• TURMEL: Harris Memo on Crown appeal to strike Delay claims (3/3)

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@1:229/2 to All on Wed Mar 6 20:33:07 2019
    [continued from previous message]

    would have to destroy his cannabis plants if Health
    Canada ever failed to renew his registration before his
    existing registration expired.7 This is purely
    speculative as the claim does not allege that Health
    Canada has ever actually failed to renew his
    registration or that the plaintiff has ever actually had
    to destroy his cannabis plants.59. This prospect has
    also been rendered moot since the motions decision.
    Unlike the former ACMPR, the current Regulations provide
    that patients who submit a renewal application prior to
    the expiry of their existing registration may continue
    to produce cannabis in accordance with their existing
    registration until such time as the renewal application
    is granted or refused.80 This is a complete answer to
    the concern raised in the amended claim. To the extent
    that it relies on this concern, the claim is now moot
    and there is no reason to hear the claim in spite of its

    28. It is a complete answer for the future but does not
    remedy the damages from the past. Robert Dylan McAmmond T-
    1375-17, Terry Johnsgaard T-134-18 Heidi Chartrand T-144-18
    and Kent Truman T-849-18 had their permit expire and
    suffered that legal compulsion to destroy all they had
    worked for. Judge Brown took it as proven that waiting for
    renewal given the threats of expiry did cause stress. Dozens
    more had their hearings mooted by completion of the process
    and delivery of the permit. But good that has been stopped.

    29. The Crown has argued reviewing takes time:
    69. The amended claim alleges that Health Canada is
    merely required to "process only... 10 data fields" and
    that "over 6 months to key in the data [is]
    unconscionable."96 This is a clear mischaracterization
    of the registration process, which involves thoroughly
    reviewing applications and verifying their contents for
    compliance with the highly detailed regulations.

    30. Reviewing that same information used to take under 4
    weeks under the MMAR. But worse under the ACMPR, it took 9
    months with a Statement of Claim to open the application and
    tell Steve Vetricek T-1371-18 that he had missed filling a
    box! It wasn't the review that took 9 months, it was the
    initial inspection after 9 months that indicates a real
    short-staffing problem?

    31. Finally, Canada argues:

    70. The claim also alleges that the processing times for
    a production licence under the former MMAR was shorter.

    32. Judge Brown accepted as proven the fact the MMAR took
    "under 4 weeks!" not the vague "much shorter."

    Part IV - Order sought

    Appellant seeks an order dismissing the Cross-Appeal.

    Appellant seeks a further order directing that the other
    plaintiffs below be able to attend or tune into the hearing
    of the appeal which affects them.

    Dated at Vancouver on March 6 2019
    Allan J. Harris, Appellant
    File No.: A-258-18
    FCC: T-1379-17
    Allan J. Harris
    Her Majesty The Queen
    For the Appellant:
    Allan J. Harris,

    JCT: So Jeff has asked for all the plaintiffs to be allowed
    to tune in, either via teleconference or via videoconference
    like last time. Since it would be a first, it's doubtful but
    someday it will be televised and we'll have asked first.

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