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

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@1:229/2 to All on Mon Dec 31 17:10:46 2018
    [continued from previous message]

    16 ACMPR, s 191 (DMR, Tab 8A, p 425-26]
    17 ACMPR, ss 3.4 (DMR, Tab 8A, p 418-20]
    18 SC 2018, c 16 ("Act") [DMR, Tab 8A, p 430-50)
    19 Act, s 8(1 )(a) [DMR, Tab 8A, p 437]
    20 Act, s 69 [DMR, Tab 8A, p 449-50]
    21 Act, s 12(4)(b) |DMR, Tab 8A, p 442]
    22 Act, s 7 |DMR, Tab 8A, p 436-37]
    23 SOR/2018-144 ("Regulations") [DMR, Tab 8A, p 451-61]
    24 Regulations, ss 266-68 |DMR, Tab 8A, p 451-55]
    25 Regulations, s 266(1) JDMR, Tab 8A, p 452]
    26 Regulations, s 317(1 )(h) |DMR, Tab 8A, p 459]
    27 Statement of Claim in Allan Jeffery Harris v HMQ (T-1224-
    14) (Exhibit B to the Affidavit of Asvini ICrishnamoorthy,
    sworn December 12, 2018 ("Krishnamoorthy affidavit") ("Prior
    Harris Claim") [Defendant's Motion Record ("DMR"), Tab 7B];
    Statement of Claim in Michael K Spottiswood v HMQ (T-543-14)
    (Exhibit A to the Krishnamoorthy Affidavit) ("Prior
    Spottiswood Claim") [DMR, Tab 7A]; Statement of Claim in
    Raymond Lee Hafhaway vHMQ (T-983-16) (Exhibit D lo the
    Krishnamoorthy Affidavit) ("Prior Hathaway Claim") [DMR, Tab
    7D]
    28 In the mAtter of numerous filings seeking a declaration
    pursuant to s 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and
    Freedoms, 2017 FC 30, paras 1, 3-4 ("Order and Reasons
    ofPhelan J") |Dcfcndanfs Book of Authorities ("DBOA"), Tab
    15]
    29 Prior Harris Claim, p 1, 3-4, 6, 24-25, 34,41-45 [DMR,Tab
    7B, p 116,118-19,121, 139-40,149,156-60]; Prior Spottiswood
    claim, p 1-4, 22-24,32-33, 39-44 |DMR, Tab 7A, p 66-69,87-
    89,97-98, 104-09]; Order and ReaHons ofPhelan J., paras 4, 8
    [DBOA, Tab 15]
    30 Order and Reasons ofPhelan .L, para 11 [DBOA, Tab 15]
    31 Order and Reasons of Phelan J., paras 12, 22-44 [DBOA,
    Tab 15]
    32 KLi-ishnamoorthy Affidavit, para 5 [DMR, Tab 7, p 61)
    Another plainliff, John C. Turmel, brought a motion for an
    extension of time to appeal. The Federal Court of Appeal
    dismissed the motion. In so doing, Rennie J.A. noted that he
    was not satisfied that there was an arguable case on appeal
    and that an extension was therefore not in the "interests of
    justice," March 1, 2017, Order ofRennie J.A. in John C
    Tnrmel v HMQ (17-A-5) (Exhibit C to the Krishnamoorthy
    Affidavit) |DMR, Tab 7C, p 169-70]
    33 June 6,2014, Order of the Federal Court of Appeal in
    Michael K Spoltiswood v HMQ (A-l 78-14) (Exhibit L to the
    Krishnamoorlhy AfFidavit) [DMR, Tab 7L, p 315]; September 9,
    2014, Order ofShai'Iow J.A. in Michael K Spolliswood v HMQ
    (A-329-14) (Exhibit M to the Krishnamoorlhy Affidavit) [DMR,
    Tab 7M, p 317]
    34 Krishnamoorthy Affidavit, para 17 [DMR, Tab 7, p 63]
    35 2015 SCC 34 ("Smilh") [DBOA, Tab 21]
    36 Prior Hathaway Claim, paras 1-2, 4, 6-7 [DMR, Tab 7B, p
    172-74]
    37 August 17, 2018, Order ofZinn J, in Raymond Lee Halhaway
    v HMQ (T.983-16) (Exhibit E lo the Krishnamoorthy Affidavit)
    ("Order ofZinn J.") (DMR, Tab 7E, p 177-78]
    38 Statement of Claim in Allan Jejfeiy Harris v HMQ (T-l
    194-16) (Exhibil F to the Krishnamoorthy Affidavit) JDMR,
    Tab 7F]; October 11, 2016, Order ofAallo, Proth. (Exhibit G
    to the Krishnamoorthy Affidavit) |DMR, Tab 7G, p 185-88]
