TURMEL: Ryan Challenger seeks Interim MedPot Grow Permit

http://SmartestMan.Ca/ryan01.txt

JCT: Ryan Challenger called me with his Health Canada permit
processing problem after finding my "kits" page with
templates on the internet. I told him I'd been declared a
vexatious litigant and had been barred from helping people
in Federal Court, not provincial courts. I'm appealing but
I'm not sure if the decision is stayed pending appeal but I
don't want to take any chances. But all he had to do was
follow the instructions and he might get justice. I asked
that he send me a copy and keep me apprised so I can make my
internet reports. Here is what he filed based on my
template:

1) Statement of Claim
(From http://SmartestMan.Ca/delsc8.pdf

File No: _________
FEDERAL COURT
Between:
Ryan Challenger
Plaintiff
AND
His Majesty The King
Defendant
STATEMENT OF CLAIM
(Pursuant to S.48 of the Federal Court Act)

FACTS

1. The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the long
processing
time for amendment of Production Permits under the Cannabis
Act & Regulations is an unconstitutional violation of the
patient's S.7 Charter Rights and damages for lost product
and
expenses due to the delay.

THE PARTIES

2a. The Plaintiff is a person Possessing a Production Permit
Number #MCR-296659 who

2b. The Plaintiff can afford Licensed Producer prices, sales
tax and shipping costs but want to avoid taxes and shipping
and garden my own strains for myself. Why should I suffer
the loss of rent on my site during the processing delays due
to short-staffing just because I can afford to go elsewhere
while the short-staffing delays continues?

3. The Defendant, His Majesty the King 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, and the Cannabis Act & Regulations.

BACKGROUND

4a. On March 25th, 2022, Plaintiff mailed the Application to
Renew the permit to grow cannabis for medical purposes well
before the expiry of the certificate which was April 22nd
2022.

4b. On September 23rd, 2022, Plaintiff mailed an application
to make an amendment for a change of home address.

JCT: Six months later and no action..

4c. On March 15th, 2023, Plaintiff mailed an application to
make an amendment for a change of production site address.

JCT: Another six months and no action to renew with a new
home address!

4d. I have not received my amended permit and I am suffering
Consequences:
- Rent for a production site i can not use
- Insurance on a building i cant use for the intended
purpose
High cost of acquiring medication

JCT: Now a year and a half with no processing done. So he's
losing rent, insurance and having to pay for high-priced
retail medication.

5. Under the MMAR, Justice Roy of this court was told Dr.
Stephane Lessard, Controlled Substances and Tobacco
Directorate said the time to process an application to
produce marijuana was "done in under 4 weeks, and renewals,
far less." An amendment should also take far less.

6. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the long processing
time for amendment of Applicant's Production Permit under
the Cannabis Act & Regulations is an unconstitutional
violation of the S.7 Charter Rights and damages for lost
product and expenses due to the delay.

The Plaintiff proposes this action be tried in the City of
Montreal, Province of Quebec.
Dated at Laval on August 23rd 2023.
Ryan Challenger
Laval, Qc H7P-0M2
Tel/fax: 514-559-3271
Email: [email protected]

2) Motion for Interim Remedy

File No: T-1757-23
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Ryan Challenger
Applicant
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Respondent

RECORD OF MOTION

1. Notice of Motion...................................(2)
2. Applicant's Affidavit..............................(5)
3. Applicant's Written Representations................(8)

NOTICE OF MOTION

TAKE NOTICE THAT at the general sitting on a September 5th
2023, the Applicant will make a motion by video conference
to the Court, with leave of the judge to lift any stay or on
short notice if necessary.

JCT: Note that the motion seeks leave of the judge to hear
the motion.

THE MOTION IS FOR an Order granting Applicant interim relief

1) a personal constitutional exemption to start growing
marijuana pursuant to the conditions in the application
until Health Canada processes the needed Registration, or,
in the Alternative,
2) an Order of Mandamus that Health Canada immediately do
its duty by processing the requisite Registration

AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging the time or mode of service or
dispensing with any documents or amending any error or
omission which this Honourable Court may allow.

JCT: This is my "Open Says Me" blurb asking that any screw-
up be fixed. If a clerk finds something objectionable or
missing, it can't be stopped because we asked the court to
overlook it or fix it.

THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE that under the Harper MMAR,
the time to process an application to produce marijuana was
touted before this Court by Dr. Stephane Lessard, Controlled
Substances and Tobacco Directorate, as "done in under 4
weeks." There is no reason, with only production
Registrations to deal with today, to take much longer.

