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until March 31, 2014 when the MMAR will be repealed by 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 and future supply needed. 

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; 

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 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. 

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 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 and future supply needed.  

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: T-_________
                                    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: ___________________________________