File No: _______________

FEDERAL COURT

Between:

_______________________________

Plaintiff

AND

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN

Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(Pursuant to S.48 of the Federal Court Act)

FACTS

The Plaintiff claims declaratory and financial remedy for violations of rights under S. 7 of the Charter for an Order:

A1) that the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR)

that came into force on Jul 30 2001 and the Marihuana for

Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) that came into force

on June 19, 2013, (and run concurrently with the MMAR

until March 31, 2014 when the MMAR will be repealed by

the MMPR) are unconstitutional and not saved by S.1 of

the Charter in that the s. 7 Charter constitutional right

of a medically needy patient to reasonable access to his/her medicine by way of a safe and continuous supply consistent with the S.7 Charter right is unreasonably restricted by the impediments to access and/or supply in the MMAR and/or MMPR;

A2) And that, "absent a constitutionally acceptable

medical exemption," the prohibitions on marihuana in the

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) are invalid

and the word "marijuana" be struck from Schedule II of

the CDSA.

B) In the alternative, pursuant to S.24(1) of the

Charter, for a permanent Personal Exemption from

prohibitions in the CDSA on marihuana for the Plaintiff's

personal medical use.

C) Or, alternatively, damages in the amount of $______________ for loss of patient's marihuana, plants and production site.

VIOLATIONS UNDER BOTH THE MMAR AND MMPR

=======================================

1) MMAR S.4(2)(b) and MMPR S.119 require a medical

document from recalcitrant or not-available family

doctors unreasonably restricting access;

2) MMAR and MMPR fail to provide DIN (Drug Identification

Number) for affordability unreasonably restricting access

and supply;

3) MMAR S.13(1), S.33(1), s42(1)(a) and MMPR S.129(2)(a)

require annual renewals unreasonably restricting access;

4) MMAR S.65(1) and MMPR compel exemptees to destroy unused cannabis with no compensation unreasonably restricting supply;

5) MMAR S12.(1)(b), S.32(c), S.62(2)(c), S.63(2)(f) and

MMPR S.117(1)(c) allow the Minister or the Licensed Producer

to refuse or cancel the patient's permits for non-medical reasons unreasonably restricting access and supply;

6) MMAR and MMPR feedback from Health Canada to doctors

opposing high dosages unreasonably restricting access;

7) MMAR and MMPR fail to provide instantaneous online

processing of licenses, renewals and amendments

unreasonably restricting access and supply;

8) MMAR fail to provide the resources to handle any large

demand and the MMPR by failing to organize enough

Licensed Producers to meet the demand unreasonably

restricting access and supply;

9) MMAR S.2 and MMPR S.4(1) prohibit non-dried forms of

cannabis unreasonably restricting access;

10) MMAR and MMPR fail to exempt patients from the CDSA

S.5(1) prohibition on trafficking for trading and

sampling different strains for different pains and gains

in production unreasonably restricting access and supply.

VIOLATIONS UNDER THE MMAR ONLY

==============================

MMAR 11) S.6(2)(b)(i) & (vi) require a specialist

consultation unreasonably restricting access;

MMAR 12) S.6(1)(e), S.4(2)(b), S.6(2)(b)(v) require a

medical declaration on conventional treatments being

inappropriate unreasonably restricting access;

MMAR 13) S.32(e) prohibits more than 2 licenses/grower

unreasonably restricting supply;

MMAR 14) S.32(d) & S.63(1) prohibit more than 4

licenses/site unreasonably restricting supply;

MMAR 15) S.30(1) limits the number of plants ensuring no

seasonal economies nor respite from constant gardening

unreasonably restricting supply ;

MMAR 16) fails to license any garden help unreasonably

restricting access and supply;

VIOLATIONS UNDER THE MMPR

=========================

MMPR 11) S.255(2) makes the ATP valid solely as a

"medical document" after March 31 2014 unreasonably

restricting access and supply;

MMPR 12) S.117(4) allows the Licensed Producer to cancel

the patient's registration for an undefined "business

reason" unreasonably restricting access and supply;

MMPR 13) S.117(7), S.118 prohibit the Licensed Producer

from returning or transfering the medical document back

to the patient unreasonably restricting access;

MMPR 14) S.13 prohibits production in a dwelling

unreasonably restricting supply;

MMPR 15) S.14 prohibits outdoor production unreasonably

restricting supply;

MMPR 16) S.138(1)(c), S.264 fail to protect the patient's

brand genetics and rights to those brands unreasonably

restricting access and supply;

MMPR 17) fails to remove financial barriers unreasonably

restricting access and supply;

MMPR 18) fails to provide central registry for police

verification unreasonably restricting access and supply;

MMPR 19) fails to have enough Licensed Producers to

supply upcoming needs unreasonably restricting supply;

MMPR 20) S.5(c), S.73(1)(e), S.123(1)(e), S.130(2)

prohibit possession or delivery of more than 150 grams

unreasonably restricting supply;

THE PARTIES

===========

1. The Plaintiff brings these claims for declaratory

relief and/or financial relief pursuant to S.7, 24(1) and

52(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a person

who can establish medical need having:

a) an exemption under the MMAR, the MMPR or the Narcotic

Control Regulations (NCR); or

b) medical files documenting a qualifying illness, or

c) desire to prevent illness it's good for before getting it.

2. The Defendant, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of

Canada, as represented by the Attorney General of Canada,

is named as the representative of the Federal Government

of Canada and the Minister of Health for Canada who is

the Minister responsible for Health Canada and certain

aspects of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act

including the Narcotic Control Regulations, the Marihuana

Medical Access Regulations and program and the Marihuana

for Medical Purposes Regulations and program.

BACKGROUND

==========

CONTROLLED DRUGS AND SUBSTANCES ACT (CDSA)

------------------------------------------

3. Cannabis, its preparations, derivatives and similar

synthetic preparations are listed in Schedule II to the

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, S.C. 1996, c.19, and

amendments thereto (the "CDSA"). Its production,

possession, possession for the purposes of distribution

or trafficking, and trafficking, as well as importing and

exporting are prohibited by this Statute as a "controlled

substance", formerly known as "narcotics".

4. CDSA S.56 permits the Minister for Health Canada or

his designate, to exempt any person, class of persons,

controlled substance or precursor of a controlled

substance from the application of the CDSA or its

Regulations if, in the Minister's or the designate's

opinion, the exemption is necessary for a medical or

scientific purpose or is otherwise in the public

interest.

5. While no viable constitutional medical exemption to

the prohibitions against cannabis existed prior to July

30th, 2001, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Parker

(2000) 49 O.R. (3d) 481 (leave to appeal to the Supreme

Court of Canada dismissed) declared "the prohibition on

marihuana in S.4(1) of the CDSA to be invalid" for the

failure of the government 'to provide reasonable access

for medical purposes' as an exemption to the general

prohibition violated s.7 of the Canadian Charter of

Rights and Freedoms in that the 'life,' 'liberty' and

'security' of the patient was affected in a manner that

was inconsistent with the "principles of fundamental

justice;" it suspended its decision for 1 year to allow

the government to comply and granted Terry Parker a 1-

year constitutional exemption until it had complied.

6. Initially the government, pursuant to s.56 of the CDSA

issued an "Interim Guidance" document and processed

exemptions under that section until ultimately, on July

30 2001, the Government of Canada brought the Medical

Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR) into effect

attempting to bring the CDSA into compliance with the

Charter by putting into place a "constitutionally

acceptable medical exemption" to the prohibition against

the possession and cultivation of marihuana for those who

establish medical need and before the prohibition became

invalid on Aug 1 2001.