JCT: The grounds are that it used to take less than 4 weeks
and we're now at a year and half with no explanation.

THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used: Applicant's
Affidavit and any other material this court will allow.
Dated in Montreal on August 24th 2023.
For the Applicant:
Name: Ryan Challenger

TO: Registrar of this Court,
Attorney General of Canada

3) Affidavit

APPLICANT'S AFFIDAVIT

I, Ryan Challenger, residing in Laval Quebec, make oath and
say as follows:

1. On March 25th 2022, I mailed a renewal application to
produce marijuana for medical purposes along with two
amendments for changes to the certificate. I have not
received any correspondence from Health Canada. I've called
their support line at least 3-4 times a month always getting
the same answer "IT IS BEING PROCESSED". I do not know how
many Applications are ahead of mine and how long it will
take to process them first.
Ryan Challenger
Sworn before me in Montreal on August 24th 2023
A COMMISSIONER, ETC.

4) Written Representations

APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

1. In the case of Raymond Turmel T-977-13, the time to
process an application to produce marijuana under the MMAR
was touted by Dr. Stephane Lessard, Health Canada Controlled
Substances and Tobacco Directorate, as "done in under 4
weeks, and renewals, far less."

2. Given the Applicant has waited over 68 weeks, Applicant's
claim seeks a declaration that the long processing time for
processing of Production Registrations is an
unconstitutional violation of the S.7 Charter Right to Life,
Liberty and Security.

3. Applicant's Motion seeks interim relief:

1) a personal constitutional exemption to start growing
marijuana pursuant to the conditions in the application
until the Health Canada processes the needed Registration,
or, in the Alternative,
2) an Order of Mandamus that Health Canada immediately do
its duty by processing the requisite Registration.
Dated in Montreal on August 24th 2023
For the applicant:
Name: Ryan Challenger

5) Crown Written Representations in Response

JCT: So, no hop-to-it permit like the previous 6 dozen. They
have reasons not to take so long to process it.

T-1757-23
FEDERAL COURT
B E T W E E N :
Ryan CHALLENGER
Plaintiff
AND
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Defendant
DEFENDANT'S MOTION RECORD

DEFENDANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
(Rule 369(2) of the Federal Courts Rules)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT,
SUBMITS AS FOLLOWS:

CR: <-- Crown

CR: INTRODUCTION

1. Except with leave of the Court,


CR: a party cannot institute a proceeding with a document
that is essentially a template distributed by John Turmel.

JCT: The decision declaring me a vexatious litigant says I
can't help people with their templates and the court won't
accept any actions with my templates without asking for
leave of the court. He asked for leave of the court for his
motion but still has to ask the court for leave for his
action.

CR: As hundreds of similar actions challenging processing
times for registration with Health Canada to produce
cannabis for a medical purpose, this claim discloses no
reasonable cause of action and is unsupported by evidence.

JCT: The original court did not find no cause of action but
the appellate judges who were not privy to Health Canada's
dirty dealings with the hundreds of stalled permits did find
no cause of action. So the higher judges who didn't hear the
400 patients victimized by Health Canada's and only ruled on
two overruled the judge who did hear the 400.

2. With respect to the request for an injunction, the
plaintiff does not raise a serious issue.

JCT: Not being able to grow own meds without chemicals and
irradiation at the least price is of serious concern.

CR: He admits that he can afford to purchase cannabis and
added costs.

JCT: Extra costs is serious. Should not be punished for
being able to afford it. Financial means should not be an
issue.

CR: 3. With respect to the request for a mandamus, the
requested relief is unavailable in an action on an
interlocutory basis.

JCT: Didn't know there were instances when a judge couldn't
mandate they do their duty. Why didn't they bring this up in
all the previous motions where they delivered the remedy to
avoid the hearing?

CR: The plaintiff has not established that he is entitled to
a renewed license.

JCT: Having an original permit does establish that he is
entitled to a renewed license. They're arguing that asking
to move disentitles him to a renewed amended permit. Nothing
medical about that. Having an original permit is all you
needed to renew. Now they're saying having an original
permit with no amendment needed.

CR: 4. The motion should be dismissed.

PART I : STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. The Plaintiff was granted a license by Health Canada to
produce cannabis for his own personal medical use.