    39 Krishnamoorthy Affidavit, paras 7, 9 [DMR, Tab 7, p 62)
    40 Hathaway Statement of Claim, paras 13-17, 34-35 fDMR, Tab
    2, p 10-11]
    41 Heithaway Statement of Claim, para 11. [DMR, Tab 2, p 10)
    42 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, para 2 [DMR, Tab 3, p
    34-35]
    43 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, para 1 [DMR,Tab3,p34]
    44 Arthur Jackes v HMQ (T-17^4.18), Colleen M Abbott v HMQ
    (T. 1822-18), Rohert Dylan Mc-Anwwnd 'v HMQ (T-1878-18);
    Sco!/ Stanley Mcdwky v HMQ (T-1900-18), Jerati Michael
    Wollner v HMQ (T-2066-18)
    45 November 1, 201 8, Order of Brown J,, paras I -2 (DMR,
    Tab 5, p 54]
    46 Spolliswood Statement of Claim, para 2 [DMR, Tab 4, p 51}
    47 Spottiswood Statement of Claim, para I (DMR, Tab 4, p 50]
    48 November 1, 2018, Order of Brown J., para 6 [DMR, Tab 5,
    p 55); November 14,
    2018, Order of Brown J,, paras 1-2 |DMR, Tab 6, p 59J
    332
    49 Order and Reasons of Phelan J., para 22 [DBOA, Tab 15]
    333
    50 Hathaway Statement of Claim, paras 2, 19-33 [DMR, Tab 2,
    p 9-11]
    51 Apotex Inc v Ppser Canada Inc, 2013 FC 493, paras 11-15,
    alTcl 2014 FCA 54 ("Apofex") [DBOA, Tab 3)
    52 Apotex, para 14 [DBOA, Tab 3]
    53 Federal Courts Rules, Rule 221(f) [DMR, Tab 8A, p 485];
    Toronto (City) v CURE,
    Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, para 35 ("CUPE") |DBOA, Tab 23]
    54 CUPE, paras 35, 37.38, 42, 51 IDBOA, Tab 23]
    55 CUPE, para 51 [DBOA, Tab 23]
    56 CUPE, paras 52-53 [DBOA, Tab 23]
    57 Prior Harris Claim, p 1, 3-4, 6, 24-25, 34, 41-45 [DMR,
    Tab 7B, p p 116, 118-19, 121, 139-40,149,156-60]; Prior
    Spottiswood Claim, p 1-4, 22-24, 32-33,39-44 (DMR,
    Tab 7A, p 66-69, 87-89, 97-98,104-09]
    58 Order and Reasons of Phelan J, paras 12, 38-39 |DBOA, Tab
    15]
    59 Order and Reasons ofPhelan J., paras 40-41 |DBOA, Tab 15]
    60 Order and Reasons ofPhelan J,, paras 36, 43 (DBOA, Tab
    I5]
    61 Order and Reasons ofPhclan J., paras 12, 39, 44 [DBOA,
    Tab 15)
    62 Prior Hathaway Claim, paras 1-2, 4, 6-7 [DMR, Tab 7D, p
    I72-74J
    63 Order ofZinn J. [DiVIR, Tab 7E, p 1781
    64 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, paras 35, 37 |DMR, Tab
    3, p 45]
    65 Prior Harris Claim, p 41-45 [DMR, Tab 7B, p 156-60];
    66 Harris Amended StatementofClaim, para 38 {DMR, Tab 3, p
    45| ?Allardv Canada, 2016 FC 236 (tlAHai-d Trial Decision")
    [DBOA, Tab 2|
    67 Allanl Trial Decision, para 9 [DBOA, Tab 2]; Allard
    Amended Stdtemcnt of Claim, paras 37, 65-66 (Exhibit H to
    the Kj-ishnamoorthy Affidavit) |DMR, Tab 7H, p 202-03, 208-
    10]; See e.g. AITidavit ofDaniclle Lukiv in Allard, para 5
    and Exhibit E (Exhibit J to (he Krishuarnoorlhy Affidavit)
    (DMR, Tab 7J, p 229, 232| and AfFidavit of Jason Wilcox in
    Allard, p 4-9, 21, 23-24, 62 (Exhibit I to the
    Krishnarnoorthy Affidavit) (DMR, Tab 71, p 2.17-26]
    68 Davey v Camida, 2016 FC 492, paras 28, 31-32 ("AKard
    Reconsideration Decision") [DBOA, Tab 9]
    69 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, paras 2,40, 48 |DMR,
    Tab 3, p 34-35,45, 48]
    70 Allard Trial Decision, paras 132,137, 143 [DBOA, Tab 2];
    Allard Amended Statement of Claim, para 37 |DMR, Tab 7H, p
    202-03]; Affidavit ofJeaiinine Ritchot in Allard, para 53
    (Exhibit K to the Krishnamoorthy Affidavit) [DMR, Tab 7K, p
