• TURMEL: Crown in Harris appeal for restitution and damages claims (4/4)

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@1:229/2 to All on Sat Feb 16 15:52:32 2019
    [continued from previous message]

    and an award of damages would not be appropriate and just in
    these circumstances.

    JCT: But many others brought claims when they felt the
    processing time was excessive. They didn't wait to claim
    their permits and damages even if Jeff did wait and now
    claims only damages.

    D. NO REASONABLE CAUSE OF ACTION CONCERNING THE PERIOD
    OF REGISTRATION

    77. While the Motions Judge erred in allowing the amended
    claim concerning the processing time for registration to
    proceed, he properly struck the claim concerning the e
    period of registration to produce cannabis. It was plain and
    obvious that this portion of the claim failed to disclose a
    reasonable cause of action. Even if the Motions Judge erred,
    this portion of the claim is now moot. The plaintiff's
    appeal should accordingly be dismissed.

    1) No reasonable cause of action concerning the period of
    registration

    78. The Motions Judge struck the claim concerning the
    period of registration on the grounds that it was plain and
    obvious that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of
    action.106 The plaintiff has identified no error in this
    decision.

    79. The ACMPR provided that registration certificates
    expired at the conclusion of the period of use specified in
    a patient's medical document as calculated from the date of
    the medical document.107 The Motions Judge acknowledged that
    this effectively resulted in registrations that were shorter
    than if the period of use was instead calculated from the
    date of registration.108 The Motions Judged found that this
    simply resulted in patients having to apply earlier to renew
    their registration. He concluded that this inconvenience did
    not engage the plaintiffs section 7 interests, and that even
    if engaged, any impact was trivial.109

    80. The plaintiff has not established an error in this
    conclusion. His appeal factum again alleges that this
    shortened registration period results in patients having to
    visit their health care practitioners more often which costs
    them more money. However, the Motions Judge expressly
    considered this allegation and the plaintiff has identified
    no error, legal or otherwise, in the Motions Judge's
    conclusion.110 This Court has also held that section 7 does
    not protect economic rights,111 and there is no suggestion
    in this case that the additional costs associated with
    having to visit his health care practitioner more often
    under the former ACMPR restricted the plaintiffs access to
    cannabis.

    81. The plaintiff notes for the first time in his Notice of
    Appeal that, although no longer tied to the date of the
    medical document, registration now begins on the date
    that a registration certificate is issued. He suggests that
    in cases of renewal, registration should instead be
    effective as of the date that the previous registration
    expired (as was the case under the MMAR) as this would
    result in patients having to renew their registration less
    often.

    JCT: So they stopped short-changing new permits by back-
    dating to when the doctor signed but instead now short-
    change the original permit to when they issue the permit.

    CR: This allegation suffers from the same defects as the
    claim concerning the period of registration under the former
    ACMPR. While the plaintiff may prefer to renew his
    registration less often, the amended claim contains no
    material facts to show that the current period of
    registration violates his section 7 rights, or that any
    limitation on those rights is non-trivial.

    2) The claim concerning the period of registration is now
    moot

    82. In any event, even if it disclosed a reasonable cause of
    action, the amended claim concerning the period of
    registration is now moot. The Motions Judge acknowledged
    that this issue was moot for patients with registration
    certificates issued after March 2, 2018.

    JCT: Sadly, the judge did say he saw them change the start
    date in the Class Exemptions that isn't there.

    CR: However, he noted that the plaintiffs registration
    certificate was issued earlier, and concluded that it was
    therefore not moot in the plaintiff's case.112

    83. According to the amended claim, the plaintiff's
    registration expired on March 23, 2018. However, the
    plaintiff has since commenced two further actions in Federal
    Court in which he alleges that he applied on March 7, 2018,
    to renew his registration and that Health Canada granted his
    application..113 The plaintiff is therefore now entitled to
    produce cannabis for the full period of use specified in his
    medical document, as calculated from the date of
    registration, The requested relief is accordingly moot and a
    hearing on the moot issues would serve no practical purpose.

    JCT: He still wants the 5 months they ripped his original
    permit.

    E. LEAVE TO AMEND SHOULD BE REFUSED

    84. The claim should be struck without leave to amend. The
    claim is based on an internet "kit" and contains virtually
    no detail concerning the plaintiffs personal circumstances.

    JCT: They keep repeating how they need to know his illness
    to determine if the processing time was too long! Har har
    har.

    CR: The Federal Court has previously struck two other claims
    by the plaintiff on the grounds that, among other things,
    they failed to disclose a reasonable of cause of action.115
    The present claim suggests the plaintiff has not heeded the
    lessons of those decisions concerning the elements of proper
    pleading and that the defects in the present claim would not
    be remedied by further amendments.

    JCT: They really want to know what illness he has.

    CR: 85. Moreover, as the Motions Judge noted in striking the
    portion of the claim concerning the period of registration,
    the plaintiff has already twice been granted leave to amend,
    but has failed to address the defects in his claim.116 A
    further opportunity to amend is inappropriate in these
    circumstances.117

    JCT: Boy, do they want him to tell them what illness he has.

    CR: PART V - ORDER SOUGHT

    86. Canada requests an order dismissing the appeal, granting
    the cross-appeal and striking the statement of claim in its
    entirety without leave to amend, with costs.

    ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
    Dated at Toronto this 31st of January, 2019,
    Jon Bricker / Wendy Wright
    Of Counsel for the Respondent
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
    Department of Justice
    Ontario Regional Office
    120 Adelaide Street West, Suite #400
    Toronto, Ontario M5H 1T1

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