From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: This was expected:   
      
   TO: Judicial Administrator   
   FROM: SHARLOW J.A.   
   DATE: September 9, 2014   
   RE: Appeals from stay orders of Phelan J. in individual   
   Federal Court proceedings challenging the constitutionality   
   of certain provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances   
   Act as they relate to marihuana   
      
   JCT: I like that it's mentioned we're challenging the   
   constitutionality of the CDSA prohibitions. Conroy isn't in   
   Allard, he's only challenging the constitutionality of the   
   MMPR medical exemption.   
      
   COURT:                      DIRECTION   
   Please provide this direction to all parties to the appeals   
   in the attached list.   
      
   In some of the appeals in the attached list (but not all),   
   counsel for the Crown requested that the notices of appeal   
   not be accepted for filing, and alternatively if they were   
   accepted for filing, that the appeals be consolidated. All   
   of the notices of appeal were accepted for filing.   
      
   JCT: That was a silly request by the Crown. No one could   
   stop us from filing a Notice of Appeal against a Federal   
   Court decision, the Crown has to move to quash the appeals   
   for lack of substance. They're just used to asking for   
   anything and getting it.   
      
   COURT: There may be merit to the request for consolidation   
   because all of these appeals appear to challenge the same   
   Federal Court order. Consolidation of the appeals would save   
   time and expense for all parties, as well as the Court.   
      
   JCT: It's in the rules for that reason and I expected it.   
      
   COURT: However, it is necessary for a formal motion for   
   consolidation to be made so that all parties are provided   
   with an opportunity to consent or object, and an opportunity   
   to make submissions.   
      
   JCT: And the Crown will have to make the request for   
   consolidation it on the record now, they just can't ask.   
      
   COURT: Any party wishing to make a motion to consolidate all   
   of the appeals in the attached list (and any other similar   
   appeals that the Registry has not yet identified) should do   
   so as soon as possible. It would be most efficient to   
   consider the consolidation motion before the parties are   
   required to take the first step in having these appeals made   
   ready for a hearing - the agreement as to the contents of   
   the appeal book.   
      
   JCT: All makes sense to me too.   
      
   COURT: If a motion for consolidation is made, the Court   
   would particularly be interested in the submissions of the   
   parties on the following points:   
      
   1. Normally in a consolidation order involving more than one   
   appellant, one appeal file is chosen as the "lead file". As   
   a practical matter, the appellant in the lead file is the   
   only appellant who is formally served with documents, and is   
   the only person who files documents on behalf of all   
   appellants.   
      
   JCT: Even though Justice couldn't identify a lead plaintiff,   
   that's going to have to be me.   
      
   COURT: 2. Therefore, all of the appellants would have to   
   agree in advance to be bound by the acts and decisions of   
   the lead appellant, who must in turn agree to be personally   
   responsible for taking all steps required by all appellants   
   in order to have the consolidated appeal made ready for a   
   hearing.   
      
   JCT: Perfect. Can't leave me out of the loop any more.   
      
   COURT: 3. Specifically, the Court would have to be satisfied   
   that all appellants are willing to agree on a lead   
   appellant, and would also agree to be bound by the acts and   
   decisions of the lead appellant in the conduct of the   
   appeal, including:   
   a) the contents of the consolidated appeal book, and the   
   position to be taken by the appellants in the event of a   
   dispute on the contents of the consolidated appeal book,   
   b) the preparation, serving and filing of five copies of the   
   consolidated appeal book for the consolidated appeal and the   
   consolidated joint book of authorities (including how the   
   costs of these steps will be shared among the appellants);   
   c) the content of the appellants' consolidated memorandum of   
   fact and law;   
   d) the position to be taken by the appellants on any motions   
   for interlocutory orders;   
   e) the position to be taken by the appellants on the time   
   and place for the hearing of the consolidated appeal and   
   other matters that must be dealt with when the appellants   
   file a requisition for hearing;   
   f) the position to be taken on any claims by the appellants   
   for costs in the consolidated appeal (including, if the   
   appellants are awarded costs, how the costs will be shared);   
   and   
      
   JCT: Since we aren't lawyers, we can only get printing   
   costs, not much anyway so we don't ask.   
      
   g) the position to be taken by the appellants on any claims   
   made by the Crown for costs payable by the appellants in the   
   consolidated appeal (including, if the Crown is awarded   
   costs, how the liability will be allocated among the   
   appellants).   
      
   JCT: That makes it real easy on the team. I'll take on the   
   liability.   
      
   4. I observe that if a consolidation order is made, the main   
   saving of costs and time would accrue to the Crown.   
   Therefore, if a consolidation order is made, the Crown may   
   be willing to bear the cost of preparing, serving and filing   
   the consolidated appeal books, the consolidated joint book   
   of authorities, and the requisition for hearing.   
   "KS"   
      
   JCT: Sounds like an offer we can't refuse.   
      
   COURT: List of Appeals from stay orders of Phelan J.   
   1. A-287-14 Terrance Parker v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   2. A-288-14 Raymond Turmel v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   3. A-289-14 Stephen Patrick Burrows v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   4. A-291-14 Robert Roy v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   5. A-324-14 Michael J. Pearce v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   6. A-325-14 Stephen Paul Sealy v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   7. A-326-14 David Allan Dobbs v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   8. A-327-14 Jennifer Clare Dobbs v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   9. A-329-14 Michael K. Spottiswood v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   10. A-330-14 Rev. Kevin J. Moore v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   11. A-331-14 William Mark Chenier v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   12. A-332-14 Heidi Chartrand v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   13. A-333-14 Arthur MacKay v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   14. A-334-14 Jacob Settle v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   15. A-335-14 Craig MacDonald v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   16. A-336-14 Elsie Gear v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   17. A-337-14 Paul Durling v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   18. A-338-14 Diane Elizabeth Dodds v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   19. A-339-14 Catherine Peever v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   20. A-340-14 Gary Pallister v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   21. A-341-14 Cheryle M. Hawkins v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   22. A-342-14 John C. Turmel v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   23. A-344-14 Luc Leblanc v. Her Majesty the Queen   
   24. A-345-14 Jessica Leblanc v. Her Majesty the Queen   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)