    250-51 ];AFfidavit of Jason Wilcox in Allard, p 62 (Exhibit
    I to the Krisbnamoorthy Affidavit) |DMR, Tab 71, p 226]
    71 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, para41 [DMR, Tab 3, p
    46]; Garberv Canada, 2015 BCSC 1797, para 148
    72 Coca-Cola Ud v Pardhan, [1999] FCJ No 484, para 30 (CA)
    |DBOA, Tab 7]
    73 AHarci v Canada, 2014 FC 280, paras 91,128, varied on
    other grounds 201 4 FCA 298 ^Allard Injunction Decision")
    |DBOA, Tab 1|
    74 Allard v Canada, 2014 FCA 298, para 22 [DBOA, Tab 1];
    Allcn-ef Trial Decision, paras 286-88 |DBOA,Tab 2]; see also
    Allard Reconsideration Decision, paras 28,31- 32 |DBOA, Tab
    9]
    75 Hitzig v Canada (2003), 231 DLR (4th) 104, paras 138-45,
    leave to appeal refxiyed 2004 SCCA No 5 ('7-/fe/g") |DBOA,
    Tab 13] In addition to a general practitioner, MMAR required
    that patients with prescribed medical conditions and
    symptoms obtain the support of one, and in some cases, two
    medical specialisls. The Court in Hftzig declared the second
    specialist requirement unconstitutional, but afni-med the
    constitutionality of the general practitioner and first
    specialist requirements.
    76 See e.g. R v Beren, 2009 BCSC 429, paras 94-95 ("Beren"),
    leave (o appeal refused 2009 SCCA No 272 |DBOA, Tab 20]
    77 Order and Reasons ofPhelan J., para 36 [DBOA, Tab -15]
    78 Hitzig, para 139 [DBOA, Tab 13]
    79 Beren, paras 33(e), 94-95 (DBOA, Tab ZO]; MMAR, s 1(1)
    ("category 1 symptom"),
    Schedule (DMR, Tab 8A, p 361,384]
    80 Harris v Canada, 2018 FC 765, paras 14-15 (under appeal)
    ^Hanis") JDBOA, Tab 12]
    81 Sivcik v Canada, 2012 FC 272, para 91 ("5/Wc") [DBOA, Tab
    22];
    82 Federal Courts Rules, Rules 174, 181 [DMR, Tab 8A, p 482-
    83]
    83 Sivak, paras 11, 42 [DBOA, Tab 22]; Harris, paras 1 5,
    17-18 [DBOA, Tab 12|
    84 Hcnris, para 15.16 |DBOA,Tab 12]
    85 Sivak, paras 5, 16, 19, 43, 62, 73 (DBOA, Tab 22]; Hcti-
    ris, para 16 |DBOA, Tab 12]
    86 Harris, paras 15, 17 [DBOA,Tab 121
    87 MacKciy v Mairitoba, [1989] 2 SCR 356, para 9 [DBOA, Tab
    18]
    88 Federal Courts Rules, Rule 221(2) |DMR, Tab 8A, p 485]
    89 Carter v Canada, 2015 SCC 5, para 55 ("Cnr^r") [DBOA, Tab
    fi|;
    90 Act, ss 8(2), 51 [DMR, Tab 8A, p 438, 445-47]
    91 Smith, para 18 |DBOA, Tab 21]
    92 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, para 2 |DMR, Tab 3, p
    34-35]; Spottiswood Statement of Claim, para 2 |DMR, Tab 4,
    p 51]; Hathaway Statement of Claim, paras 34-35 [DMR, Tab 2,
    p 11]
    93 Grant v Caiwdci, [2005] OJ No 3796, paras 56, 58 (Sup Ct
    J) |DBOA, Tab 11]
    94 Bemissa v Canada, 2005 FC 1220, para 26 (UBOA, Tab 5]
    95 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, para 1 [DMR, Tab 3, p
    34]; Spolliswood Statement of Claim, para 1 [DMR, Tab 4, p
    50]
    96 Carter, para 83 |DBOA, Tab 6]
    97 Carter, para 89 [DBOA, Tab 6]
    98 Smith, para 23 [DBOA, Tab 21]
    99 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, paras I, 42-48 [DMR,
    Tab 3, p 34, 46-48)
    100 Harris Amended Slatemenl of Claim, paras 1, 50 [DMR, Tab
    3, p 34,49]
    101 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, para 2 fDMR, Tab 3, p
    34-35]; Act, s 8(l)(a) [DMR, Tab 8A, p 437]; Regulations, ss
    266(3), 268 [DMR, Tab 8A, p 452-55]
    102 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, para 2 [DMR, Tab 3, p