JCT: Which entitles him to renew and amend. Where he lived
and where he grew were not important considerations.,

CR: Application to renew and subsequent amendments

6. On March 25, 2022, the Plaintiff sent an application to
renew his license with Health Canada. Statement of claim,
para. 4a.

JCT: Fact!

CR: 7. On or around September 23, 2022, Plaintiff amended
his application to change his residential address. Statement
of claim, para. 4b.

JCT: Fact! Six months with incompleted renewal process.

CR: 8. On or around March 15, 2023, Plaintiff again amended
his application, this time to change the address of his
production site. Statement of claim, para. 4c.

JCT: Fact! One year with incompleted renewal process. Now he
can't grow any more while awaiting his renewal.

Remember, I won the original permit not expiring while the
renewal was being processed. Before that, it would expire
and the patients would have to take down their grows and
destroy their stored pot. After a slew of desperate patients
moving the court to grant their interim permit to avoid that
sad fate that Health Canada changed the expiry of permit
upon no late renewal.

CR: 9. On August 23, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Statement
of Claim seeking a declaration that the processing time to
renew and amend his license violates his section 7 Charter
rights, as well as damages. Statement of claim, para. 6.

10. On August 24, 2023, the plaintiff served and filed the
present motion, in which he seeks a "personal constitutional
exemption" from the Cannabis Act to start producing cannabis
and an order in the nature of mandamus requiring Health
Canada to renew his registration with the requested
amendments.

JCT: Six more months with no grow and a year and a half
without completed process.
CR: PART II : ISSUES

11. The issue on this motion is whether the Court should
grant the Plaintiff's request for either an
(a) interlocutory injunction either exempting him from the
Cannabis Act or
(b) an order in the nature of mandamus requiring Health
Canada to grant his renewal application.

JCT: They've pulled this sleazy argument many times before.
No one ever asked the court to grant their renewals, they
only asked that their renewals be processed expeditiously.
If they say no, then that can be appealed. If there's a good
reason for Health Canada not to grant it, we can't ask the
Court to grant it. But they didn't say anything.

12. The Plaintiff's claim is bereft of facts

JCT: Facts are clear:
- his doctor prescribed cannabis,
- his doctor signed his renewal,
- he asked for amendments.

CR: and discloses no reasonable cause of action,

JCT: He needs his doctor's prescription filled. Why should
the non-doctors at Health Canada be able to delay without
reason?

CR: to such an extent that it is vexatious, frivolous and an
abuse of process.

JCT: Seeking my medicine is only vexatious, frivolous or an
abuse of the process to those trying to deny it to me..

CR: His motion does not meet the test for an interlocutory
injunction or a mandamus and, therefore, should be
dismissed.

JCT: It has been answered that such motion meets the test or
why else would Health Canada have hopped-to grant or renew
past permits to mooten such motions.

CR: PART III : LAW AND ARGUMENTS

1. FILING TURMEL KIT TEMPLATE WITHOUT LEAVE

13. The Plaintiff's statement and claim and motion are
substantially identical to template "kits" prepared and
distributed by John Turmel. This Court has ordered that no
proceedings can be instituted using such templates without
leave of this Court. Canada (Attorney General) v. Turmel,
2022 FC 1526, para. 48 ("Turmel").

JCT: http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40j.pdf is the decision
declaring me a vexatious litigant:
[48] The AGC asks that Mr. Turmel be required to obtain
leave before instituting new proceedings in this Court.
In addition, the AGC proposes that this Court:
(a) make leave conditional on payment of Mr. Turmel's
outstanding costs;
(b) prohibit Mr. Turmel from preparing court materials
or assisting others with their proceedings; and
(c) order that no proceedings be instituted using
materials prepared by Mr. Turmel, except with leave.

JCT: So given Ryan Challenger based his documents on the
materials from my kit, he has already sought leave in his
motion and he'll have to ask for leave to file his action.

CR: 14. The Plaintiff has not sought leave to file
proceedings using these templates.

JCT: He did for his motion and must for his Statement of
Claim.

15. Since 2014, Mr. Turmel has distributed litigation "kits"
to initiate legal claims, including hundreds of challenges
against processing times for Health Canada to issue or renew
permits to produce cannabis for personal medical use.
Turmel, paras. 25, 28.
[25] Since 2014, Mr. Turmel has prepared and distributed
litigation "kits" comprising templates for initiating
legal claims. These have been used by other litigants to
file more than 800 claims, nearly all of which have been
dismissed or are in the process of being dismissed as
failing to disclose reasonable causes of action, or as
otherwise frivolous, vexatious or abuses of process.
Several of these litigants are subject to costs awards,
many of which remain unpaid.
...
[28] Using Mr. Turmel's kits, litigants have filed or
attempted to file hundreds of substantially identical
proceedings challenging various aspects of Canada's
medical cannabis regulatory regime, including:
(a) 315 actions, including one by Mr. Turmel
(T-488-14), challenging the former Marihuana
Medical Access Regulations and Marihuana for
Medical Purposes Regulations;
(b) 19 motions for extensions of time to
appeal the decision of this Court in Allard v
Canada, 2014 FC 1260;
(c) nine actions, including one by Mr. Turmel
(T-1932-18), for declarations that the CDSA
infringes s 7 of the Charter by failing to provide
access to cannabis juice and oil for medical
purposes;
(d) 393 actions challenging the processing
time for registration with Health Canada to produce
cannabis for personal medical use;
(e) 36 actions challenging the 150-gram public
limit on public possession and shipping of cannabis
for medical purposes;

JCT: Garber in BC granted 10-day possession in public to
high dosers and this Court granted Lead Plaintiff Jeffrey
Harris the same 10-day possession in public of 1KG for his
100g/day prescription. That was overturned by a Court of
Appeal who, unlike the Garber Court, found it reasonable
that Harris not be able to leave home with 2 days worth of
medication.

(f) four actions challenging the requirement for
annual healthcare practitioner authorization to use
cannabis for medical purposes;

JCT: For people with permanent diseases.

(g) one action challenging Health Canada's
rejection of a plaintiff's application for registration
to produce cannabis for personal medical use; and
(h) one action challenging the production site
requirements for producing cannabis for personal medical
use,

JCT: When the restriction of 1 patient per Designated Grower
was struck down as uneconomical, and Health Canada issued a
new cap of 2 patients per grower, and then the restriction
of 3 grow permits per site was struck down as uneconomical
and Health Canada issued a new cap of 4 licensers per site,
those caps were challenged for laughing at the courts. The
laugh stands.

CR:L land one action challenging criminal record
requirements.

JCT: And why shouldn't those with criminal records be
allowed to join the industry and go straight?

CR:L 16. These plaintiffs in these claims often brought
identical motions for interlocutory relief on the basis that
the provisions breached their Charter rights. These motions
have all been dismissed. Turmel, para. 41.

JCT: Dismissed for being mooted by delivery of the remedy.
The Crown and Health Canada caving to the righteousness of
the request for remedy should be no bar to future similar
remedy? Besides, Health Canada's hop-to-it permits indicate
the righteousness of the remedy being sought.

CR: 17. Nearly all of those claims have been dismissed as
failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, or as
being otherwise frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.
Turmel, paras. 4, 25-29, 39.

JCT: Only the two of Jeffrey Harris and Igor Mozajko were
dismissed for those reasons. All others were dismissed
because the higher court found the request for timely
medication not reasonable. We can let history be the judge.

18. The use of these templates have also caused harm to
litigants who used them, such as awards for costs. Turmel,
paras 45-47.

JCT: Only those who appealed to the higher court judges who
had not personally seen all the victims of Health Canada's
delay tactics were hit with costs.

CR: 2. AN INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE

JCT: So why did they cave and deliver the permits to be able
to tell the court that there was no need for a hearing now
that the remedy had been delivered.

CR: 19. A party seeking an interlocutory injunction must
prove that: a) there is a serious issue to be tried;

JCT: Denial of medication is a serious issue.

CR: b) irreparable harm would result if the injunction was
not granted;

JCT: He'll never get back the lost rent, lost insurance and
lost money for buying high-priced cannabis.

CR: c) the balance of convenience favours granting the
order. RJR MacDonald v Canada (Attorney General), 1994
CanLII 117 (SCC), [1994] 1 SCR 311, para. 43 ("RJR
MacDonald").

JCT: Since Health Canada has shown no good reason for a
delay of a year and a half, the balance of convenience
favors that he be able to grow his own strains at his new
address until his renewed amended permit is delivered.

CR: 20. The plaintiff has not met any of these requirements.

A. No serious issue

21. The threshold for establishing a serious issue is low.
The party seeking injunctive relief needs only establishes
that their claim is not destined to fail or that it is
"neither frivolous nor vexatious." RJR MacDonald, para. 50.

22. The plaintiff's claim fails to meet this threshold.

JCT: The fact Health Canada hopped to it almost 80 times to
deliver the permit to mooten the hearing is an indication
that even they did not deem it as destined to fail.

CR: 23. A pleading is frivolous and vexatious if it is so
bereft of facts

JCT: This action is not bereft of obvious facts stated

CR: that the defendant cannot know how to answer

JCT: and all Health Canada has to do to answer is explain
why the year and a half delay?

CR: or the Court cannot effectively regulate the proceeding.
Sivak v Canada, 2012 FC 272, para. 92.

JCT: The Court need only await its explanation for the year
and a half processing time and judge if it is reasonable.

CR: 24. In the present case, the plaintiff uses a "kit" like
hundreds of others which have been dismissed for failure to
disclose a reasonable cause of action.

JCT: In answer to the repetition, only two reached the Court
of Appeal that could fail to see how being denied medication
is a reasonable cause of action.

CR: As in these other claims, he alleges that "the long
processing time for Production Registrations" violates his
protected rights under section 7 of the Charter, but his
claim contains virtually no material facts to support this
conclusion. Statement of Claim, para 2(a)), compare with
Harris v. Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 232, paras 5,
6, 19.

JCT: The claim contains the facts his doctor prescribed the
medication he judge was needed and Health Canada's delays in
processing his renewal threatens his right to such health
benefit.

CR: 25. Similarly, the claim does not identify an ongoing
medical condition that threatens the plaintiff's life or
security, or explain how the alleged delays have affected
the plaintiff personally.

JCT: It's no one's business but him and his doctor.

CR: The claim also fails to identify a principle of
fundamental justice that would be engaged.

JCT: Being denied medication is a fundamental injustice.

CR: Absent these material facts, the claim is frivolous and
vexatious and fails to raise a serious issue.

JCT: Denial of medication is a serious issue. That Health
Canada does not know means it does not merit being named
Health Canada.

CR: 26. On the contrary, the Plaintiff admits that he can
afford to purchase cannabis and associated tax and shipping
costs. He indicates that he wants to avoid paying taxes and
shipping costs, and cultivate his own strain, but there is
no indication that this would be more than a personal
choice. Statement of claim, para. 2b.

27. An interlocutory injunction is not appropriate in these
circumstances.

JCT: Cultivating his own strain without irradiation is a
medical choice. And the financial loses are personal.
Disgusting for them to argue he has to be poor so his rights
can be upheld.

CR: B. No irreparable harm

28. The Applicant also fails to establish irreparable harm.

29. The plaintiff fails to demonstrate that he would be
irreparably harmed in the absence of an injunction.

JCT: He can't get his cash for rent and store-bought pot
back.

CR: The Federal Court of Appeal has held that general
assertions of harm are insufficient at this stage and that
"there must be evidence at a convincing level of
particularity that demonstrates a real probability that
unavoidable harm will result" if an injunction is not
granted. Gateway City Church v Canada (Minister of National
Revenue), 2013 FCA 126, paras 15-16, 18.

JCT: Lost cash is more than a general assertion of
unavoidable.

CR: 30. However, in his affidavit in support of his motion,
the plaintiff is silent about his medical condition.

JCT: Not their business. They don't ask for his medical
condition nor the doctor's reasons on the application, why
would it be needed for the Court?

CR: He does not provide evidence from a physician or other
health care practitioner to show that he would benefit from
the use of cannabis,

JCT: The mere fact the physician prescribed can be presumed
to show that the doctor believed he would benefit.

CR: or of a specific strain, or that his life would be in
jeopardy if he could not produce cannabis himself.

JCT: The fact the doctor signed is sufficient evidence. If
his doctor's prescription is ignored, it may be presumed his
health would be in jeopardy, and hence his life.

CR: In fact, he admits that he can purchase cannabis from a
licensed producer.

JCT: Why should Health Canada be able to impose higher
prices on him?

CR: 31. Absent clear evidence of irreparable harm, the
motion should be dismissed.

JCT: It's clear that higher prices he'll never recover,
wrong strains, are clear evidence of irreparable harm.

C. The balance of convenience favours the continued
application and enforcement of the registration scheme.

JCT: But does not favor the continued delay of processing of
the application. He's not asking to discontinue the
application and enforcement of the registration scheme, he's
asking to expedite it.