7. On Aug 1 2001, unable to complete the Application

process in only one day, Terry Parker's constitutional

exemption lapsed without his being actually exempted

pursuant to the Order of the Court thus once again facing

unconstitutional penal jeopardy unless the

Declaration of Invalidation had taken effect where he

remains today since his doctor refuses to sign his MMAR

application form.

MEDICAL MARIHUANA ACCESS REGULATIONS (MMAR)

-------------------------------------------

8. In an era when 5 million Canadians do not have

doctors, the MMAR established a framework where an

individual could apply to Health Canada for an

"Authorization to Possess" (ATP) only "dried marihuana"

for medical purposes with the support of their medical

practitioner. The Regulations set out various categories

1-3 relating to symptoms of various medical conditions

with the latter categories requiring the involvement of

one or two specialists. The ATP was subject to annual renewal.

9. Hitzig struck down the requirement for a second

specialist for category three applicants as not in accord

with the principles of fundamental justice, the

requirement adding little to no value to the assessment

of medical need and was an arbitrary barrier to the

granting of an exemption for category three applicants.

On June 29 2005 the Government of Canada made further

amendments to the MMAR re-defining the types of

applicants by merging categories 1 and 2 into category 1,

requiring the declaration of only one physician, and

merging category 3 into 2 and eliminating the requirement

of a declaration from a specialist but still requiring a

consultation with one.

10. Further, where a specialist was required, it was no

longer necessary for the specialist to provide the

declaration that s/he had reviewed the case and concurred

"that conventional treatments were ineffective or

medically inappropriate and was aware that marihuana was

being considered as an alternative treatment." Rather,

the onus was put on to the family physician to ensure the

specialist "had reviewed the case and concurred that

conventional treatments were ineffective or medically

inappropriate and was aware that marihuana was being

considered as an alternative treatment" so no actual change

took effect but transferring the workload to the family doctor.

11. Doctors are deterred from participation by their

medical associations, by insurance companies, by the

yearly renewal forms for permanent diseases, by having to

consult with a specialist, by non-approval of cannabis

without a DIN (Drug Identification Number), and by Health

Canada feedback urging lower dosages and demanding

doctors complete an unmentioned form certifying anew a

high dosage!

12. The Regulations provided for the individual to obtain

a Personal-Use-Production-Licence (PUPL) subject to

annual review specifying a number of plants to produce

for them an amount of cannabis and to store and possess

certain amounts depending upon a calculation derived from

the medical practitioner's authorization of grams per day

for the particular ailment. A low plant limit forces

patients to grow bigger less-wieldy plants, prevents

seasonal economies by forcing patients to garden year

round with no respite.

13. Personal-Use-Production-License holders are

prohibited from engaging any help though the Regulations

provide for a "Designated Person Production Licence" (DPPL) authorizing someone to produce dried marihuana for the patient.

14. There is no provision for trading different strains for different pains or different gains in growth which puts one in jeopardy of CDSA S.5(1) trafficking to do so. And evidently,

any patient on social assistance or meager income is compelled to traffic part of the crop to cover production expenses!

15. The Regulations provided that a designated producer

could only produce for one patient holding an ATP and there could only be three licences in one place. If renewals of ATPs are late, the plants and stored marijuana had to be destroyed until the permits arrived and they could start producing all over, without any medicine all the while.

16. On Oct 7 2003, Hitzig v. HMTQ ruled the Bad Exemption

provided by the MMAR had not complied with the Parker ruling because a limit of 1 patient per grower and 3-growers per garden made the regime unconstitutionally uneconomical.

17. The same day, the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v.

J.P. quashed the possession charge ruling:

"In Parker, this court made it clear that the criminal

prohibition against possession of marihuana, absent a

constitutionally acceptable medical exemption, was of no

force and effect."

18. A Bad Exemption means No Offence. BENO! But the Court

ruled that when those limiting caps had been struck down,

the MMAR exemption became constitutionally sound; the

CDSA prohibitions were once again constitutionally valid;

new charges could be laid again as of Oct 7 2003.

19. On Dec 8 2003, 4,000 charges were stayed as a result

of there being No Offence while the MMAR had been flawed for 2 years by the unconstitutional caps on patients and growers.

20. On Dec 3 2003, as a result of the Ontario Court of

Appeal decision in Hitzig striking down the limits on

patients and growers to make the MMAR constitutionally

valid, the Government of Canada amended the MMAR to UN-

COMPLY by re-enacting the provisions to permit a designated producer to only produce for one patient and permit only 3 growers per garden in virtually identical terms; the same two caps on patients and growers whose presence in the MMAR caused the J.P. Court to rule the prohibitions in the CDSA to be invalid retrospectively from Aug 1 2001 to Oct 7 2003 when the patient-grower deficiencies in the MMAR were rectified.

21. In Sfetkopoulos v. AG Canada 2008 FC 33 (FCTD) and

2008 FCA 328 (FCA), the Federal Court of Appeal,

essentially following Hitzig, struck down the limit on 1

patient per grower as being a negative restriction

violating s.7 of the Charter. But no charges were dropped

while the MMAR was once again declared unconstitutional

for the very same Hitzig flaw. In 2009, Health Canada

enacted a new ratio allowing a designated producer to

produce for 2 authorized persons!

22. In 2010, the R. v. Beren and Swallow (2009) BCSC 429

declaration took effect that the re-imposed limit of 3

growers per garden once again rendered the MMAR

unconstitutional for the very same Hitzig flaw. Again, no

charges were dropped. A week later, Health Canada upped

the limit to 4 growers per garden.

23. In 2010, Health Canada was swamped by several extra

thousand applications, each now needing yearly renewals.

Exempting Canada's 400,000 epileptics would seem to have

little chance, the regime could not cope. Thousands of

patients have suffered the stress of having their ATPs

delayed or expire without prompt renewal or amendment and

were put into penal jeopardy by S.65(1) for failure to

destroy their stored marijuana and plants until their new

ATP arrived.

MARIHUANA FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES REGULATIONS (MMPR)

-------------------------------------------------

24. On June 19th, 2013 the Marihuana for Medical Purposes

Regulations (MMPR) SOR/2013-119 came into effect. These

Regulations run concurrently with the MMAR until March

31, 2014 when, by virtue of s. 267 of the MMPR, the MMAR

will be repealed and all Personal-Use-Production-

Licences and Designated Producer Production Licences

(DPPL) will be terminated effective that date regardless

of the dates specified on the actual licences previously

issued. While "access" is increased slightly by the

definition of a "Health care practitioner" being expanded

to include "nurse practitioners." Annual renewals are

still required.

25. The MMPR continues to limit possession by a patient

to "dried marihuana" and the patient cannot possess nor

be shipped any more than 30 times the daily quantity

authorized or 150 grams whichever is the lesser amount.

All MMAR ATPs are canceled as of Mar 31 2014 and after that

current ATPs may only be used as a "medical document."

Patients with MMAR Authorizations To Possess are expected

to destroy their life's botanical savings, any current

crop and production site when registering under the new

MMPR with no compensation while patients under the MMPR

must destroy any remaining prescription when the new

supply arrives.

26. The question of "supply" is dealt with by providing

for "Licensed Producers" (LP) as the sole source of

supply to registered patients, doctors or hospitals for

patients.

