• TURMEL: Court consolidates 150-gram and 1-year max actions

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@1:229/2 to All on Sat Nov 17 04:57:15 2018
    From: johnturmel@gmail.com

    TURMEL: Court consolidates 150-gram and 1-year max actions

    JCT: Half a dozen plaintiffs have filed challenges to the
    30-days or 150-gram maximum possession law while Mike
    Spottiswood is the first permanently-ill patient to
    challenge the 1-year maximum period of use.

    The Crown asked to hear and file materials dealing with them
    both at the same time. Mike consented to dealing with his at
    the same time as the other challenge but didn't want to mix
    up his arguments with those that have nothing to do with
    his. It could only serve to confuse the Crown lawyers which
    is what they want, an excuse to be confused and leave out
    stuff they wouldn't be able to leave out if they were
    dealing with it alone.

    Justice Brown ruled

    Date: 20181114
    Docket: T-1913-18
    Ottawa, Ontario, November 14, 2018
    PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Brown

    BETWEEN:
    MIKE SPOTTISWOOD
    Plaintiff
    and
    HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
    Defendant

    ORDER

    UPON considering that in this action the Plaintiff seeks a
    declaration that Cannabis Regulations subsection 273(2)
    SOR/2018-144 requiring that the period of use must not
    exceed one year is a violation of the right under section 7
    of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of
    the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada
    Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11, "to Life and Security for
    permanently-ill patients not in accordance with principles
    of fundamental justice to not be arbitrary, grossly
    disproportional, conscience-shocking, incompetent while MMAR
    patients whose permits were extended since 2014 have caused
    no problems by remaining authorized without having to get
    their doctor to renew their permits again";

    AND UPON considering that on November 5, 2018, the Court
    advised the parties that it was considering adding this
    action to be managed along the same timelines as Hathaway
    (T1716-18), Harris (T-1765-18), Jackes (T-1784-18), and
    Abbott (T-1822-18), if the Crown intends to move to strike;

    AND UPON considering that by letter dated November 9, 2018,
    the Defendant advised a motion to strike this claim will be
    brought on the same grounds as in the Hathaway (T-1716-18)
    and Harris (T-1765-18) actions, namely, that it is an
    attempt to re-litigate issues that have already been decided
    by this and other courts, and that the claim fails to
    disclose a reasonable cause of action. The Defendant
    proposed that this action be case-managed together with the
    Hathaway and Harris actions, and seeks leave to file one set
    of motion materials addressing this action and the Hathaway
    and Harris actions. The Defendant also requests that its
    motion and the underlying action be subject to all of the
    terms listed at paragraphs 3 to 10 of this Court's Order
    dated November 1, 2018, in the Hathaway and Harris actions;

    AND UPON considering the Plaintiff in reply said that it did
    not object to the Defendant's wish to file a motion to
    strike nor that it be heard with other "Turmel Kit"
    challenges, but did object that it not be dealt with
    separately from their motions to strike other non-related
    claims;

    AND UPON concluding that the Defendant's submission has more
    merit than the Plaintiffs and will be more efficient and
    less costly;

    THEREFORE THIS COURT ORDERS that:

    1. This action shall be case-managed together with the
    Hathaway (T-1716-18) and Harris (T-1765-18) actions.

    2. The Defendant has leave to serve and file one set of
    motion materials addressing this action and the Hathaway (T-
    1716-18) and Harris (T-1765-18) actions.

    3. This Defendant's motion to strike the underlying action
    shall be subject to all of the terms listed at paragraphs 3
    to 10 of this Court's Order dated November 1, 2018, in the
    Hathaway (T-1716-18) and Harris (T-1765-18) actions.

    "Henry S. Brown" Judge

    JCT: Mike's Response had indicated that there were going to
    be other non-related actions coming.
    - I've filed one to strike the prohibitions for impeding
    juice supply;
    - There's another ready for a DG to grow for more than 2
    people and a site to host more than 4 licenses;
    - There's another coming for people who had their
    prescriptions cut off or reduced due to Health Canada's
    harassing phone calls to the doctor;
    - There's another for people with criminal records in the
    past 10 years who want to go straight with jobs in the
    industry they know so well;
    And more.

    The only common denominator is that they all deal with
    marijuana. Can you imagine a Crown lawyer trying to deal
    with them all in one set of materials when they've been
    shown to be so easily confused by even one issue?

    We'll see. But right now, the maximum 150-gram limit and 1-
    year period of use have not been lumped together. At least
    we won't be confused.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)