• TURMEL: Crown Motion to strike 150-gram & 1-year permit challenges (1/6

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@1:229/2 to All on Mon Dec 31 17:10:46 2018
    From: johnturmel@gmail.com

    TURMEL: Crown Motion to strike 150-gram & 1-year permit challenges

    JCT: Because so many are adversely affected by the 150 gram
    max possession and 1-year prescription max cap, I'll leave
    the whole thing.

    http://johnturmel.com/150cm.pdf has the Written
    Representations being parsed here. I'm only including the
    paragraphs I'm commenting on. You can read the others online
    if you wish.

    http://johnturmel.com/150cm11.pdf
    http://johnturmel.com/150cm12.pdf
    http://johnturmel.com/150cm2.pdf
    http://johnturmel.com/150cmba.pdf
    http://johnturmel.com/150cm.pdf

    CR: OVERVIEW

    1. These claims should be struck without leave to amend,
    First, the Hathaway claim seeks declarations that the former
    Access to Cannabis for Medical Purposes Regulations
    ("ACMPR") are unconstitutional. The ACMPR have been
    repealed. The requested relief is accordingly moot.

    JCT: True, and Ray did not file a new amended Statement of
    Claim so his claim being dismissed is no problem.

    CR: 2. Second, the claims should be struck as a matter of
    judicial comity and as an abuse of process. The plaintiffs
    have previously filed claims concerning the same issues as
    are raised in the present claims.

    JCT: Yes, the same beefs were filed in 2014 but the Crown
    wanted their actions stayed in case the result of the Allard
    would mooten their actions and save time. And it did.

    CR: The prior claims were struck without leave to amend on
    the grounds that, among other things, they failed to
    disclose a reasonable cause of action and were frivolous,
    vexatious and an abuse of process.

    JCT: Notice how they omit the reason was that our actions
    were "mooted" by the MMPR being struck down in Allard.
    Therefore, there was no argument on whether it was
    "frivolous, vexatious, or abuse of process to object to the
    150 grams and annual check-ups last time. Still, it makes
    the judges who could find laughable people complaining about
    a limit less than their daily dosage, and having to do
    annual check-ups for permanent illnesses. Har har har, they
    say the past judge fount that frivolous, vexatious and an
    abuse. If they can't get him to say that now, can he really
    believe they got a past judge to say it then about those
    issues... Who knows how many of the other 16 issues we
    raised were also not thought to be so funny.

    CR: The plaintiffs did not appeal those orders,

    JCT: There was no reason to appeal when their actions had
    been mooted by the MMPR being struck down in Allard. Had we
    appealed, the Crown would have argued the MMPR was gone and
    we were wasting time since, like they're saying here about
    Hathaway, "The requested relief is accordingly moot."

    CR: but now attempt to circumvent them with "new" claims.

    JCT: Our points were not argued on the merits once the MMPR
    was declared unconstitutional and any dismissal cannot bear
    on them.

    CR: There is no reason to depart from this Court's prior
    decisions and the plaintiffs should not be permitted to
    abuse this Court's process by repeatedly raising the same
    issues.

    JCT: There are no prior decision on the merits of the 150
    gram limit. Or of the annual medical documents. Or of the
    limit on licenses per site. That's why we can raise them now
    as Judge Phelan says in Paragraph 28:
    [28] In terms of judicial economy, handling more than
    300 similar cases across the country without a lead file
    or some coordination is a daunting task. Before working
    out the logistics, the Court must be able to conclude
    that something legally useful might be attained.
    However, here there are no issues which can usefully be
    resolved in terms of present or future proceedings. Any
    problems with the new regime should be handled directly
    in claims under or against the ACMPR.

    JCT: Any problems that Justice Phelan left unaddressed with
    the new regime should be handled directly in claims under or
    against the ACMPR. We did. And problems not addressed now
    under the Cannabis Act & Regulations. But they're telling us
    his dismissal because we could still complain about the new
    regime should be precedent to dismiss now.

    CR: 3. Third, this Court has affirmed the constitutionality
    of the 150 gram possession limit on cannabis for medical
    purposes.

    JCT: Only Justice Manson affirmed the constitutionality o
    the 150 gram possession limit per incuriam.

    CR: Several courts, including this one, have also
    affirmed the constitutionality of requirements for annual
    medical authorization to use cannabis for medical purposes.

    JCT: Yes, they affirmed the need for the doctor opinion but
    did not affirm the need for an annual opinion. Watch how
    many times they repeat that the courts have supported a
    medical document to bolster that it should be annual.

    CR: The claims attempt to re-litigate these issues,

    JCT: We never got to litigate the issues though Phelan
    opined without our having had a chance to make our arguments.

