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repealed.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
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
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:
 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
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
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
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
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
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
JCT: So they imposed the 150 gram limit while banning all
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
JCT: Notice how there's no mention of juice which takes
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
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.
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
(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)
Lesser of 150 g or
a) 30 x daily authorized amount MMPR. s 5
c) Annual MMPR, s 129(2)
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