• TURMEL: Art Jackes' "Originals Rejected" appeal Memorandum

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@1:229/2 to All on Tue Dec 18 17:59:34 2018
    From: johnturmel@gmail.com

    TURMEL: Art Jackes' "Originals Rejected" appeal Memorandum

    JCT: Art was a Plaintiff seeking damages for delay of permit
    not on the grounds of short-staffing but on the grounds they
    wasted time by rejecting an original for being not-original.

    Judge Brown dismissed his "rejected for no good reason"
    claim. Art appealed seeking to have the damages for delay
    due to faulty verification procedures put back on the docket
    below with the other 250 seeking damages for delay.

    File No: A-294-18
    FCC: T-1654-17
    FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
    BETWEEN:
    Arthur Jackes
    Appellant
    And
    Her Majesty The Queen
    Respondent


    APPELLANT'S MEMORANDUM

    PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS

    1. The Appellant appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal from
    the Aug 28 2018 Order of Federal Court Justice Brown in the
    action in T-1564-17.

    2. Plaintiff sought a declaration that delaying his
    application to amend Plaintiff's ACMPR permit Number MCR:
    16335 for over 13 weeks by rejecting the originality of
    signatures in black ink and suggesting a new application be
    signed in blue ink when Licensed Producer Security Clearance
    Applicants are prohibited from using blue ink is an
    unconstitutional violation of the patient's S.7 Right to
    Life by willful delay not in accordance with the principals
    of fundamental justice.

    3. Appellant's Ex. A was a copy of the Application to Amend
    his ACMPR permit MCR-16355.

    4. Appellant's Ex. B was the Health Canada response
    rejecting the application for alleged lack of original
    signatures.

    5. Appellant's Ex. C was his return letter explaining he
    knew all pages had to be original and included the
    application with a note beside each signature indicating it
    was original.

    6. Appellant's Ex. D was the Health Canada response again
    rejecting the application for alleged lack of original
    signatures and the suggestion that the disagreement as to
    the veracity of the signatures could be minimized by using a
    pen with blue ink.

    7. Appellant's Ex. E was from the Health Canada web page
    "Instructions for Completion of Security Clearance Form
    Under the Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes
    Regulations (ACMPR) which mandated using black ink.

    8. Appellant's Ex. F was a post by Jeff Harris stating on
    Oct 26 at 12:17PM his and his wife's applications had been
    accepted in black ink.

    9. On Aug 28 2018, the Court ruled:
    AND CONSIDERING the Plaintiff only alleges, which
    allegations must be accepted as true, that he applied to
    register for personal use or designated production under
    the ACMPR, which application was returned to him because
    the signature was deemed not to be original, that
    thereafter, the Plaintiff was informed that submission
    of a new application would result in the application
    being treated at a higher priority and that it was
    recommended to him that he use a blue ball-point pen
    when filling out the application to minimize
    disagreement as to the veracity of the signatures, but
    that the instructions for completing the relevant Health
    Canada form made it mandatory to complete the form in
    black ink, not blue ink;

    AND CONSIDERING that section 7 of the Charter,Part I of
    the Constitutional Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the
    Canada Act 1982 (UK) 1982, c 11 Charter "does not
    protect against insignificant or trivial limitations of
    rights" per Cunningham v. Canada [1993] 2 SCR 143 at
    151, recently applied by this Court in Johnson v. Canada
    (AG) 2018 FC 582 at para. 37;

    AND BEING OF THE VIEW that the recommendation made to
    the Plaintiff that he use a blue ball-point pen was, in
    the first place, only a suggestion and not a
    requirement, and that it is plain and obvious this
    suggestion did not constitute a violation of Charter-
    protected rights, and if it did, such violation would be
    trivial such that it is plain and obvious that the
    Plaintiff has no chance of success,

    THEREFORE, THE JUDGMENT OF THE COURT is that:
    1. This action is dismissed without leave to amend.
    2. There is no order as to costs.

    10. Health Canada has also rejected original signatures from
    other applicants for non-original signatures including
    Donald Cote four times. T-377-18, T-684-18.

    11. It's a small but sleazy way to stall patients getting
    their medicine. "Though a pin-prick may be only a pin-prick,
    a series of pin-pricks creates a wound."

    12. In dismissing my claim for damages for the delay
    caused by their false rejection, the court is letting them
    get away with doing it to possibly thousands of others.
    11,500 rejected applicants in 6 months did not get their
    names, addresses or birthdates wrong. And having a medical
    permit delayed over 3 months on false premises with expiry
    and penal sanctions looming is not a trivial nor
    insignificant violation of the patient's rights.

    13. Though other plaintiffs in the 270 actions case-managed
    by Justice Brown claim damages for delays in rejection due
    to non-originality, I just happen to have caught Health
    Canada red-handed and called them out but they were let go
    because the pin-prick to me was deemed too trivial.

    PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE

    14. Is Health Canada rejecting medical applications on false
    claims of non-originality too insignificant or trivial a
    limitation of rights to invoke the protection of the Charter
    S.7. and ask this court to consider the wound.