27. Under the MMAR, the Minister refuses or revokes an

authorization to possess if any information in the

application "is" false or misleading. Under the MMPR, the

onus of canceling a patient's medicine is transfered to

the private Licensed Producer who needs not be certain

"the information is false" but only have "reasonable

grounds to believe the information is false" to refuse or

cancel a patient's registration.

28. The Licensed Producer may cancel a patient's

registration for an undefined "business reason" but may

not return the patient's original "medical document" so

he can take it to another Licensed Producer.

29. The MMPR puts in place a transitional scheme to be

implemented between now and March 31 2014 whereby persons

holding an Authorization to Possess and a Personal

Production Licence or a Designated Producer will obtain a

notice of authorization from the Minister to sell or

transfer their plants or seeds to a Licensed Producer.

Production is not permitted at a 'dwelling place' and can

only take place 'indoors,' not 'outdoors' and no

provision is made for securing the rights to the brand of

seed or plant sold or transfered.

30. In the Government of Canada produced "Regulatory

impact analysis statement" about the Marihuana for the

Medical Purposes Regulations in the Canada Gazette,

Volume 146, #50 on December 15th, 2012 it is indicated

that the main economic cost associated with the proposed

MMPR would arise from the loss to consumers who may have

to pay a higher price for dry marihuana estimated to be

$1.80 per gram to $5.00 a gram in the status quo to about

$7.60 per gram in 2014 rising to $8.80 per gram

thereafter than the free to $4 per gram to produce their

own. Add taxes which do not apply to personal production.

31. As of Feb 20 2014 there were eight approved Licensed

Producers (LP's) and one of them is a wholly owned

subsidiary of Prairie Plants Systems the former

government sole contractor, and goes by the name of

'CanniMed Ltd.' It has indicated that the price of its

product will be between $8.00 and $12.00 a gram. Add tax

and shipping only by signed courier postal delivery for

each 5 ounces!

32. In queries to Licensed Producers:

- Greg Vermeulen at Bedrocan informs that they only

grow their "own proprietary standardized strains" and

that they "cannot process such a large order as 200g/day

due to limited supply" until the end of 2014, once they

have domestic production up and running.

- Lindsay Thorimbert of Cannimed informs "all of the

medical marijuana grown at the CanniMed facility is

internally so we aren't able to purchase your genetics or

grow those specific plants.

- 'Your Friends at Tweed' inform interested patients they

"will be back in touch very shortly."

- Medreleaf can't deliver before end of May 2014.

33. Though plants and seeds may be transfered or sold to the Licensed Producer, there is no provision for a seed bank for those genetics not accepted by Licensed Producers to be saved.

CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

=================================

UNDER THE MMAR AND MMPR

=======================

1) RECALCITRANT DOCTORS AS GATEKEEPERS

--------------------------------------

MMAR S.4(2)(b): "An application under subsection (1)

shall contain a medical declaration made by the medical

practitioner treating the applicant;"

MMPR S.119 "Applicant must include original of their

medical document."

34. In the current constitutional challenge in R. v.

Godfrey (Nova Scotia) with a ruling on declaring the

MMAR-MMPR invalid expected on Apr 24 2014, Applicant

adopted the facts established by Taliano J. in R. v.

Mernagh not with respect to there being "not enough

doctors" but with respect to there being some doctors

allowed to opt out of the MMAR for non-medical reasons.

35. On Apr 11 2011, the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in

R. v. Mernagh:

"[9] On the Charter application, Mr. Mernagh did not

argue that the MMAR are unconstitutional as they are

drafted. Rather, he argued that the MMAR are unconstitutional

as they are implemented because physicians have decided en

masse not to participate in the scheme."

36. The Court pointed out there was no evidence of the

number of people who need it, the number who asked for it

and were refused, no numbers proving a boycott.

37. The Court further noted:

"[28] In answer to the argument of the Hitzig appellants

that the concerns of the medical profession and its

governing bodies regarding the role of doctors as

gatekeepers would prevent doctors from signing the

requisite forms and thereby prevent worthy individuals

from obtaining a licence, the Court found that on the

record before it the argument was answered by Lederman

J.'s findings that despite the concerns of central

medical bodies, a sufficient number of individual

physicians were authorizing the therapeutic use of

marihuana that the medical exemption could not be said to

be practically unavailable (Hitzig, supra at para. 139)."

38. So even if there had been a boycott by a vast majority of doctors, in 2003 Hitzig had ruled the medical exemption was "not practically unavailable" with even only 1 doctor in 100 participating.

39. Unlike Mernagh, Godfrey did not argue there was

boycott of doctors making his access illusory, he has

argued the MMAR permits doctors to refuse without any

contra-indications of use, with non-medical reasons, that

make access illusory. Similar evidence to that in Mernagh

of the same unhealthy ramifications of the MMAR was given

in Godfrey but in support of the different head of relief.

40. The Court of Appeal ruled that the Mernagh witnesses

had not given evidence that the refusing doctors had not

had valid medical reasons contra-indicating use. To fill

this gap, the patient witnesses in R. v. Godfrey, all

with qualifying diseases testified to their angst-filled

searches for a doctor to sign and the non-medical reasons

the doctors had used to refuse:

"I don't know enough about marijuana."

"I don't like the forms."

"I don't need the calls from Health Canada."

"I'm not interested" because of my Medical Association."

"I'm afraid for my practice!"

"I don't want to be known as a pot doctor."

"I don't know you well-enough."

"I don't want to be liable should you commit a criminal

act under the influence!"

"I don't do that. Have some narcotics instead."

"Marijuana is not approved with a DIN."

41. The Mernagh evidence is also replete with more non-

medical reasons for refusals though that evidence was

wasted in a futile attempt to prove a doctor boycott.

Applicant Godfrey submitted that an exemption that is "not practically unavailable" because some sign is not enough, it is not practically available when some don't sign.

42. The Mernagh Court of Appeal wrote:

"[147] Much of the evidence relied on by Mr. Mernagh to

support his claim that the defence in the MMAR is

illusory does not link physician non-participation in the

MMAR or individual refusals by physicians to provide the

necessary declaration with any kind of governmental

action. A doctor who refuses to provide the necessary

declaration because he or she is not satisfied that the

criteria in the regulations are met, does not feel

sufficiently knowledgeable about the effects of

marihuana, is unfamiliar with the patient, or views the

use of marihuana as medically contra-indicated, is

certainly limiting the availability of the medical

exemption contemplated in the MMAR. However, that

decision is not attributable to the government or any

form of governmental action. Nor, in my view, can the

physician, by exercising the gatekeeping role demanded of

the physician by the legislation, be said to make the

defence created by the legislation illusory. Refusals

based on the doctor's exercise of his or her judgment are

inherent in the defence created by the MMAR."

43. One would presume refusals would be based on the

doctor's exercise of his or her MEDICAL judgment, not for

the myriad of lame non-medical excuses listed above. The

Court presumed doctors would be professional and not let

their clients die, that doctors would do right even if

given a responsibility they don't want to bear. But they

do let their clients die with no contra-indication of

marijuana use. Every epileptic having a fatal seizure

without access to a joint is testament to his doctor not

doing his research. What medical reasons could a doctor

have to refuse an epileptic with a permanent disease when

the Parker decision established the Charter Right not to

be denied its anti-seizure efficacy? From 100 seizures a

day, after a lobotomy and lobectomies failed to help,

Terry Parker has not had an epileptic seizure in all the

years that he has continued smoking cannabis since his

constitutional exemption expired in 2001 and before.

