Ins who should have   
   been. Ray for the ATP-s unhappy with MMAR and Paddy for the   
   Left-Outs file for their interim exemptions next.   
      
   Here is his motion.   
                                              File No: A-287-14   
                      FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:   
                           TERRANCE PARKER   
                                                        Appellant   
                                And   
                       HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                       Respondent   
                          NOTICE OF MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT the Appellant's urgent motion, on short   
   notice if applicable, will be made in writing to a judge of   
   this Court.   
   THE MOTION SEEKS an interim constitutional exemption from   
   the prohibitions on marihuana in the CDSA for the   
   Appellant's Personal Medical Use pending this appeal.   
   THE GROUNDS ARE THAT the Appellant's Right to Life will be   
   infringed upon if Appellant's motion an Interim   
   Constitutional Exemption for Personal Medical Use is denied.   
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging any time for service or amending   
   any error or omission which this Honourable Court may allow.   
   Dated at Toronto on June 27 2014.   
   For the Appellant:   
   Terrance Parker   
   TO: Registrar of this Court   
   Attorney General for Canada   
      
                 APPELLANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   1. In R. v. Parker [1997], Provincial Court Judge Sheppard   
   granted me an exemption from the CDSA prohibitions on   
   possession and cultivation of marijuana for my medical need.   
      
   2. On July 31 2000, in R. v. Parker, the Ontario Court of   
   Appeal ruled the prohibition on possession of marijuana (and   
   cultivation prohibition had that stay been appealed) to be   
   invalid absent a viable medical exemption. It suspended its   
   decision 1 year and granted me a constitutional exemption   
   pending the government providing me with a medical   
   exemption.   
      
   3. On July 30 2001, the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations   
   ("MMAR") were promulgated.   
      
   4. On Aug 1 2001, I could not comply with its demands and   
   once again fell under unconstitutional jeopardy and have   
   remained without MMAR exemption since then.   
      
      
   5. On Mar 5 2014, I filed a Statement of Claim in Federal   
   Court for repeal of the MMAR based on 16 identified   
   constitutional violations, of the MMPR based on 20   
   identified constitutional violations, and of the   
   prohibitions by striking the word "marijuana" from Schedule   
   II of the CDSA.   
      
   6. I also filed Motion Record with an Affidavit attesting to   
   my need of marijuana for my epilepsy for an interim   
   exemption for Personal Medical Use.   
      
   6. On Jun 4 2014, upon a motion by the Her Majesty in   
   Default of filing a Statement of Claim, Justice Phelan   
   stayed my action pending the final decision in Allard v.   
   HMTQ (T-2030-13) on the basis that I am "seeking relief   
   which is substantially similar to that being sought by the   
   Allard Plaintiffs" whose resolution would "significantly   
   narrow" the issues I am raising.   
      
   7. The Allard case represents the concerns of the Coalition   
   Against MMAR Repeal who have Authorizations To Possess while   
   I seek MMAR repeal because it never worked for me. Such   
   polar opposite remedies are not "substantially similar."   
      
   8. The Allard case seeks to end the MMPR prohibition on:   
   a) cannabis derivatives;   
   b) outdoor growing;   
   c) in-home growing;   
   d) possession of more than 150 grams.   
      
   9. I do not have legal access so that the resolution of   
   those issues does not affect me and cannot significantly   
   narrow any issues I am raising.   
      
      
   10. Justice Phelan further dismissed my motion for interim   
   exemption for personal medical use ruling:   
       [21] In the Allard Injunction hearing, Justice Manson   
       declined to issue a similar constitutional exemption. He   
       wrote at para. 124:   
       "The first form of relief requested by the Applicants [a   
       constitutional exemption] is inappropriate. It would   
       exempt medically-approved patients and their designates   
       from the possession, trafficking, and possession for the   
       purposes of production provisions in the CDSA without   
       qualification. This is not the intent of the MMAR, which   
       defined the circumstances under which medically-approved   
       patients could possess and grow marihuana and in what   
       quantities. The relief sought would grant them exemption   
       from the provisions of the CDSA without limitation."   
       [22] This Court concurs with the reasoning of Justice   
       Manson. The constitutional exemption from the   
       prohibitions on marihuana in the CDSA sought by the   
       claimants (whether interim or permanent) is   
       inappropriate. It is not tailored to remedying an   
       alleged Charter violation, but appears essentially   
       unlimited.   
       [23] The requested exemption does include an apparent   
       limit in the form of the marihuana production and   
       possession being "for the Plaintiff's personal medical   
       use". As the claimants attack the MMAR and MMPR regimes   
       in part for their reliance on doctor's prescription, it   
       is unclear how a valid medical purpose would be   
       established other than in the claimant's discretion.   
      
      
   11. Though the "apparent limit" of Personal Medical Use   
   "appears essentially unlimited," nevertheless, it was   
   sufficient limit to be granted both previous exemptions by   
   the criminal courts; a Criminal Court would clearly discern   
   that trafficking to minors could never be construed as   
   Personal Medical Use. So if an "unlimited exemption for   
   Personal Medical Use" without any prescribed dosage was   
   limited enough for those courts then, it should also have   
   been now.   
      
   12. Justice Phelan further ruled:   
       Perhaps most importantly, the claimants have failed to   
       establish at this time that the medical exemption   
       provided by the MMAR or MMPR violates their Charter   
       rights in a way that would be remedied by the proposed   
       constitutional exemption.   
      
   13. Since neither the MMAR nor MMPR serve my medical need,   
   a continued violation of my right to life acknowledged by   
   the Ontario courts remains while I have no exemption for   
   access for medical use.   
      
   14. Justice Phelan further ruled:   
       [24] The Court is aware that in R v Parker, [2000] OJ No   
       2787, 49 OR (3d) 481 (OCA) [Parker], the Ontario Court   
       of Appeal granted a one-year personal constitutional   
       exemption from the possessions offence under the CDSA to   
       Mr. Parker for his medical needs. This was in the   
       context of a broader order which declared the marihuana   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)