    15. If the violation alleged was not due to the right of
    Appellant not to use blue ink but due to the delay caused by
    the improper rejection of original signatures as not
    original, should Health Canada be made to justify their
    decision and explain how many applications were at some
    point rejected for not being original without any forensic
    investigation done on the document.

    PART III - SUBMISSION

    HEALTH CANADA MARKET DATA

    16. The Market-Data page at Health Canada provides useful
    information.
    https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs- health-products/medical-use-marijuana/licensed-
    producers/market-data.html
    This information is collected under the Access to
    Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations, which
    replaced the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations
    on August 24, 2016.
    Client Service Data
    The number of personal/designated registration
    applications processed per month.1
    Footnote 1
    This refers to the number of applications which have
    completed all processing steps. The process can result
    in a number of outcomes:
    - the issuance of a registration certificate to the
    applicant, in the case of new applications, renewals or
    amendments;
    - the application being returned in the case where the
    application was incomplete;
    - the issuance of a notice of intent to refuse or a
    notice of final refusal.
    Number of Active Registrations (as of the last day of
    the reporting period)

    Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
    6,880 8,823 10,547 11,640 12,854 13,124 13,829
    COMPLETE 1,943 1,724 1,093 1,214 270 705= 6,949

    The number of personal/designated registration
    applications processed per month:

    PROCESSED 2,870 3,212 2,925 3,369 3,193 2,926 =
    18,495

    17. So Processed monthly less Complete for those Returned.

    PROCESSED 2,870 3,212 2,925 3,369 3,193 2,926 = 18,495
    COMPLETE 1,943 1,724 1,093 1,214 270 705 = 6,949
    INCOMPLETE 927 1,488 1,832 2,155 2,923 2,221 = 11,546
    32% 46% 63% 64% 92% 76% = 62%
    The percentage rejection steadily went up.

    18. For the last 6 months of 2017, July to December of 2017,
    there were 18,495 applications processed, minus 6,949
    complete leaving 11,546, 62%, not complete and Returned!

    19. In November 2017, there were 3,193 processed, 270
    granted as complete, and 2,923 returned as incomplete. 91.5%
    Returned and only 8.5% granted!

    20. There are only these 10 data fields on a permit with
    only 5 being provided by the applicant (*). The other 5 by
    Health Canada or the doctor.
    * Name
    * Date of birth
    * Production area (outdoor)
    * Production site address
    * Storage Address
    Daily quantity
    Possession limit
    Name of Health Care Practitioner
    Maximum number of plants outdoor
    Maximum storage Quantity

    21. Out of the 11,546 applications returned as incomplete,
    how many do you think got wrong their:
    * - Name? Close to zero.
    * - Date of birth? Close to zero.
    * - Production area (outdoor). How would H.C ever know
    if you had measured the area wrong? Close to zero.
    * - Production site address: How would H.C. know even if
    you did put the wrong address? Close to zero.
    * - Storage Address: How would H.C. know if you did put
    the wrong address? Close to zero.

    - Name of Health Care Practitioner: Doctor says. Zero.
    - Daily quantity: Doctor wrote it. Close to zero.
    - Possession limit: H.C. tells patient. Zero.
    - Maximum number of plants outdoor: H.C. tells. Zero.
    - Maximum storage Quantity: H.C. tells. Zero.

    22. With the rest determined by Health Canada and the
    doctor, which datum supplied by applicant could be wrong?
    * Name
    * Date of birth
    * Production area (outdoor)
    * Production site address
    * Storage Address?

    23. Since the chance of a patient getting his own data wrong
    is close to zero, what possible reason could there be for a
    91.5% rejection rate as incomplete in November 2017? What
    possible reason could Health Canada be using to reject
    62% of all applications, 11,500 patients, if there is no
    error in what the patients submitted?

    24. I have only heard of one excuse used so far that could
    have been used to reject so many applications, to reject 2/3
    of all applications. "The signatures are not original,"
    which patients won't know now to prove original.

    25. Making patients go back to their doctors and wait extra
    months for their medical permits may seem trivial and
    insignificant a harm, but having been done to possibly
    thousands of patients is not a trivial offence.

    26. I caught them rejecting my application without any
    technical reason and complained. Donald Cote being rejected
    4 times for not being original raises the implication that
    rejecting originals without proper verification was a
    standard practice that could account for 2,923 rejected in
    November 2017.

    27. Only examining to find out why my original was rejected
    can establish any systemic malevolence affecting many
    others.

    PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT

    28. The Appellant seeks an Order that the judgment be
    overturned and the Statement of Claim for damages from
    rejection on a false reason of non-original signatures be
    returned for adjudication below.

    PART V - AUTHORITIES
    No authorities to be referred to

    Dated at Oakville, Ontario on Dec 18 2018
    For the Appellant
    Arthur Jackes

    For the Respondent:
    Wendy Wright
    Attorney General for Canada

    JCT: So, is the only complaint against the "rejected for not
    being original" when it was keeps the issue alive. Though
    Donald Cote's claim for damages below is due to 4 rejections
    for his signatures not being original!! Har har har. So if
    his claim for damages due to wrong verification goes on, why
    shouldn't Art's?

    I'd bet his appeal is folded in with the appeals of Kent
    Truman, Jeff Harris, Igor Mozajko, and now Art Jackes.

    →→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→→

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