    CR: but identify no reason why this Court should depart from
    these prior decisions. Judicial comity again requires that
    the claims be struck in these circumstances.

    JCT: No need to if they did not litigate the issues. But did
    the courts affirm needing a doctor to sigh or to sign
    annually?

    CR: 4. Fourth, the claims fail to disclose a reasonable
    cause of action. Although they broadly allege thai the
    current Cannabis Regulations infringe sections 7 and 15 of
    the Charter, the claims contain few if any facts to support
    the essential elements of these constitutional causes of
    action.

    JCT: "Few, if any" means some. Note how many times they say
    that some is none.

    CR: The claims are so lacking in material facts, and are so
    argumentative and at points unintelligible as to be
    scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.

    JCT: They always say there's no cause of action even when
    there is. What are they going to do, admit it? That's why
    it's called lawying. But to find it unintelligible, either
    they're not intelligent or we're not.

    CR: PART 1 - FACTS

    A. LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

    1) The evolution of the regulation of cannabis for medical
    purposes

    5. The regulation of cannabis for medical purposes in Canada
    has evolved significantly over the past two decades. In
    1999, the Minister of Health began issuing discretionary
    exemptions under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
    ("CDSA") to allow patients to produce and possess cannabis
    for medical purposes.1

    a) The MMAR

    6. In 2001, in response to the decision of the Ontario Court
    of Appeal in R v Parker, Canada promulgated the Marihuana
    Medical Access Regulations ("MMAR").2 Although they evolved
    over time, at the time of their repeal in 2014, the MMAR
    provided that patients with the support of a physician3
    could obtain authorization from Health Canada to possess up
    to 30 times the daily quantity of dried cannabis authorized
    by the physician.4 The MMAR required that this medical
    authorization be renewed annually.5

    JCT: What's interesting is that years ago, they did consider
    making the medical document twice a year. Reasons given, it
    would help the doctor and patient get better at filling out
    the forms.

    7. The MMAR provided that patients could access cannabis by
    purchasing it from Health Canada, or by producing it
    themselves or designating someone else to produce it under a
    Health Canada-issued licence.6 For those choosing personal
    or designated production, at the time of repeal, up to four
    patients or their designated producers could share a
    production site.7 This limit was intended to address the
    increased risks of theft, diversion and other public safety
    risks associated with large-scale cannabis production.8 The
    MMAR also provided that patients or designated producers
    licensed to produce cannabis could store a quantity of
    cannabis equal to more than 200 times the daily quantity
    authorized by the patient's medical practitioner.9

    JCT: Why are they raising the caps on licenses? It's not in
    these claims. Notice how they do not admit that those caps
    were struck down in Hitzig, put back up, then struck down
    again in Sfetkopoulos and Beren. But sadly, no one has
    filed my Statement of Claim with the Sfetkopoulous and Beren
    decision cited as precedent. Yet.

    Their Book of Authorities got Beren but omitted
    Sfetkopoulos, both of which we cite in our Designated Person
    kit to grow for more than 4 licenses.

    CR: b) The MMPR

    8. Between 2001 and 2013, the number of patients authorized
    to possess and produce cannabis, and the amount that they
    were authorized to produce, grew significantly. This led to
    concerns on the part of physicians, municipalities, and law
    enforcement about risks to the health, safety and security
    of patients, their neighbours and the public.10 In 2013,
    Canada responded to these concerns by introducing the
    Marijuana for Medical Purposes Regulations ("MMPR").11

    JCT: No more personal grows allowed.

    9. Under the MMPR, patients with the support of a health
    care practitioner could purchase cannabis from commercial
    producers licensed by Health Canada to produce and ship
    cannabis.12 Like manufacturers of drugs under the Food and
    Drugs Act, these licensed producers were (and remain)
    subject to strict regulatory controls that are designed to
    ensure cannabis products do not pose undue risk to the
    health of users, are not easily diverted to the illicit
    market, and are not accessed illegally by youth to whom they
    could pose health risks.13 The MMPR provided that patients
    could possess the lesser of 150 grams or 30 times the daily
    quantity of dried cannabis authorized by their health care
    practitioner.14

    JCT: So they imposed the 150 gram limit while banning all
    other sources,

    CR: 10. In Allard v Canada ("Allard"), this Court declared
    the MMPR unconstitutional on the grounds that the licensed
    production regime in place at the time unduly restricted
    access to cannabis for medical cannabis. However, as
    detailed below, the Court affirmed the constitutionality of
    the 150 gram possession limit.

    JCT: Judge Manson imposed it and he didn't know about the
    fraudulent surveys. Judge Phelan let Manson's decision stand
    knowing about the 9 times too low estimates.