44. Of course, if cannabis was contra-indicated or the

patient had not satisfied the criteria in the

regulations, refusal is justifiable. But the doctor cop-

outs listed above are not medical judgments.

45. To plead incompetence can never be deemed

professional when it comes to the least dangerous herbal

treatment with the best safety record in history? "Never

killed anyone, works for others but I haven't studied up

so find someone who has" is no medical judgment.

46. The doctor refusing for being afraid of his medical

association, afraid of his insurance company, afraid of

Health Canada calls, afraid of being called a "pot

doctor," afraid of the mountain of paperwork or afraid

for his practice is not making a medical judgment.

47. That the doctor is unfamiliar with the patient is

irrelevant when the doctor should be familiar with the

patient's condition. If a medical history says Epilepsy, how much more does the doctor need to know? Why are some doctors willing to authorize epileptics upon one consultation, even by Skype video-call, yet others need a more personal tete-a-tete?

48. That the doctor could believe he would be liable for

criminal acts committed "under the influence" shows the

silliness of some non-medical reasons.

49. That the doctor will only prescribe addictive

narcotics when the patient wants to try non-addictive

herbal treatment violates the patient's right to decide

established in Morgentaler. If this were any new chemical

drug, doctors would be expected to do their professional

research when the patient asks about it, not refuse.

59. Though most witnesses eventually found doctors to

sign, two patients never did and one was thrown out of

the doctor's office. There are other reports of such "no

more family doctor" refusals. Applicant submitted that

when the patient is thrown out by the doctor, that doctor

may be presumed to not be signing for any of the other

patients in his practice. Minus the 5 million without

family doctors, 60,000 doctors serving 30 million

Canadians is 500 patients per practice. So it's safe to

conclude that doctor's whole 500-patient practice remains

un-served, not only that particular patient being

currently un-served. And if the recalcitrant gate-keepers

are not opening the gates, it's the regimes' fault for

making recalcitrant doctors gatekeepers. The patient has

no use for his doctor's medical opinion when the doctor

admits he's ignorant of the treatment. Installing the

reluctant and willfully-ignorant as gatekeepers can only

impede access.

51. Taliano J. pointed out:

"[147] With the leadership of the medical profession

being so adamant in its opposition to its proposed role

as gatekeeper, it is little wonder that the profession

has not been supportive of the MMAR and the patient

witness evidence of this lack of support becomes

understandable."

52. The Crown argues it is not the legislation's fault

that the doctors may not be signing in large numbers.

Taliano J. cited the resistance by medical associations

to being appointed gate-keepers over something they knew

nothing about. Legislation appointing someone ignorant of

the treatment is tantamount to appointing a monkey as

gate-keeper and noting the fact the monkey sometimes

opens the gate means the exemption is "not practically

unavailable!" For the 5 million Canadians without a

family doctor, it is completely practically unavailable

and they must remain completely unserved by the present

regime with recalcitrant doctors as gate-keepers.

53. The Court of Appeal should not need the numbers to

logically infer that doctors were boycotting the regime

when so many medical associations had been noted in

opposition as well as the testimony of the Mernagh

witnesses to the refusals of many doctors to serve them,

and implicitly, their 500-patient practices. Fortunately,

Applicant objects to doctors being able to opt out at all

without medical contra-indications of use.

54. Justice Taliano finally concluded:

"[327] While that approach was justified and feasible in

Hitzig, the same cannot be said of the present case.

Because the court in Hitzig only found certain and

isolated sections of the MMAR to be invalid, it was able

to specifically address those provisions in its remedy

without altering the overall significance of the

legislation. However, in the case at bar I have found

that the requirement for a medical doctor's declaration

has rendered the MMAR unconstitutional. This requirement

infects numerous sections of the MMAR."

55. On the basis of the similar evidence as Mernagh but

with the gap on why the doctors refused filled, the

requirement of ignorant recalcitrant doctors is

unnecessary and unconstitutional when simple proof of

illness should be the only medical judgment needed.

56. The health improvements all patient witnesses in

Godfrey and Mernagh attested to do condemn the doctors

who wouldn't or couldn't do their duty in exercising the

gatekeeping role demanded of the physician by the

legislation. Once demanded of them, unprofessional

incompetence and bias aren't proper gate-keeping for

anyone's medicine.

2) NOT APPROVED WITHOUT DIN

---------------------------

57. One cardiologist refused because marijuana was "not

an approved medication." Health Canada web site explains:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/index-eng.php

"Dried marihuana is not an approved drug or medicine in

Canada. The Government of Canada does not endorse the use

of marihuana, but the courts have required reasonable access to a legal source of marihuana when authorized by a physician."

58. Not being an approved substance has been used as a

reasonable rationale to allow some doctors to assuage

their conscience when they opt out of their

responsibility to their patients. Cannabis can never be

approved until it gets a DIN. Not having a DIN also

forecloses any hope of financial coverage. The lack of

DIN remains in the MMPR.

3) ANNUAL MEDICAL DOCUMENTS FOR PERMANENTLY ILL

-----------------------------------------------

MMAR S.13(1): "ATP Subject to subsection (2), an authorization to possess expires 12 months after its date of issue..."

MMAR S.33(1)(a): "PUPL Subject to subsection (2), a

personal-use production licence expires on the earlier of

12 months after its date of issue.."

MMAR S.42(1)(a): "DPPL Subject to subsection (2), a

designated-person production licence expires on the

earlier of 12 months after its date of issue.."

MMPR s.129(2)(a) "The period of use referred to in

paragraph (1)(e) must be specified as a number of days,

weeks or months, which must not exceed one year;

59. Doctors know that instead of prescribing cannabis

once and perhaps never seeing an epileptic again, the

patient would have to come back every year for him to

fill out the forms. Imagine how all that yearly form-

filling would affect any practice for epilepsy! Instead

of exempting them all once, it's all of them every year!

Say a doctor has 500 epileptic patients and exempts them

100 per year of 5 years. When he's done he hasn't had to

fill out 100 forms per year but 100, 100+100 renewals,

100+200 renewals, 100+300 renewals, 100+400 renewals

totaling 1,500 forms filled out with 500 more every year

thereafter when it should have been only 500 forms once.

Over a 10-year span for 1,000 epileptics, that would take

5,500 forms filled out instead of 1,000 once. Annual

renewals for permanent diseases is a waste of the

patient', doctor's, and regulator's time.

60. Testimony in Godfrey showed show Exemptees fell under

penal jeopardy each time renewed or amended

Authorizations were delayed. The Federal Court case of

Ray Turmel v. HMTQ [2013] highlighted how the Health

Canada site informed people renewing their Authorizations

with no changes they only needed to fill out Form R,

always with 8-10 weeks for processing. Then 3 weeks

later, he received a rejection letter for failure to re-

submit another Form F. Nowhere on Form R instructions did

it say anything about another Form F and his renewal was

thus delayed by 3 weeks. With the Form F then sent in,

Health Canada started the clock anew and let his

exemption expire on Friday May 31 2013 without renewal

advising him to comply with the rules which said to

destroy his stash and garden until his new permits arrived! At 7pm Friday night, Federal Court Justice Roy granted a short notice hearing and by 11pm, Health Canada had renewed his exemption. The Form F glitch catches all such "no-change" Renewals and puts them behind schedule and Health Canada has seemed in no rush to prevent those many Authorizations from expiring and the patients falling into jeopardy for that time.