    34-35]
    103 AHardTr\a\ Decision, para 171 |DBOA, Tab 2]
    104 Regulations, s 322(l)(c) |DMR, Tab 8A, p 460]; Act, s
    2(1)(udistribute"), 9(l)(a) |DMR, Tab 8A, p 439]
    105 Act, s 69 [DMR, Tab 8A, p 449)
    106 Act, s 2 ("public place") [DMR, Tab 8A, p 435]
    107 Kennel v Canada, 20 U FC 1061, paras 81, 83, afPd 2013
    FCA 103 |DBOA, Tab 17j
    108 Allard Trial Decision, para 287 |DBOA, Tab 2] Iat>
    109 Kahkewistahaw First Nation v Taypolat, 2015 SCC 30,
    paras 19-20 [DBOA, Tab 16|
    110 Corbiere v Canada (Minister of fnt/ian and Northern
    Affairs), [1999] 2 SCR 203,
    para 13 [DBOA, Tab 81
    111 Spottiswood Statement of Claim, para 2 [DMR, Tab 4, p
    51] The claim ooles that the plaintiff has authorization
    number APPL-MKS-06-S1747U 15-58-13-B. This is a Personal Use
    Production Licence Number under the former MMAR. In the
    course of Allard, this Court issued an injunction, which
    remains in place and preserves MMAR authorizations to
    possess and licences to produce that were valid on the dates
    specified in the injunction order (Allard Injunction
    Decision |DBOA, Tab 1]). This Court has confirmed that
    Spottiswood meets the criteria of the Allard injunction
    order (July 9, 2014, Amended Order ofPhelan J., para 1 and
    Schedule [DBOA, Tab 14]). The plaintiff is therefore
    currently authorized to possess and produce cannabis in
    accordance with his prior MMAR authorization and licence,
    and without R.irthcr medical authorization. His section 7
    rights are thus not engaged by the requirement for annual
    medicEil authorization.
    112 Harris, paras 54-55 [DBOA, Tab 12]
    113 Smith, para 33 fDBOA, Tab 211; Hifzig, para 139 [DBOA,
    Tab 13]; Beren, para94-95 |DBOA, Tab 20]; Order and Reasons
    ofPhelan J., para 36 (DBOA, Tab 15]
    114 Halhaway Statement of Claim, para 11 (DMR, Tab 2, p 10]
    115 Association of Justice Counsel v Canada, 2017 SCC 55,
    paras 50-51 [DBOA, Tab 4]
    116 Halhaway SialcmentofClaim, paras 34-35 [DMR, Tab 2, p11
    117 MMAR 2010 RIAS, p 482, 484 |DMR, Tab 8A, p 388, 390];
    see also Regulatory Impact Assessment statement for the
    ACMPR (2016), p 3381 and CR RIAS, 2802-03 (noting ACMPR and
    Cannabis Regulations substantively incorporated the personal
    and designated production regime established under the MMAR)
    |DMR, Tab 8A, p 428, 462-63]
    118 The MMAR originally provided that up to three patients
    could share a production site. This limit was increased to
    four following f-fiizjg and Beren |DBOA, Tabs 13,20]
    119 Federal Courts Rules, s 22l(l)(c) [DMR, Tab 8A, p 485]
    120 Sivak, para 92 [DBOA, Tab 22]
    121 Sivak, paras 5, 77-78, 88-89 |DBOA, Tab 22]
    122 Harris Amended Statement ol'Claim, para 37 |DMR, Tab 3,
    p 45]; Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 318(2) |DMR, Tab
    8A, p 490]
    123 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, para 11 |DMR, Tab 3,
    p 37]
    l24 Harris Amended Statement of Claim, para 26 (DMR, Tab 3,
    p 41j
    125 Federal Courts Rules, Rule 416(1 )(f) |DMR, Tab 8A, p
    486-87]
    126 Mapara v Canada, 2014 FC 538, para 24, affd 20)6 FCA
    305, para 5 ("Mapara FC.A Decision") [DBOA, Tab 19]
    127 Krishnamoorthy Affidavit, paras 15-17 and Exhibits L, M
    [DMR, Tabs 7L, 7M, p 63,315,317)
    128 Mapara PCA Decision, paras 8, 13-14 [DBOA, Tab 19]

