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
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
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Allan J. Harris
Her Majesty The Queen
ON RESPONDENT'S CROSS-APPEAL
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.