4) DESTRUCTION OF SUPPLY

------------------------

MMAR S.65(1): "If an authorization to possess expires

without being renewed or is revoked, the holder shall

destroy all marihuana in their possession."

MMPR

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/repeal-

abrogation-eng.php

"All dried marihuana and/or marihuana seeds or plants in

your possession obtained under the MMAR must be destroyed

on or before March 31, 2014."

61. MMAR orders that marijuana be destroyed without

compensation upon expiry of any exemption without

renewal. Every person whose exemption properly expires

knows the Criminal Code prohibition means his stash had

better be disposed of, why repeat it here when it's

already in the Criminal Code? The only people it can

possibly affect aversely are patients legitimately

awaiting a late renewal or amendment who are reminded

that they should destroy all their medicine until their

permit arrives when they can start all over again and do

without until their first crop comes in. The witnesses

who testified to late renewals or amendments admitted

they did not destroy their stash nor their plants and

were guilty of violating both S.65 and the Criminal Code

during those lapses in coverage. This jeopardy for sick

people was ruled unconstitutional in R. v. Parker.

62. The MMPR demands the same destruction of medication

by the prohibition on possession of more than the 30 day

dosage. Should a patient under-use and have some spare at

the end of the month, it is prohibited to possess his new

supply without destroying the remainder of his old

supply. But should a patient over-use and lack some at

the end of the month, bad luck, can't get any more.

5) BUREAUCRATIC CANCELLATIONS

------------------------------------

MMAR S.12(1)(b): "The Minister shall refuse to issue an

authorization to possess if any information, statement or

other item included in the application is false or

misleading;"

MMAR S.32(c): "The Minister shall refuse to issue a

personal-use production licence if any information or

statement included in the application is false or

misleading;"

MMAR S.62(2)(c): "The Minister shall revoke an

authorization to possess and any licence to produce

issued on the basis of the authorization if the

authorization was issued on the basis of false or

misleading information;"

63. Two witnesses testified to having been authorized

with many others by Ontario's Dr. Kammermans upon his

visit to Nova Scotia. On Oct. 1 2012, they received

revocations of their exemptions for being false and

misleading though no doubt about their medical condition

was alleged. What may Health Canada have construed as

"false?" Dr. Kammermans was not licensed to practice in

Nova Scotia!

64. Though one revokee never found another doctor, the

other obtained another Authorization from a doctor in

B.C. The Greenleaf Clinic does its medical examinations

by Skype with the patient anywhere in Canada and the

doctor in B.C. Similarly, had the doctor in B.C. done a

house call to Nova Scotia and signed it there, Health

Canada could have deemed that false and reject the

application too. So Dr. Kammermans could have used Skype

or waited until he was back in his Ontario office before

signing and sending out the Authorizations to his Nova

Scotia patients but because he signed them at the house call instead of in his office, Health Canada cut off the medication of thousands of valid patients for non-medical reasons!

65. Health Canada no longer cancels Exemptions for its

own "reasonable grounds," it has delegated that onus onto

the non-governmental Licensed Producer (LP):

MMPR S.117(1)(c)(i): "The Licensed Producer must cancel

if there are reasonable grounds to believe that false

information has been submitted;"

S.117(2): "must cancel without delay if LP has verified

the existence of the ground in a "reasonable manner."

s.117(3): "has reasonable grounds that a ground exists."

66. Action used to be taken if it "is false!" Not only

needs "reasonable grounds to believe it is false." That

bureaucrats or private companies and not the doctors rule

the pharmacy by declaring non-medical errors or inconsistencies "false and misleading" is an indictment of the total regime. Health Canada bureaucrats can and did cut off the medication to thousands of Dr. Kammermans' medically-qualified patients for such a trite non-medical reason.

67. What are "reasonable grounds to believe something

false" for a private Licensed Producer to cut off a patient's medicine? Shouldn't it be upon "indictment or conviction" and not "reasonable grounds to believe?" "Oops, sorry for the mistake, patient's dead." If the Licensed Producer has verified grounds, he can call a cop, not say he has "reasonable grounds to believe." Or shouldn't it be up to the doctor to decide when medicine will no longer be given?

6) HEALTH CANADA FEEDBACK

-------------------------

68. Testimony showed one doctor was "not interested"

because of Health Canada feedback! Not only does Health

Canada telephone doctors opposing high dosages but has

them fill out another form to certify anew the amount!

Like saying: "Are you really signing for this much? Sign

another form saying it again." This second unmentioned part

to the application process and phone calls verifying the same has intimidated doctors in some cases to reduce prescriptions. The same intimidation tactics are possible under the MMPR.

7) PROCESSING DELAYS

--------------------

69. Like any life-saving medication, marijuana should be

available as fast as needed. Imagine an epileptic having

a fit and a hospital emergency ward doctor trying to

obtain an Authorization to use marijuana to stop it. That

hospitals are not prepared to dispense marijuana to an

epileptic in the throes of seizure is an indictment of

the total regime. It's the only almost guaranteed anti-

seizure medication not available at a hospital because of

the application process for authorization. Hospitals

remain as unprepared under the MMPR.

8) NO RESOURCES TO PROCESS LARGE DEMAND

---------------------------------------

70. The Taliano decision mentions the 2010 delays in MMAR

processing when Health Canada were swamped by several

extra thousand applications, each now needing yearly

renewals. With only 8 MMPR Licensed Producers to date, and

most not up to production, there seems great chance the

MMPR could not cope with actual necessary demand coming up.

9) PROHIBITION ON NON-DRIED CANNABIS

------------------------------------

MMPR S.3(1): "A person (2) may possess dried marihuana.."

71. The Plaintiff is limited to using only "dried marihuana" as provided in the NCR, MMAR and MMPR, such restriction having been struck down in B.C. due to the decision in R v. Smith 2012 BCSC 544, which is on appeal, and in relation to the MMAR as that limitation did little or nothing to enhance the government's interest including the government's interest in preventing diversion of the drug, or controlling false and misleading claims of medical benefit and that it was arbitrary and violated

s.7 of the Charter.

72. Cannabis may be used in its various forms, including

in its raw form for juicing, and making butter, as well

as using oils and tinctures, using it in teas, and as

salves and creams for topical applications, or by making

edibles and by smoking in cigarettes/joints or using a

vaporizer or atomizer. It is an offense to separate or

extract the resin glands from the dead plant material and

a further offense to possess those resin glands, whether

as resin or "hashish, or when infused into derivative

products such as foods, oils or even tea. It is an

offence to possess cannabis juice derived from the

natural undried plant as it is not "dried marihuana".

This explains how someone may consume 200g/day: 140g/day

for juicing, 40g/day reduced to 4g/day for derivatives,

concentrates and comestibles, and 20g/day smoked.

73. The Plaintiff says that the decision in Smith should

be followed to enable Plaintiff to consume medicine in

whatever form is most effective and to avoid a form that

may be harmful, and that such a limitation in the NCR,

MMAR and MMPR is unconstitutional as being in violation

of s.7 and inconsistent therewith and is not saved by s.1.

