From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: MedPot Fearless Four ask Supreme Court to reconsider exemptions   
      
   JCT: About 50 Gold Stars had filed motions for interim   
   exemptions to use marijuana for Personal Medical use while   
   their actions for repeal went on below which were denied by   
   Justice Phelan for an ATP being insufficient medical   
   evidence. 26 appealed and 4 had their motions for interim   
   exemptions pending appeal dismissed and applied for Leave to   
   Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.   
      
   Those wanting interim exemptions:   
      
   1) The Terry Parker whom the MMAR was mandated to exempt and   
   never did;   
      
   2) Stephen Burrows who was cut off in Manson J.'s decision   
   from finishing curing his tumor;   
      
   3) Robert Roy who was cut off because his exemption expired   
   while Manson was deliberating and then he didn't grandfather   
   it back to the date of the hearing but the date of his   
   decision;   
      
   4) Ray Turmel who did benefit from the Manson decision to   
   extend his MMAR exemption complaining the MMAR is still no   
   good and can't be changed.   
      
   Three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada rejected their   
   Applications for leave to appeal and they have now filed   
   their last word, an Application for Reconsideration.   
      
                                          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 APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION   
                      Robert Roy, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 73 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that Applicant hereby applies for   
   Reconsideration of the dismissal of the Application for   
   Leave to Appeal No. 36146.   
      
   AND TAKE NOTICE the motion will be made on the grounds that   
   not reconsidering inflicts on a group of medical patients   
   conditions of viability calculated to bring about our   
   physical destruction.   
   For the Applicant:   
   Robert Roy   
                      APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM   
                      Robert Roy, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 73 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
   PART I - OVERVIEW   
      
   1. In this application for reconsideration, I bring to the   
   attention of the Court the recent Dec 30 2014 ruling of   
   Justice Manson in response to the Dec 15 2014 ruling of   
   Federal Court of Appeal Justices Nadon, Webb and Boivin:   
           [18] While the judge carefully crafted and tailored   
       his order in a way that he considered minimally   
       intrusive into the legislative sphere (judge's reasons   
       at para. 121), 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.   
       [19] With respect, the difficulty with the judge's   
       finding is that although he provides a right (the   
       interlocutory injunction) to the four (4) respondents -   
       Mr. Allard, Mr. Davey, Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert - he   
       does not, in contrast, explain why he deprives two (2)   
       respondents - Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert - of a remedy.   
       After careful reading of the judge's reasons, I am left   
       to speculate as to his intention.   
       [20] In these circumstances, I cannot address properly   
       the determination the respondents are seeking as I am   
       unable to understand whether the judge intended to   
       exclude Ms. Beemish and Mr Hebert or simply forgot to   
       deal with their situation. In other words, the judge's   
       reasons do not allow this Court to perform its appellate   
       function.   
       [21] After considering making an assessment of the   
       evidence, I believe that the wiser course is to return   
       the matter to the judge with a direction that he   
       specifically addresses the situation of Ms. Beemish and   
       Mr Hebert.   
       [23].. I would remit the matter back to the judge for   
       determination solely on the issue of the scope of the   
       remedy, more particularly with respect to Ms. Beemish   
       and Mr. Hebert, in accordance with these reasons.   
      
   2. Had Justice Manson expanded the relief, this Application   
   would have been mooted. But though the court of appeal could   
   not fathom why half the 30,000 self-producing patients   
   should have been Left-Out of the relief, Justice Manson   
   explained refusing to reconsider expanding the relief to   
   all:   
       Upon having regard to the Federal Court of Appeal's   
       decision dated December 15 2014...   
       THIS COURT ORDERS that:   
       [1] The Plaintiffs request a reconsideration of my   
       decision of Mar 21, 2014, to   
       (i) order that all patients that held a valid   
       Authorization to Possess (ATP) on March 21 2014, or in   
       the alternative, September 30 2013, are covered by the   
       Exemption Order I made, and to   
       (ii) order that all patients exempted by the Order,   
       including Mr. Hebert and Ms. Beemish, and others   
       similarly situated, can change their address form with   
       Health Canada pending trial.   
       [2] As stated above, the Federal Court of Appeal   
       remitted the issue of the scope of the interlocutory   
       injunction for clarification only, to specify whether   
       the injunction applied to Ms. Beemish and Mr. Hebert.   
       There is no reconsideration to be made and certainly no   
       expansion of the scope of my decision to apply to anyone   
       other than the plaintiffs in the proceeding.   
       [3] In considering the balance of convenience, I   
       specifically chose the relevant transitional dates of   
       September 30 2013 and March 21 2014 to limit the   
       availability of injunctive relief to extend only to   
       those individuals who held valid licenses to either   
       possess or produce marijuana for medical purposes as of   
       those relevant dates...   
       [4] Accordingly, only those plaintiffs who had a valid   
       license on September 30 2013 could continue producing   
       marijuana for medical purposes and only those plaintiffs   
       who held a valid authorization to possess marijuana for   
       medical purposes at the time of my decision on March 21   
       2014 could continue to so possess.   
       [5] In considering the balance of convenience, the   
       remedy I granted was intended to avoid unduly impacting   
       the viability of the Marijuana for Medical Purposes   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)