From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Turmel, Burrows, Roy in SCC for medpot exemptions   
      
   JCT: On Sep 9, the same date as the consolidation order for   
   the 26 appeals, Justice Sharlow dismissed the motions of   
   Ray Turmel, Stephen Burrows, and Robert Roy for interim   
   exemptions pending appeal. Yesterday, they served their   
   Applications for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of   
   Canada with motions for interim exemptions pending the   
   application.   
      
   RAY TURMEL   
                                          File Number:   
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA   
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)   
   BETWEEN:   
                          Raymond Turmel   
                                                      Applicant   
                                            Appellant in appeal   
                               and   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
                 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
                    RAYMOND TURMEL, 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......................4   
   3. June 4 2014 Reasons of Phelan J...................11   
   4. Sep 9 2014 Order of Sharlow J.A...................22   
   5. Applicant's Memorandum............................23   
      
            NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that Applicant seeks an Order overturning the   
   Sep 9 2014 decision of Federal Court of Appeal Madam Justice   
   Sharlow dismissing Applicant's motion for an interim   
   exemption for marijuana to finish curing my cancer with $500   
   in costs.   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are that without an immediate interim   
   exemption for Personal Medical Use of marijuana I will   
   suffer serious health consequences.   
      
   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 Ottawa on Oct 15 2014.   
   For the Applicant:   
   Raymond J. Turmel   
      
                      APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM   
                    RAYMOND TURMEL, APPLICANT   
      
   PART I - OVERVIEW   
      
   1. Appellant is one of numerous court-dubbed Self-Rep   
   "Turmel Kit" plaintiffs who filed a Statement of Claim in   
   Federal Court. Of the 5 classes of Plaintiffs, I have an   
   Authorization to Possess ("ATP") and a Personal-Use   
   Production License ("PUPL") under the Marijuana Medical   
   Access Regulations ("MMAR") which were grand-fathered in the   
   relief granted the Allard Plaintiffs (T-2030-13) by Justice   
   Manson on Mar 21 2014.   
      
   2. Our Actions seek declaratory and financial relief for   
   violations of rights under S. 7 of the Charter by seeking an   
   Order:   
      
   A1) that the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR)   
   that came into force on Jul 30 2001 and the Marihuana for   
   Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) that came into force on   
   June 19, 2013, (and run concurrently with the MMAR until   
   March 31, 2014 when the MMAR will be repealed by the MMPR)   
   are unconstitutional and not saved by S.1 of the Charter in   
   that the s. 7 Charter constitutional right of a medically   
   needy patient to reasonable access to his/her medicine by   
   way of a safe and continuous supply consistent with the S.7   
   Charter right is unreasonably restricted by the impediments   
   to access and/or supply in the MMAR and/or MMPR;   
      
   A2) And that, "absent a constitutionally acceptable medical   
   exemption," the prohibitions on marihuana in the Controlled   
   Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) are invalid and the word   
   "marijuana" be struck from Schedule II of the CDSA.   
      
   B) In the alternative, pursuant to S.24(1) of the Charter,   
   for a permanent Personal Exemption from prohibitions in the   
   CDSA on marihuana for the Plaintiff's personal medical use.   
      
   C) Or, alternatively, damages for loss of patient's   
   marihuana, plants and production site and future needs.   
      
   3. The grounds of the Action:   
   a) "For MMAR Repeal" are 16 identified constitutional   
   violations,   
   b) "For MMPR Repeal" repeal are 20 identified constitutional   
   violations,   
   c) and, absent a viable medical exemption pursuant to R. v.   
   J.P., for repeal of the prohibitions by striking the word   
   "marijuana" from Schedule II of the CDSA.   
      
   4. We seek to have the MMAR and MMPR declared invalid by the   
   many connstitutional flaws: BOTH 1) Require recalcitrant   
   doctor;   
   BOTH 2) Not provide DIN (Drug Identification Number);   
   BOTH 3) Require annual renewals for permanent diseases;   
   BOTH 4) Require unused cannabis to be destroyed;   
   BOTH 5) Refusal or cancellation for non-medical reasons;   
   BOTH 6) Health Canada feedback to doctors on dosages;   
   BOTH 7) Not provide instantaneous online processing;   
   BOTH 8) Not have resources to handle large demand;   
   BOTH 9) Prohibit non-dried forms of cannabis; * Allard a)   
   BOTH 10) Not exempt from CDSA S.5.;   
      
   5. Plaintiffs further raise 6 additional concerns with the   
   MMAR regime added to the first 10 in common with the MMPR to   
   have the MMAR condemned:   
   MMAR 11) Require a specialist consultation;   
   MMAR 12) Require conventional treatments be inappropriate;   
   MMAR 13) Prohibit more than 2 licenses/grower;   
   MMAR 14) Prohibit more than 4 licenses/site;   
   MMAR 15) Number of plants limit improper;   
   MMAR 16) Not allow any gardening help.   
      
   6. Plaintiffs further raise another 10 concerns with the   
   MMPR regime added to the first 10 in common with the MMAR to   
   have the MMPR condemned:   
      
   MMPR 11) ATP valid solely as "medical document";   
   MMPR 12) Licensed Producer may cancel for "business reason";   
   MMPR 13) Prohibit return of medical document to cancelee;   
   MMPR 14) Prohibit production in a dwelling; * Allard b)   
   MMPR 15) Prohibits outdoor production; * Allard c)   
   MMPR 16) Not protect rights to brand genetics;   
   MMPR 17) Not remove financial barriers;   
   MMPR 18) Not provide central registry for police check;   
   MMPR 19) Not enough Licensed Producers to supply demand;   
   MMPR 20) Prohibit processing > 150 grams. * Allard d)   
      
   7. On Mar 10 2014, our Actions challenging the MMAR and MMPR   
   were stayed pending the Mar 21 2014 decision of the motion   
   for interim relief in Allard v. HMTQ [T-2030-13] challenging   
   only the MMPR. The Allard action represents the concerns of   
   the Coalition "Against MMAR Repeal" who have Authorizations   
   To Possess while Applicant is "For MMAR Repeal" because of   
   its unconstitutional violations. Such polar opposite   
   remedies are not "substantially similar." They seek to   
   declare the MMPR constitutionally invalid only to the extent   
   of striking 4 minor cosmetic flaws to leave the regime   
   constitutional:   
   a) prohibition on non-dried forms of cannabis, MMAR-MMPR 9).   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)