10) NO EXEMPTION FROM CDSA S.5 TRAFFICKING

------------------------------------------

74. With different strains for different pains and

different gains in productivity, Plaintiff's opportunity

to sample and trade those strains is impeded by the

trafficking prohibition in the CDSA. Without a DIN for

financial support, it is evident that any PUPL patient on

social assistance cannot divert his food budget to pay

for his growing expenses and is compelled to traffic some

of his crop to cover those inevitable costs. The CDSA S.5

prohibitions on trafficking of marijuana are a clear

impediment to the patient's benefit through access and

supply of different strains.

UNDER THE MMAR ONLY

===================

MMAR 11) SPECIALIST REQUIREMENT

-------------------------------

75. Taliano J. notes how the Nolin Commission concluded

that the specialist requirement would impede access. But

a decade later, it's still there impeding access. Taliano

J. notes:

"33.. where a specialist was required, it was no longer

necessary for the specialist to provide the declaration

that s/he had reviewed the case and concurred that

conventional treatments were ineffective or medically

inappropriate and was aware that marihuana was being

considered as an alternative treatment."

76. Though the specialist no longer had to provide the

signed declaration, he still had to provide the same oral

declaration to the family doctor! Just another chore for

the doctor to do in filling out the forms. Putting the

onus on the family doctor to swear that the specialist

had made the declaration did not remove the requirement

that specialist make the declaration that conventional

treatments were ineffective or medically inappropriate.

Whereas the Specialist Declaration used to satisfy the

family doctor that the specialist was aware of the

intended use, now the doctor has to do the ensuring by

his own communication with the specialist. So nothing

really changed but the onus or verification off Health

Canada and onto the family doctor.

77. The true unimportance of the Specialist Requirement is

shown by its being passed onto the family doctor in the MMAR

and its no longer being required at all in the MMPR!

MMAR 12) DECLARATION OF CONVENTIONAL TREATMENT

----------------------------------------------

S.6(1)(e): "The medical declaration must indicate

that conventional treatments for the symptom have been tried

or considered and have been found to be ineffective or

medically inappropriate for the treatment of the applicant;"

S.6(2)(b)(v): "must indicate that the specialist

concurs that conventional treatments for the symptom are

ineffective or medically inappropriate for the treatment

of the applicant."

78. The Morgentaler decision makes clear the patient's

right to use the treatment of his choice unless contra-

indicated. The true unimportance of the requirement for

the declaration that conventional treatments are

inappropriate is shown by its no longer being required at

all in the MMPR now that simple proof of illness is all

that is required.

MMAR 13) 2 PATIENTS PER GROWER (HITZIG, SFETKOPOULOS)

------------------------------------------------

S.41(b): "The Minister shall refuse to issue a

designated-person production licence if the designated

person would become the holder of more than two licences

to produce.."

79. The new ratio of 2 patients rather than 1 per grower

is twice as good but not much less bad. Not much less so

as to again unreasonably restrict supply.

MMAR 14) 4 GROWERS PER GARDEN (HITZIG, BEREN)

----------------------------------------

S.32(d): "The Minister shall refuse to issue a

personal-use production licence if the proposed

production site would be a site for the production of

marihuana under more than four licences to produce;"

MMAR 63.1 "if a production site is authorized under more

than four licences to produce, the Minister shall revoke

the excess licences."

80. R. v. Beren and Swallow (2009) BCSC 429 declared that

the re-imposed limit of 3 growers per garden once again

rendered the MMAR unconstitutional but again no charges

were dropped. A week later, Health Canada upped the limit

to 4 growers per garden. Only 4/3, 1.33 times as good and

far less less bad. So far less less bad as to again

unreasonably restrict supply.

81. Plaintiff submits that the new caps of 2 replacing 1

and 4 replacing 3 make the MMAR only slightly less

unconstitutional retrospective to Dec 8 2003 as their

lesser versions in Hitzig had been retrospective back to

Aug 1 2001 until the deficiencies were remedied on Oct 7

2003 in Hitzig.

MMAR 15) NUMBER OF PLANTS INAPPROPRIATE PARAMETER

--------------------------------------------

S.30(1): "Maximum Number of Plants"

S.30(2): "The maximum number of marihuana plants referred

to in paragraph (1)(c) is determined according to..."

82. The limits on plants is inappropriate because

different strains for different pains produce different

gains of growth and only the stored amount should matter.

83. In R. v. Ray Turmel [2012] in Quebec, the accused had

4 pounds towards his Authorized 11 pounds but was charged

with having too many plants, growing too fast. Such a

limit impedes the patient's opportunity to fully stock

his medicine chest by only allowing him to reach his maximum

storage very slowly. As well, different strains provide

different yields making the number of plants the wrong

main limiting parameter that again impedes supply.

84. Limiting the number plants also means that gardening

becomes a more expensive year-round chore. Instead of

growing double for free in winter when no air conditioning

is needed and taking the summer off, patients must tend to

their gardens with no respite all year round.

MMAR 16) NO HELP FOR PERSONAL-USER-PRODUCTION-LICENSEE

-------------------------------------------------

85. A limited number of plants also means that they have

to be grown bigger. Rather than small 10 gram buds on 20

small stalks, they have to grow 50 gram buds on 4 mini-

trees. Bigger plants mean patients have to handle and get

around bigger pots and reduces the efficiency of the lamp

when light doesn't get through to the bottom buds. Having

forced patients to deal with larger pots, the MMAR then

prohibits them hiring or having any helpers which

restricts access and supply!

86. Taliano J. comments on the stress caused by the MMAR:

"[47].. Accordingly, the medical use of marihuana by

these individuals constitutes a criminal activity, even

though they are not criminally minded people. This in

turn has created an additional a source of concern and

anxiety for all of the patient witnesses. The stress of

which further undermines their health. "

UNDER THE MMPR ONLY

===================

MMPR 11) ATP VALID SOLELY AS "MEDICAL DOCUMENT"

-----------------------------------------------

S.255(2) An authorization to possess that was valid

immediately before the repeal of the Marihuana Medical

Access Regulations remains valid solely for the purpose

of being used as specified in subsection (1).

87. Everyone's ATPs become ineffective without proof

of purchase from a Licensed Producer. Medical need goes

on, tens of thousands fall into jeopardy

MMPR 12) CANCEL FOR BUSINESS REASON

-----------------------------------

S.117(4): "A licensed producer may cancel the

registration of a client for a business reason."

88. "Business reason" to cut the patient's medicine is

undefined in the legislation. But Health Canada has

written:

"The term "Business" is generally defined as an

enterprise or a firm which provides goods and services to

its customers for a profit. Coming from that term

"business reasons" could cover a wide spectrum of

scenarios. For example, an organization could stop doing

business with customers due to (the business decision

based on) long-overdue, pending payments from the

customer/client. Also, the licensed producer might close

business, etc.

89. Adding to the spectrum, "they're low on that brand

and it profits more to sell it to someone else"

is another great business reason.

MMPR 13) MEDICAL DOCUMENT NOT RETURNED

--------------------------------------

S.117(7): "A licensed producer who cancels a client's

registration must not return the medical document."

S.118: "A licensed producer must not transfer to any

person a medical document on the basis of which a client

has been registered."

90. The Licensed Producer may cut off not only a patient's supply but also his access since he can't take his current "access document" to any other supplier and has to start the access process with the doctor all over again. If they close business, the patient should get his "medical document" back so he can take it to another who is still in business?

MMPR 14) NO PRODUCTION IN DWELLING

----------------------------------

S.13. A licensed producer must not conduct any activity

referred to in section 12 at a dwelling place.