    CR: c) The ACMPR

    11. In August 2016, Canada responded to Allard by
    promulgating the ACMPR.15 The ACMPR substantively combined
    the commercial licensed production regime established under
    the MMPR with a personal and designated production regime
    similar to the former MMAR.

    12. The ACMPR preserved the 150 gram possession limit.
    However, patients registered with Health Canada For personal
    or designated production could once again store an
    additional quantity of cannabis equal to more than 200 times
    the daily quantity authorized by the patient's medical
    practitioner.16 In addition, up to four patients could once
    again share a production site. The forms of cannabis that
    patients could possess and store were also expanded under
    the ACMPR to include not only dried cannabis, but also non-
    dried forms of cannabis, including fresh cannabis and
    cannabis oil,17

    JCT: Notice how there's no mention of juice which takes
    lots.

    CR: 2) The current Cannabis Act and Regulations

    13. Parliament passed the Cannabis Act (the "Act") on June
    20, 2018, and the new Act took effect on October 17, 2018.18
    The Act establishes a new legal and regulatory framework for
    the production, distribution, sale and possession of
    cannabis.

    14. The Act permits Canadian adults to possess up to 30
    grams of dried cannabis (or its non-dried equivalent) while
    in a public place.19 Cannabis may be purchased from a
    provincially regulated online store or where currently
    available, a provincially regulated retail outlet.20 Adults
    may also produce up to four cannabis plants at home.21

    JCT: This gives the impression that every adult may. But one
    adult may produce 4, 2 adults in the same home may produce
    4, any number of adults in the home may only grow 4. A
    single person may grow double that of a couple.

    CR: The Act and its accompanying regulations include strict
    regulatory controls to provide for the safety and quality of
    commercially produced cannabis, to restrict youth access, to
    enhance public awareness of the health risks posed by
    cannabis, and to limit opportunities for organized crime to
    profit from the illicit sale of cannabis.22

    15. In conjunction with the Act, Canada introduced the new
    Cannabis Regulations (the "Regulations").23 The Regulations
    establish a medical cannabis regime that operates in
    parallel with the new non-medical regime. In addition to the
    30 grams authorized under the Act, the Regulations (like the
    MMPR and ACMPR before them) permit the possession in public
    of the lesser of 150 grams or 30 times the daily quantity of
    dried cannabis authorized by a patient's health care
    practitioner.24 However (unlike the former regulations), the
    current possession limits encompass public possession only.
    There is no limit in the Act or Regulations on the quantity
    of cannabis that a patient or other adult may store in a
    non-public place such as a residence.

    JCT: Solves the mail delivery problem that existed in the
    MMPR and ACMPR if they may store what they want.

    CR: 16. Like the ACMPR, the Regulations provide that
    patients may access cannabis either by purchasing it from a
    commercial licensed seller, or by registering with Health
    Canada for personal or designated production.25 For patients
    choosing personal or designated production, the Regulations
    continue to provide that up to four patients or their
    designated producers may share a production site.26 These
    features of the Act and Regulations, and of the previous
    regulatory regimes, are illustrated in the following table.

    MMAR

    a) Max. possession amount (dried marihuana in grams)
    b) Max. storage amount for personal / designated producers
    (dried Marihuana in grams)T
    c) Max. period of medical authorization
    d) Max. patients per production site

    MMAR
    (as of March 31; 2014)
    a) 30 x daily authorized amount MMAR. s.11(3)
    b) 218-713x daily authorized amount MMAR.s31
    c) Annual MMAR ss11, 13(1)
    d) 4 MMAR,ss32(d:),41(c)

    MMPR
    Lesser of 150 g or
    a) 30 x daily authorized amount MMPR. s 5
    b) N/A5
    c) Annual MMPR, s 129(2)
    d) N/A

    ACMPR
    a) Lesser of 150 g or 30 x daily amount ACMPR,s6(l)
    b) 218-713x daily authorized amount* ACMPR,ss 191-192
    c) Annual ACMPR, s 8(2)
    d) 4 ACMPR,Is84(c),185(b)

    Cannabis Act, Cannabis Regulations
    a) Non-public place: No limit
    Public place: 30 g + lesser of 150 g or 30 x daily amount
    Act. s 8(1 )(a); Regs. ss 266-26S
    b) No storage limit6
    c) Annual Regs, s 273(2)
    d) 4 Regs,s317(l)(li)

    B. PRIOR CLAIMS BY THE PLAINTIFFS

    17. Between 2014 and 2016, hundreds of self-represented
    plaintiffs, including the present plaintiffs Allan J. Harris
    ("Harris"), Mike Spottiswood ("Spottiswood") and Raymond Lee

    [continued in next message]

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