TURMEL: "Strike 150-gram cap" Claim and Motion to be amended
JCT: 6 people had filed Statements of Claim for a
declaration striking the 150-gram caps in the ACMPR allowing
the 30x days supply: Jeff Harris and wife Colleen, Ray
Hathaway, Arthur Jackes, Robert McAmmond and Scott
Case Management Judge Brown slated a hearing on Oct 30. So
Jeff filed a Motion for that day to be allowed a 10-day
supply as had been granted by the BC Superior Court to the
Garber plaintiffs which could be applied to the other five.
But the judge pointed out we were now no longer under the
ACMPR but under the Cannabis Act and Cannabis Regulations. I
hadn't realised the ACMPR had been replaced. So I've found
all the sections on the 150 grams in the Cannabis
Regulations and swapped them in to the new 150-gram cap
So I switched in the right updated section numbers we wish
to strike. Judge Brown named Jeff Harris and Ray Hathaway as
Lead Plaintiffs and granted them the right to file an
amended Statement of Claim to match the new one up at http://johnturmel.com/ins150.pdf to strike the 150 gram
limit with only Cannabis Regulations sections being
Ray Hathaway had also filed a Statement of Claim on his own
behalf and included some of the sections I'm going to be
dealing with individually. I didn't want Jeff's claim or
motion for interim remedy on the 150 grams to be slowed down
so Ray has agreed to adopt Jeff's Amended Claim with the
other 4 Plaintiffs and to then filing his own new claims
with respect to the other individual problems. For instance,
he had argued to strike the 1-year cap on period of use but
we have a whole separate kit that he can use for that. So no
need to complicate the 150-gram challenge with the other
At the Tuesday Oct 30 afternoon hearing, the judge had
directed that all plaintiffs provide him with a proposed
timetable and though I was going to write that we'll follow
the regular court timeline after the Crown files their
Statement of Defence in 30 days, I forgot. So Judge Brown
gave them more time to submit their timetables.
Two Lead Plaintiffs were suggested, Jeff Harris filing for
the group and Ray Hathaway filing on his own material.
Scott McCluskey thought Justice Brown showed prejudice over
them not employing REAL lawyers, and doing this as self
represented though they all said they could not afford
Scott thought a clear prejudice was elucidated by Jon
Bricker over seeing the same names on so many files from the
past. He also acted like self-representation was the plague
though they've been handling them for the past 4 years. And
Bricker ain't seen nothing yet. Many people will be able to
file several of the upcoming Statement of Claim kits.
Everyone who filed over damages can also file to strike the
150 gram cap and also file to strike the 2-patient/grower
and 4-licenses/site caps, and also file to declare the
prohibitions invalid because they impede our right to juice
from local growers. Every tort is different so no wonder
Bricker's in a bad mood.
But Judge Brown was there to watch the whole recent process
so he'll understand Bricker and Wright having good reason to
be upset. But I see no gain in challenging Justice Brown's
partiality given he's ruled our way so many times before.
The proper way is to appeal on the merits if the eventual
ruling is not favorable. But do you really think this Judge
Brown is going to let people be illegal if they leave home
with a whole day's dosage?
Seems Bricker also again suggested that he needed to know
their illnesses before being able to decide whether the 150
gram limit is unreasonable. Jeff will repeat the argument
against their last motion that a signed Dr form should be
enough to prove a qualifying condition and why should they
have to disclose their illness in a public forum?
I know the Plaintiffs may not like being berated over and
over for using the Turmel's kits... like it's some sort of
weakness. But I take pride in being mentioned as the
mastermind of the Repeal Prohibition resistance.
But they kept saying the same thing about the actions being
void of facts.... Same thing they said when the start date
and end date on the permit were the only facts we submitted
to determine a period of use! And whether it was
unconstitutional. The Judge ignored their argument and let
it go forward with just those facts establishing the period
and not what illness the Plaintiffs were suffering. But it
seems they're asking Judge Brown again.
But it boils down to Jeff filing an Amended Statement of
Claim, a new amended Motion for his 10-day supply in the
interim, and a letter informing the judge the timeline in
the Rules can be used.
Today, Jeff got two emails from the Court. One his Order
with respect to the motion and the other a timetable for
Jeff's fresh motion:
Dockets: T-1716-18 T-1765-18
Ottawa, Ontario, November 1, 2018
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown
RAYMOND LEE HATHAWAY
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
THE PARTIES IDENTIFIED IN SCHEDULE vAb ATTACHED HERETO
UPON the Court convening a case management meeting
concerning these set cases assigned to me to case manage;
AND UPON hearing from the Plaintiffs and Counsel for the
Defendant as to whether and how these matters should
AND UPON concluding that the most efficient course to follow
is the appointment of two Plaintiffs as lead Plaintiffs who
are to file amended Statements of Claim in a timely fashion
following which the Defendant will bring a Motion to Strike.
THEREFORE THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The Plaintiffs Raymond Lee Hathaway and Allan Harris in
file numbers T-1716-18 and T-1765-18 respectively are
appointed representative or lead Plaintiffs in connection
with this group of actions and any actions subsequently
added to this group all of which shall be managed in
accordance with this Order.
2. The said Raymond Lee Hathaway and Allan Harris shall
serve and file their amended Statements of Claim on or
before November 16, 2018.
3. The Defendant shall serve and file Her Motion to Strike
on or before December 14, 2018.
4. The Plaintiffs Raymond Lee Hathaway and Allan Harris
shall serve and file responding material on or before
February 1, 2019.
5. The Defendant shall serve and file reply material on or
before February 22, 2019.
6. The Defendant is at liberty to file one set of material
on the representative Plaintiffs in respect of both actions.
7. The Plaintiffs Raymond Lee Hathaway and Alan Harris may
serve and file material on the Defendant electronically, and
the Defendant may serve and file Her material on the said
Plaintiffs also electronically.
8. No proceedings may be brought by parties in this group of
actions without leave of the Court.
9. A copy of this Order shall be placed in all files covered
by this Order, and a copy of this Order shall be provided to
all parties who are now or hereafter subject to this Order.
JCT: That's the timeline for the Crown's motion to strike
the Statement of Claim. Then Jeff got a Direction from the
judge on his Motion for interim remedy of 10-day supply:
The Plaintiff is to file a fresh Motion within 5 days
after he files an amended Statement of Claim.
JCT: Jeff just filed his new Statement of Claim and his
fresh Motion Record at the same time as his letter to the
judge with his timetable.
File No: T-1765-18
Allan J. Harris
Her Majesty The Queen
AMENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(Pursuant to S.48 of the Federal Court Act)
1. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that Sections
S.266(2)(b), (3)(b), (4)(b), (6)(b), (7), S.267(2)(b),
(3)(b), (4)(b), (5),S.290(e), S.293(1), S.297(e)(iii),
S.348(3)(a)(ii), in the Cannabis Regulations (SOR 2018-144)
imposing a 150-gram cap on possessing and shipping cannabis