91. The Plaintiff says that the proposed MMPR

restrictions preventing production in a dwelling house

and preventing any production outdoors should not be

applicable to the patient or personal producer or

designated caregiver because they amount to unnecessary

restrictions in relation to the patient producer or his

or her designate and would be unconstitutionally too

restrictive. As the patient producer or his designate

would not be involved in selling any of their product to

any members of the public, none of the provisions of the

MMPR relating thereto, such as packaging and labeling and

the costs thereof, including packaging arbitrary maximum

amounts in containers that a person can possess on their

person at any one time, such as the maximum of 150 g,

regardless of one's authorized dosage, should not apply

to the patient, producer or designate.

MMPR 15) NO OUTDOOR PRODUCTION

------------------------------

S.14: "A licensed producer must produce, package or label

marihuana only indoors."

92. Plaintiff submits that prohibiting production with

free sunlight is an arbitrary and unreasonable

restriction on supply.

MMPR 16) NO BRAND RIGHTS TO GENETICS

------------------------------------

S. 138(1)(c) "provide the name of the brand"

S.261: "The holder of a personal-use production licence may sell or provide marihuana plants or seeds to a licensed producer.."

93. Cannabis has many specific strains for different

pains. Though there is provision to transfer or sell a

patient's own brands, two of the eight current Licensed

Producers, Bedrocan and CanniMed, only produce their own

proprietary brands. Medreleaf can't deliver before the

end of May 2014. Tweed says they'll get back.

94. The United States are just recently bemoaning having

lost all their hemp genetics since prohibition. Canadian

growers have spent years, there is a whole generation of

genetics at stake in Canada and the failure to make

provision for a seed-bank to save them does severely

impede access to the proper medication. Tens of thousands

of growers having to destroy their own home-grown strains

is an unconscionable restriction on access and supply.

MMPR 17) UNAFFORDABILITY

-------------------

95. The Canada Health Act R.S.C., 1985, c. C-6 states:

"3. It is hereby declared that the primary objective of

Canadian health care policy is to protect, promote and

restore the physical and mental well-being of residents

of Canada and to facilitate reasonable access to health

services without financial or other barriers."

96. Doctors don't fill out forms for free. Making

permanently ill patients have their doctor fill out a

form every year is an unconscionable waste of everyone's

time and resources.

97. Despite no DIN, The Plaintiff finds it affordable to

produce the required cannabis at $1.00 to $4.00 a gram or

less but he will not be able to afford the estimated

Licensed Producer prices which are comparable to illicit

market prices and that unaffordability is a barrier to

access at Plaintiff's income level.

MMPR 18) PROOF OF AUTHORITY TO POSSESS

--------------------------------------

S.125: "On demand, an individual who, in accordance with

these Regulations, obtains dried marihuana for their own

medical purposes must show to a police officer proof that

they are authorized to possess the dried marihuana."

98. There is no central database for a police officer to

check whether the potential-accused's proof of purchase

label is legitimate. There are many varied containers and

labels and the Licensed Producer is not responsible for

providing that information, no one is.

MMPR 19) UNAVAILABLE SUPPLY

---------------------------

99. One Licensed Producer, Bedrocan, has responded that

it unfortunately "cannot process orders as large as

200g/day at this time due to limited supply." Tweed

cannot respond, Medreleaf can't deliver until end of May.

Tens of thousands of patients cannot be served by April 1

2014.

MMPR 20) 150-GRAM LIMIT

--------------

MMPR S.5, S.130, S.122, S.123 "must not possess or

deliver more than 30xDaily or 150 Grams."

100. The 150 gram limit on possession and shipment is

based on Health Canada's recommended maximum dosage of

5g/day times 30 days, 150. Health Canada FAQ says writes:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/info/faq-eng.php

"Various surveys published in peer-reviewed literature

have suggested that the majority of people using inhaled

or orally ingested cannabis for medical purposes reported

using approximately 1-3 grams of cannabis per day. While

there are no restrictions under the new Marihuana for

Medical Purposes Regulations on the daily amount that you

may recommend, there is a possession cap of the lesser of

150 grams or 30 times the daily amount."

101. No Standard Deviations for their averages sampled

were provided to give us an idea of the spread of the

Bell curve around those averages. But each survey reported

half their results over their average and half below.

1.5g 2g 2.5g 3g 3.5g 4g 4.5g 5g

102. Diag.1 shows the Normal Bell curve with an average

3g/day and Standard Deviation of 0.5g/day, 1/6 of the sample

average. Some reputable polls use 1 Standard Deviation for

the Bell Curve around their survey's estimated average to be

able to state: 68% or 2/3 of results fall around an average

of 3g/day plus or minus .5g/day." 1/3 of the results are

outside under the end tails of the curve, half that, 1/6th

under the over-estimate tail. With a true mean of 3g, an

under-estimate of 2.5g or over-estimate of 3.5g happens 1/6

of the time: 5:1 against. Sampling an under-estimate of 2g

or over-estimate of 4g is 2 Standard Deviations off the

average 3g that his 1 time in 40 in either tail. Sampling an

under-estimate of 1.5g or over-estimate of 4.5g is 3SD off:

1/700. Sampling an under-estimate of 1g or over-estimate 5g

is 4SD off = 33,000:1 against. Tables in books stop there

but sampling an over-estimate of 6g would be 6SD off in the

millions to one against. Sampling 7g or 8g would be in the

billions. So with a true mean of 3g/day, Health Canada

limiting monthly delivery to 30*5g = 150g, should serve all

but one in 33,000 patients. 4SD is a very good safety

factor.

103. Similarly, with a true mean of 3g, only 1 result in

33,000 should hit as low as 1g! Yet the other survey says

their whole sample landed around 1g when even 1 hit was

33,000:1 against; let alone the whole sample "n"! To have

two 1/33,000 events hit is 33,000^2 (squared) to 1. To have

their whole 100 person survey average 1g is 33,000^100:1, the

hundredth power. It is ludicrous to say their whole sample

all averaged hitting 4SD off the true mean.

0.5g .66g .83g 1g 1.17g 1.33g 1.5g

105. Diag.2 shows that with enough readings to have a Standard Deviation 1/6 of the average of 1g/day, 1SD (2/3 of results) hit between 0.83g and 1.17g; 2SD (95% of results) hit between 0.67g and 1.33g; and 3SD (99.7% of results) hit between 0.5g and 1.5g. To have one hit way out at 2g is 6SD off, millions to one

against. To hit just one result of 3g is 12SD off, trillions

to one against. Of course, for the whole survey population to average 12SD off is ultra-ludicrous when the true mean is 1g.

Reputable surveys cannot have one poll with triple the

mean of the other. It's (1/33,000)^n that the 1% survey

is honest when it's a 3g mean and (1/10^12)^n that the 3%

survey is honest when it's a 1g mean.

106. According to Health Canada statistics there are:

24,185 persons held PUPLs;

04,251 persons held Designated Grower (DG) licences

06,027 persons had access to Health Canada's supply.

Total 34,463 persons Authorized to Possess.

