From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: My last posts detail our motions to appeal late and to   
   amend permits pending appeal; and the Crown Response. Here   
   is our Reply filed today by Jeff Harris, Lead Applicant.   
      
                                               File No: 15-A-5   
                      FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
   BETWEEN:   
                           JEFFERY HARRIS   
                                                        Applicant   
                                and   
                       HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                       Respondent   
      
                         APPLICANT'S REPLY   
      
   COMPLIANCE WITH RULES   
      
   1. Federal Court Rule 365.(1) states that "respondent to a   
   motion shall serve a respondent's motion record that shall   
   contain.. (2)(b) all affidavits and other material to be used   
   by the respondent on the motion that is not included in the   
   moving party's motion record; and Rule 366 states that for an   
   interlocutory injunction, a motion record shall contain a   
   memorandum of fact and law.   
      
   2. On Mar 12, in lieu of a Motion Record with Memorandum and   
   Affidavit introducing exhibits, Respondent served a letter to   
   the Court with a few appended print-outs. Addressed to   
   "Sir/Madam," there is no Style of Cause nor a motion for   
   dispensation from compliance with the Rules.   
      
   3. Whether Respondent managed to get the "Letter" filed in   
   lieu of a "Motion Record" or not, given the need for   
   expedition, format irregularities will be overlooked and the   
   Respondent's points will be rebutted.   
      
   PERMITS PROVIDE STANDING   
      
   4. CR: The applicants were not parties to this motion or to   
   the broader Allard action, and as such, have no standing to   
   appeal.   
      
   5. Justice Manson defined the standing of the class by   
   possession of permits at para.17:   
       [17] The Applicants all hold or held an ATP and/or a PPL   
       or DPL..   
      
   6. Patients with permits were affected by the Allard Action,   
   some positively,   
   a) some negatively, and   
   b) some positively then negatively.   
      
   7. Every applicant herein has a doctor's prescription and   
   holds or held an ATP and PPL/DPL and was negatively affected   
   by the broader Allard "class" Order a) some having one but not   
   both permits extended; b) some having both permits extended   
   that were later voided by a change in data.   
      
   8. Though the court of appeal missed the reason for some in   
   the class being Left-Out, in his Mar 21 2014 decision, Manson   
   J. spent Para.51-53 discussing how the size of the market   
   available to LPs under the MMPR had bearing on his decision.   
   In his analysis paragraph 117, 119, 121, 129, Justice Manson   
   states:   
       [117].. the public interest.. includes any negative impact   
       an injunction would have on LPs by reducing the size of   
       their market, and any expenditure necessitated by Health   
       Canada as a result of this injunction.   
      
       [119] I find that the nature of the irreparable harm that   
       the Applicants will suffer under the MMPR constitutes a   
       "clear case," which outweighs the public interest in   
       wholly maintaining the enacted regulations which are   
       presumed to, among other things, increase the health,   
       safety and security of the public. Likewise, while LPs may   
       be impacted by a diminished customer base prior to a   
       decision in this case being rendered, this evidence is   
       speculative and there is no certainty in terms of time or   
       effect for start-up businesses in a novel market.   
      
       [121].. In coming to this conclusion on the balance the   
       convenience, I have considered the nature of the remedy   
       and its proportionality to the irreparable harm suffered   
       by the Applicants. As agreed to by the parties,   
       the period of time until trial is in the range of nine to   
       twelve months, a limited and finite time..   
       will ensure a speedy resolution of the issues for both   
       parties, and not unduly impact the viability of the MMPR   
       scheme.   
      
       [129] I am cognizant that this remedy may, for a limited   
       period of time, have an affect on the size of the market   
       available for LPs. However, this remedy is short in   
       duration, and as such I am convinced that it will not   
       unduly affect the regulations passed by Parliament, while   
       protecting the rights of the Applicants.   
      
   9. Though the Court of Appeal missed the reason David Hebert   
   could not  amend his permits, as well as explaining in in para   
   119 his concern about Health Canada expenditures, Para 114   
   also cited requiring Health Canada expending resources.   
      
   10. If the Court of Appeal after having it explained 5 times   
   that the viability of the LP market was the reason for   
   extending the permits didn't get it, it couldn't be a very   
   good reason on the 6th explanation.   
      
   11. a) Tanya Beemish represents the sub-class who were   
   negatively affected by being left out of the relief when their   
   Possess permits were not grandfathered with their Grow   
   permits. How can it be said permits affected positively are in   
   the class and permits affected negatively are not?   
      
   12. b) David Hebert represents the sub-class whose permits   
   were affected positively with an extension and then negatively   
   when he was not allowed to amend his permits to record a   
   change in circumstances. How could it be said that someone in   
   the affected class of patients with permits that were extended   
   by Justice Manson who then moved is no longer part of the   
   affected class? The Permits were affected by the remedy,   
   positively and then negatively. It was a class of permits   
   affected, not only the four named parties.   
      
   RESPONDENT UNIDENTIFIED   
      
   13. CR: As their motions do not identify a "federal board,   
   commission or other tribunal," let alone one listed in S.28 of   
   the Federal Courts Act, Canada submits that this Honourable   
   Court is without jurisdiction to grant the requested relief.   
   Canada therefore requests that the motions be dismissed.   
      
   14. Applicant submits Respondent was sufficiently identified   
   in the Orders of the Federal Court and Federal Court of   
   Appeal. When Justice Manson granted relief against Health   
   Canada, the Crown appealed and now argue, in exactly the same   
   situation, the the other party now may not appeal because   
   Health Canada seems still unidentified? Had the Attorney   
   General's "Letter" in response included a Style of Cause, the   
   Respondent might be more clearly identified to the   
   Respondent's satisfaction.   
      
   ALLARD SEEKS SAME RELIEF   
      
   15. CR: In any event, the Allard plaintiffs now have   
   themselves been given an extension of time to appeal the   
   December 30 order, and seek the same relief as the   
   applicants...   
      
   16. Even if the Allard Appellants also seek to amend their   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)