TURMEL: Ryan Challenger action against 18 month permit delay nixed

JCT: Several weeks ago, Ryan Challenger called me looking
for help with Health Canada stalling his permit renewal for
18 months. He sent in his permit and 6 months later nothing.
In the old days, patients had to destroy their grows and
their stored pot if their exemption period ran out without
renewal.

I published templates allowing them to file an action for
lost rent and pot not grown during processing delays. And a
Motion template for an interim exemption if they had not
received their permit yet. So making a motion to the court
for an interim permit pending delivery of their real permit
was done on an emergency basis. Almost all of the motions
were mooted by Health Canada issuing their permits.

So many, that Health Canada decided to change the rules so
permits were extended pending the processing of their
renewals.

So he sent in an application to move his residence and could
continue to grow pending delivery of his amended renewal. 6
months and no amended permit.

Then his landlord asked his move his grow and he sent in
another application to amend the address of his grow. 6
months and no permit. He can no longer grow until he gets a
permit for the new address.

A year and a half to process a renewal with address changes.

He'd heard about my successes helping people fight Health
Canada stalls and found my http://SmartestMan.Ca/kits page
online. I told him I had been found to be a vexatious
litigant and barred from helping people.

You'd think being a vexatious litigant might bar my actions
but why would my being declared a vexatious litigant bar the
actions of others? New point I'll mention at my Tuesday
Sep 26 20923 9:30am appeal at 180 Queen St. W. Toronto.

Since I didn't need the hassle, I told him to just follow
the instructions as best he could and send me a copy of the
documentation.

At my http://SmartestMan.Ca/posts page, you can find his
Statement of Claim and the Crown Response at
230903 Ryan Challenger seeks Interim MedPot Grow Permit http://SmartestMan.Ca/ryan01.txt

Notice Health Canada did not explain the 18 month delay.
They just argued that he forgot to ask for leave to use a
Turmel template and he was barred from using it because I
had been declared a vexatious litigant!

Here is the Reply he filed:

T1757-23
FEDERAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Ryan Challenger
Plaintiff
AND
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Defendant
PLAINTIFF"S REPLY
PLAINTIFF"S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

RC: IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS

1. Im asking for leave of the court for my motion and action

2. The fact that I cannot grow my own medicine and know
exactly what I'm putting in my body is and always has been a
serious concern. The cost to purchase rather then producing
your own is substantial. I should not be penalized for
financial abilities.

3. I am entitled to a renewed permit because I met all of
Health Canada's application requirements, i was renewed
twice in the past, and as long as I send my renewal in
before the expiry date then my permit is still valid.

4. I believe my motion should not be dismissed

5. I was granted a permit from Health Canada which entitles
me under the rules to renew the permit and make the
necessary amendments for any changes. Where i lived or where
the production site is, as long as the guidelines were
respected are not important considerations

6. True

JCT: Not sure what he referred to. I think he's referring to
the paragraph in the Crown Response in my last post.

RC: 7. This is six months later and still no response by
phone or written letter or email

8. In regards to be in compliance, i sent in an amendment
for a change of home address, and still no answer from
Health Canada

9. My lease was terminated at the original facility, and i
had to find a new production site, once found, i signed an
agreement to lease the facility and sent in the necessary
application for the change

10. Its been more than six months that i cannot grow my own
medicine, and more than a year and half waiting on Health
Canada to complete a renewal process.

11. No response

12. My facts are VERY CLEAR

a) My medical practitioner prescribed me cannabis, I need my
doctor's prescription to be filled in a way that I see fit,
which is producing it myself. I do not understand how non-
medically qualified personnel at Health Canada can deny me
my medicine without justification is vexatious, frivolous
and an abuse of power

b) My medical practitioner signed the renewal

c) I've sent in all necessary amendments every time there
was a change to my original certificate

d) It has been answered that such motion meets the test or
why else would Health Canada granted or renewed past permits
to moot such motions

13. I did some research online and fell on a compassion
group that explained the necessary steps to take if your
rights were being infringed upon by Health Canada. I do not
know Mr Turmel, nor did he help me with the "kit" I
introduced. I have sought leave in my motion and am asking
for leave to file this action.