107. As of April, 2013, Health Canada authorized the

production of 188,189K of Cannabis (marihuana) to be

produced under the MMAR under the various licences during

2012. So: 188,198K / 34,463 patients / 365 days = 14.96g/day.

5g 7.5g 10g 12.5g 15g 17.5g 20g 22.5g 25g

108. Diag.3 is the Normal Bell Curve around 15g with the

same 1/6 of average (2.5g) swings about the mean. That means

that the odds of one result being 5 grams is 4SD, 33,000:1

and 3 grams is 4.67SD, let alone the whole population

averaging around 3g! It is startling to think that the

actual Population Mean of 15 is known and Health Canada find

survey Bell Curve samplings all around 3! or worse 1! For

any surveys sampling a population with known mean of 15g

that claim any results with Bell Curves around averages of

3g or 1g (plus or minus some fraction of their small

estimated average) cannot be taken as valid or honest. The

fix was in.

109. Health Canada's 150g monthly limit is based on its

maximum 5g/day recommendation given those biased survey

sample averages of 1-3g/day! A factor of 1.67 over the

highest 3g/day survey sample would seem reasonable given

the odds against anyone needing as much as 5g/day with a

3g/day true mean at .5g/day per Standard Deviations is 4

Standard Deviations off, 33,000:1. Nice safety margin. But

given the true population mean is 15 grams, a month's supply

for the average patient would be 450g! And given Health

Canada's 1.67 safety factor for those dosages above average,

that would be 750 grams maximum per delivery. Health Canada

offers supply 5 times too slowly.

110. There is no provision for how an LP may ship in 150

gram packages dosages of 200g/day which would necessitate

40 deliveries per month with commensurate shipping costs

in 20 weekdays and with a prohibition on possessing two

150-gram packages with 300 grams both at the same time.

111. Given Health Canada used biased surveys when

objective data was always available, it is submitted that

the limit on the amount of cannabis possessed and shipped

has been set too low based on false and misleading data

and must be struck.

EFFECT OF MMAR AND MMPR CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

=================================================

112. Plaintiff has suffered stress due to the myriad of

defects in the both exemption regimes. All these torts

generated by the MMAR have been raised herein to make the

point that the regime is hopelessly flawed ab initio

in too many vital areas, not just recalcitrant and

ignorant doctors appointed gate-keepers, and must be

struck down in its totality as having failed to provide a

acceptable medical exemption to the prohibitions.

113. For all the irremediable deficiencies demonstrated

herein, Plaintiff submits the MMAR and MMPR medical

marihuana regimes are fatally flawed and should be

declared invalid legislation.

REMEDY UNDER THE CDSA

=====================

114. The Court of Appeal in Mernagh wrote:

"[11] Since this declaration of invalidity left no

legislative scheme in place for people to obtain

exemptions from the prohibitions in ss. 4 and 7 of the

CDSA, the trial judge also declared those sections to be

of no force and effect."

115. Plaintiff submits that BENO, the remedy Taliano J.

ordered, followed from R. v. J.P. where the Ontario Court

of Appeal wrote:

"[11] This court.. Having held in Hitzig, supra, that the

MMAR did not create a constitutionally valid medical

exemption, we can determine the merits of the

respondent's claim that there was no charge of possession

of marihuana in existence on April 12, 2002 on that

basis. Viewed in light of our holding in Hitzig, the

analysis of the respondent's claim becomes straightforward. As of April 12, 2002 when the respondent was charged, the prohibition against possession of marihuana in s. 4 of the CDSA was subject to the exemption created by the MMAR. As we have held, the MMAR did not create a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption. In Parker, this court made it clear that the

criminal prohibition against possession of marihuana, absent a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption, was of no force and effect. [BENO] As of April 12, 2002, there was no constitutionally acceptable medical exemption. It follows that as of that date the offence of possession of marihuana in s. 4 of the CDSA was of no force and effect. The respondent could not be prosecuted. [BENO]

[14].. The Parker order by its terms took effect one year

after its pronouncement. That order was never varied. After the MMAR came into effect, the question was not whether the enactment of the MMAR had any effect on the Parker order, but rather whether the prohibition against possession of marihuana in s. 4 of the CDSA, as modified by the MMAR, was constitutional. If it was, the offence of possession was in force. Paired with the suspension of the declaration in Parker, this would have the effect of keeping the possession prohibition in force continually. [Not BENO] If the MMAR did not create a constitutionally valid exception, as we have held, then according to the ratio in Parker, the possession prohibition in s. 4 was unconstitutional and of no force and effect. [BENO] The

determination of whether there was an offence of possession of marihuana in force as of April 2002 depended not on the terms of the Parker order but on whether the Government had cured the constitutional defect identified in Parker. It had not. [BENO]

[16].. The determination of whether there was a crime of

possession of marihuana in force on the day the respondent was charged turned on whether s. 4 combined with the MMAR created a constitutional prohibition against the possession of marihuana.

[31] The court in Parker, supra, declared that the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 was inconsistent with the Charter and consequently of no force or effect absent an adequate medical exemption. [BENO]

[32] By bringing forward the MMAR, the Government altered

the scope of the possession prohibition in s. 4 of the

CDSA. After the MMAR came into force, the question therefore became whether the prohibition against possession of marihuana as modified by the MMAR was constitutional. If it was, then the possession prohibition was in force. [Not BENO] If the MMAR did not solve the constitutional problem, then the possession

prohibition, even as modified by the MMAR, was of no

force or effect. [BENO]

[33] There was no need to amend or re-enact s. 4 of the

CDSA to address the constitutional problem in Parker.

That problem arose from the absence of a constitutionally

adequate medical exemption. [BENO] As our order in Hitzig

demonstrates, the prohibition against possession of

marihuana in s. 4 is in force when there is a constitutionally acceptable medical exemption in force. [Not BENO]

[34] We would dismiss the appeal.”

RELIEF SOUGHT
=============

A) A Declaration pursuant to s.52 (1) of the Canadian

Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("the Charter") for an Order:

A1) that the Medical Marihuana Access Regulations (MMAR)

that came into force on Jul 30 2001 and the Marihuana for

Medical Purposes Regulations (MMPR) that came into force

on June 19, 2013, (and run concurrently with the MMAR

until March 31, 2014 when the MMAR will be repealed by

the MMPR) are unconstitutional and not saved by S.1 of

the Charter in that the s. 7 Charter constitutional right

of a medically needy patient to reasonable access to his/her medicine by way of a safe and continuous supply consistent with the S.7 Charter right is unreasonably restricted by the impediments to access and/or supply in the MMAR and/or MMPR;

A2) And that, "absent a constitutionally acceptable

medical exemption," the prohibitions on marihuana in the

Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) are invalid

and the word "marijuana" be struck from Schedule II of

the CDSA.

B) In the alternative, pursuant to S.24(1) of the

Charter, for a permanent Personal Exemption from

prohibitions in the CDSA on marihuana for the Plaintiff's

personal medical use.

C) Or, alternatively, damages in the amount of $______________ for loss of patient's marihuana, plants and production site.

The Plaintiffs propose that this action be tried in the

City of ______________________, Province of _________________.

DATED at ____________________________ on _______________ 2014.

____________________________________

Plaintiff Signature

Name: _______________________________________________________

Address: ____________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

Tel/fax: ____________________________________________________

Email: ______________________________________________________

File No: _______________

FEDERAL COURT

BETWEEN:

________________________________

Plaintiff

and

Her Majesty The Queen

Defendant

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

(Pursuant to S.48 of

the Federal Court Act)

For the Plaintiff:

Name: ____________________________________

Address: _________________________________

__________________________________________

Tel/fax: _________________________________

Email: ___________________________________