From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Here's Terry Parker's Applicattion for Leave to Appeal   
      
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA   
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)   
   BETWEEN:   
                         Terrance Parker   
                                                      Applicant   
                                            Appellant in appeal   
                               And   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
      
                 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
                    Terrance Parker, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS   
   1. Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal..........1   
   2. June 4 2014 Order of Phelan J......................(3   
   3. June 4 2014 Reasons of Phelan J....................(11   
   4. Jul 17 2014 Order of Nadon J.A....................(2   
   5. Applicant's Memorandum............................   
      
            NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
                    Terrance Parker, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that Applicant seeks an Order overturning the   
   July 17 2014 decision of Federal Court of Appeal Justice   
   Nadon (A-287-14) dismissing Applicant's motion for an   
   interim exemption for marijuana   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are that without an immediate interim   
   exemption for Personal Medical Use of marijuana, I could die   
   of my cancer which I had cut in half before my MMAR   
   exemption expired.   
      
   The Applicant further appeals the Order for $500 in costs.   
      
   THE GROUNDS ARE that I cannot afford it and asking for   
   medication should not be so punished.   
   Dated at Toronto on Sep 26 2014.   
   For the Applicant:   
   Terrance Parker   
      
                      APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM   
                    Terrance Parker, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   PART I - OVERVIEW   
      
   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   
   from the prohibitions in the CDSA pending the government   
   providing me with a medical exemption.   
      
   3. On July 30 2001, one day before the year-suspension was   
   up, the Marijuana Medical Access Regulations were issued.   
      
   4. On Aug 1 2001, I could not comply with the MMAR demands   
   and once again fell under unconstitutional jeopardy and have   
   been unable to comply since then and remain unexempted.   
      
   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.   
      
   7. On Jun 4 2014, upon a motion by 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.   
      
   8. 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."   
      
   9. 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.   
      
   10. 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.   
      
   11. 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.   
       9[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.   
      
   12. 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.   
      
   13. 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.   
      
   14. Since neither the MMAR nor MMPR serve my medical need, a   
   continued violation of my right to life acknowledged by the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)