14. I've sought leave for my motion and am asking for my
statement of claim

15-18. No Response

19.
a. The denial to allow me to grow my own medicine that was
prescribed by a medical practitioner is a serious issue. I
will not be able to get back money lost on rent for the new
facility, insurance and utilities, Or money I've spent
buying inferior cannabis. Irreparable harm has resulted and
will continue if the injunction was NOT granted.

b. The fact that Health Canada has given no good reason for
the year and a half delay, i believe the balance of
convenience favors that i be able to grow the strains i
believe most beneficial, in the cleanest way possible at the
new production site address until the amended and renewed
permit arrives

22. The fact that Health Canada has hoped to it in almost 80
cases to deliver a permit to not have to go to a hearing is
an indication that even they do not deem it as destined to
fail

23.
a. My action is not bereft of facts,

b. All Health Canada has to do is respect their own rules
and regulations and explain to me why the process has taken
a year and a half, and if needed what i need to do to remedy
the situation

c. the court should need only to wait for Health Canada's
explanation for the year and a half delay and judge if its
reasonable

24.
a. Only two case have reached the Court of Appeals that
could fail to see how being denied medication is a
reasonable cause of action

b. My claim contains the facts that my medical practitioner
prescribed me medication that they deemed necessary and
appropriate, the fact that Health Canada's delays in
processing threatens my right to such a health benefit.

25. My medical condition remains protected by
confidentiality between me and my doctor. Being denied my
medicine is a fundamental injustice. Health Canada does not
require such information on their application, so i would
like my privacy to be respected and i do not want to
disclose any and all medical conditions.

26. I want to be able to regain the right to be able to grow
my own medicine, my own way, with specific strains, without
pesticides. It is everyone's personal choice that holds a
permit to produce their own cannabis instead of buy it. Why
should my choice be held against me?

29. I cannot get back the money i've spent on the new
facility or the money I've spent on inferior cannabis. That
alone is more than a general assertion of unavoidable harm

30.
a. My condition or conditions are stricken by
confidentiality between me and my doctor. If Health Canada
doesn't ask for it on the application, why would I have to
divulge it to the court for this proceeding?

b. The fact that my doctor prescribed me cannabis is to be
presumed that they believe i would benefit from its use

c. the fact that the doctor signed my prescription should be
and in the past has always been sufficient. If my doctor's
prescription is ignored, it may be presumed that my health
would be in jeopardy and hence my life as well.

d. Health Canada should not be able to impose that i no
longer be able to produce my own cannabis and make me pay
higher prices for inferior cannabis

31.
a. The extra money i spend buying from Health Canada, not
the appropriate medicine are clear evidence of irreparable
harm

b. It does not favor the continued delay of processing the
application. I'm not asking to discontinue the application
and enforcement of the registration scheme , i'm simply
asking that it be expedited

32. Since the denial of medicine is a serious issue with
irreparable harms, the court should consider the balance of
convenience. As of today my permit is still active, I am
allowed to produce cannabis at the original facility. Where
would the inconvenience be to have me change facilities?

33. This is not a challenge to the continued application and
enforcement of the law, it's a challenge to the delay in the
processing of the application and enforcement of the law.
There has been no evidence showing that delaying processing
of my application is to protect public safety and deter
illicit activities.

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

36. I'm not asking that it be granted, but that i be given
an answer expeditiously

37. 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.
The Minister "must" register, renew, amend for qualified
applicants. Seems like a clear right to the performance of a
duty.

38. My permit has not expired or been revoked

39. I've held a production permit since 2019. If i didn't
move even though i haven't received the renewal, it would
still be active and producing my medication. Health Canada's
applications have not changed, so saying i do not meet the
new registration schema is completely false.

41. I asked that my motion be heard Wednesday September 6th
2023

JCT: Judge Brown had ordered that it be done in writing so
no date for hearing unless the judge wants one.

Ryan Challenger
Plaintiff


JCT: The judgment of Mr. Justice Southcott:

Date: 20230915
Docket: T-1757-23
Ottawa, