From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Since half the Appellants in Allard are seeking to   
   broaden the Manson Order to include those Left-Out of his   
   remedy by his forgetting to grand-father the Possess Permits   
   with the Grow permits back to Oct 1 2013 and Robert Roy is   
   one of our two Left-Outs appealing for an Interim Exemption   
   for Personal Medical Use at the Supreme Court of Canada,   
   he's bringing it to the Court's attention.   
      
   The only way is to file a Motion for an Extension of time to   
   file a Supplementary Memorandum on the Allard decision   
   giving the Crown 10 more days to respond. Here's his Motion   
   and Memorandsum:   
      
                                          File Number: 36146   
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA   
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)   
   BETWEEN:   
                            Robert Roy   
                                                      Applicant   
                                            Appellant in appeal   
                               And   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
      
                NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUPPLEMENTARY   
            MEMORANDUM ON DEC 15 2014 ALLARD DECISION   
                      Robert Roy, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that Applicant seeks an extension of time to   
   file a Supplementary Memorandum on the Dec 15 2014 Allard   
   decision and for the Crown to file a Response within the   
   normal 10 days.   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF MOTION are that   
   a) the Allard decision impinges directly on my situation in   
   that it states:   
   "although he provides a right (the interlocutory injunction)   
   to the four (4) respondents... he does not, in contrast,   
   explain why he deprives two (2) respondents of a remedy..   
   who held valid production licences on September 30, 2013 but   
   whose authorizations to possess expired between September   
   30, 2013 and March 21, 2014 (the date of his order)."   
   b) I am one of those deprived of the remedy who is now   
   suffering irreparable harm.   
      
   Dated at Halifax on Dec 19 2014.   
   __________________________   
   For the Applicant:   
   Robert Roy   
      
   TO: Attorney General for Canada   
      
      
               APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTARY MEMORANDUM   
                      Robert Roy, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   PART I - OVERVIEW   
      
   1. On Dec 15 2014, the Federal Court of Appeal's ruling in   
   Allard v. HMQ impinges directly upon my same predicament.   
      
   2. In Para.12 of its Reasons, the Court supported Justice   
   Manson's ruling that:   
   1) my identifiable group of medical users have right to   
   affordable medicine under the Charter;   
   2) failure to grant relief would cause irreparable harm!"   
      
   3. In Para.16, the Court notes the Manson Order provides   
   remedy to 2 Plaintiffs but fails to provide relief to the   
   other two who cross-appeal to broaden the scope of the order   
   to include them. And me too.   
      
   4. In Para.17, the Court notes no distinction between the 4   
   Allard Plaintiffs as representatives of an identifiable   
   group. When their respective ATPs expired was not even   
   discussed.   
      
   5. In Para.18, the Court specifies:   
       "it does not provide remedy to patients who held valid   
       production licences on September 30, 2013 but whose   
       authorizations to possess expired between September 30,   
       2013 and March 21, 2014 (the date of his order). The   
       judge's choice of March 21, 2014 as the "cut-off" date   
       has the effect of excluding Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert   
       from his order."   
      
   6. And half the 25,000 medical self-growers like me who shut   
   down in the 6 months since the Health Canada Directive to   
   destroy all their stock on April Fool.   
      
   7. In Para.19, the Court notes Justice Manson doesn't   
   explain why he deprives 2 respondents of remedy by   
   grandfathering only their Grow and not Possess Permits. In   
   Para.20, the Court adds they are unable to understand   
   whether the judge intended to exclude them or simply forgot.   
      
   8. The Court's Order states:   
       The appeal is dismissed with costs and the cross-appeal   
       is allowed without costs. The matter is remitted back to   
       the judge for the determination solely on the issue of   
       the scope of the remedy, more particularly with respect   
       to Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert, in accordance with the   
       reasons.   
      
   PART II - ISSUE   
      
   9. Does the Dec 15 2014 decision in Allard at the Federal   
   Court of Appeal sufficiently impinge on my application?   
      
   PART III - ARGUMENT   
      
   9. Though the Court allowed the cross-appeal on the right to   
   be included in the remedy, it then did not broaden the   
   remedy to include them itself but instead sent it back   
   below with: Did you forget? Direction to remedy this   
   irreparable harm, unless you meant to do it.   
      
   10. In Parker, the Ontario Court of Appeal broadened the   
   lower court's remedy: We disagree with the judge granting   
   Parker a personal exemption and instead we substitute an   
   Order declaring the prohibition of marijuana to be invalid   
   (suspended a year to enact the MMAR exemption). Broadening   
   from a personal exemption for Parker to the law struck down   
   for everyone.   
      
   11. The Federal Court of Appeal could have like-wise   
   substituted a broadened remedy: We disagree with the remedy   
   that grand-fathered only the Grow Permits and instead we   
   substitute an Order grand-fathering both Grow and Possess   
   Permits. So the Court of Appeal has sent the Left-Outs back   
   to Justice Manson to broaden his remedy when they could have   
   broadened the remedy themselves.   
      
   12. It seems even more obvious that the previous best   
   remedy adopted by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Parker of   
   granting an Interim Exemption for Personal Medical Use is   
   still the only remedy that can end the irreparable harm now   
   being done to my identifiable group whom Justice Manson   
   maybe forgot before he gets to broadening his remedy to   
   include me.   
      
   PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT   
      
   13. Applicant seeks an Order extending the time to serve and   
   file Applicant's Supplementary Memorandum on the Dec 15 2014   
   Allard Decision at the Federal Court of Appeal.   
      
   Dated at Halifax on Dec 19 2014.   
   _____________________________________   
   Applicant:   
   Robert Roy   
      
   JCT:  So that's it. While the Federal Court of Appeal says   
   it allowed the cross-appeal on the right to a broadened   
   order, it did not allow the remedy of a broadened Order that   
   was asked for in that cross appeal.   
      
   I say it's a dereliction of the Court's powers not to have   
   broadened the remedy they say is a right themselves.   
      
   So no broadened remedy yet for anyone and stuck with the   
   150-gram limit officially unless the Gold Stars can get rid   
   of it. Not quite the big victory the Allard Appeal was made   
   out to be, is it?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)