CR: 32. The third branch of the injunction test only becomes
relevant if the plaintiff establishes that there is a
serious issue to be tried and that the plaintiff will suffer
irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted. As the
plaintiff has not met these requirements, the Court need not
consider the balance of convenience.

JCT: Since denial of medicine is a serious issue with
irreparable harms, the Court should consider the balance of
convenience. Where's the inconvenience of him being able to
continue growing his medication as he used to at a new
address?

CR: 33. The public interest in continued application and
enforcement of the law is strong in this case.

JCT: Repeating too, this is not a challenge to the continued
application and enforcement of the law, it's a challenge to
the delay in processing of the application and enforcement
of the law.

CR: The purposes of the registration scheme include to
protect public health and safety and deter illicit
activities. Cannabis Act, SC 2018, c 16, s. 7.

JCT: Fine. But there is no evidence showing that processing
his permit should be delayed to protect public health and
safety and deter illicit activities.

CR: 34. In light of the fact that the plaintiff's claim
fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and in the
absence of any evidence of irreparable harm to the
plaintiff, the balance of convenience favours the dismissal
of his injunction request.

35. The balance of convenience favours the Minister.

JCT: Until there is evidence that processing his permit
should be delayed to protect public health and safety and
deter illicit activities, the balance of convenience favours
the granting of the injunction request.

CR: 3. MANDAMUS IS NOT AVAILABLE

36. The plaintiff also seeks an order in the nature of
mandamus requiring Health Canada to process his renewal
application.

JCT: Correct. Not that it be granted but that he be given an
answer expeditiously.

CR: This remedy is unavailable. The Federal Courts Act
provides that mandamus is only available on judicial review,
and this Court has held that it is not available on an
interlocutory basis. RSC, 1985, c F-7, s 18(1)(a),(3);
Brissett v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration),
[2002] FCJ No 1310, paras 10-13.

JCT: This was never brought up in the previous 80 motions
they caved to in delivering the remedy.

CR: 37. Moreover, even if it were theoretically available, a
party seeking a mandamus must demonstrate a clear right to
the performance of the duty. Apotex Inc v Canada (Attorney
General), 1993 CanLII 3004 (FCA), [1993] FCJ No 1098, para
45 (CA), affirmed 1994 CanLII 47 (SCC), [1994] 3 SCR 1100.

JCT: The Cannabis Regulations state:
Registration with Minister
313 (1) If the requirements set out in section 312 are
met, the Minister must, subject to section 317, register
the applicant and issue them a registration certificate.

Application to renew registration
314 (3) If a renewal application has been submitted in
accordance with paragraph (1)(a) and the Minister has
received a new medical document under paragraph (1)(b),
the Minister must, subject to section 317,
(a) renew the registration;

Application to amend registration
315 (3) If an application is submitted in accordance
with subsection (1), the Minister must, subject to
section 317,
(a) amend the registration;

Refusal to register, renew or amend
Power to refuse
317 (2) The Minister may refuse to register an applicant
or renew or amend a registration if, in the case where
cannabis is to be produced by the applicant or a
designated person, the registration, renewal or
amendment is likely to create a risk to public health or
public safety, including the risk of cannabis being
diverted to an illicit market or activity.

Notice and opportunity to be heard
(3) Before refusing to register an applicant or refusing
to amend or renew a registration, the Minister must send
the applicant a written notice that sets out the reason
for the proposed refusal and give them an opportunity to
be heard.

JCT: So the Minister "must" register, renew, amend for
qualified applicants. Seems like a clear right to the
performance of a duty.

CR: 38. Licenses under the former Access to Cannabis for
Medical Purposes Regulations to produce cannabis for a
medical purpose are deemed to be licenses under section 62
of the Cannabis Act, until they expire or are revoked.
Cannabis Act, SC 2018, c 16, s. 62, 158(1); Cannabis
Regulations, s. 78.

JCT: His has not expired or been revoked.

CR: 39. While the Plaintiff may have held a valid license to
produce cannabis for his own medical purpose under former
regulations, there is no indication that he meets the
requirements of the new registration scheme for cultivation.
The request for mandamus should accordingly be dismissed.

JCT: The fact that his production permit would still be
valid had he not moved is an indication that he meets the
requirements. Can it be said he no longer meets the
requirements for a medical permit because he moved?

CR: 40. The Plaintiff fails to meet the criteria for a
mandamus and his motion should be dismissed


[continued in next message]

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)