    TURMEL: Judge Phelan dismisses Gold Star Claims https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-

    turmel/MtGB0rrS5wk

    We would have appealed but he made it moot.

    Important part: PHALEN TAB 15 JAN 11 2017
    [23] In these cases the requests for declaratory relief
    are moot. The MMAR has long been repealed. The MMPR was
    declared invalid, and it has now been repealed and
    replaced by the ACMPR.
    [24] The lis or interference with constitutional rights
    under the MMAR and MMPR has ended with the introduction
    of the ACMPR. (The issue of damages is dealt with
    separately later.)
    C. Discretion
    [25] There are several good reasons why the Court should
    not exercise its discretion to continue to adjudicate
    these matters:
    a) there is nothing to adjudicate: the substrata of the
    lis has disappeared completely with the introduction of
    the ACMPR;
    b) judicial economy militates against expenditure of
    judicial resources on a theoretical claim; and
    c) the role of a court is to adjudicate, not to make
    general statements at large on legal issues.
    [26] No party other than Turmel seems to be interested
    in litigating the issues. Even Turmel seems to recognize
    that the matters are moot and there is nothing on which
    to give a useful declaration.
    [27] There is no regulation to attack and therefore
    nothing useful to declare. The MMAR has been replaced by
    two different regulatory regimes. The MMPR has been
    struck down, the appeal period has passed, and the
    matter of the validity of the MMPR is res judicata.
    Finally, the MMPR has been replaced in its entirety by
    the ACMPR.
    [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.
    [29] Any declaration that the Court might make would be
    a general pronouncement on past laws, not an
    adjudication with some effect on the claimants' existing
    rights.
    [30] Therefore, these proceedings are moot and there is
    no good reason to allow the actions/application to
    continue.

    [28].. Any problems with the new regime should be handled
    directly in claims under or against the ACMPR.

    There were 20 problems we raised and he dealt with the
    Allard 4. Can beef about them again if they're back.

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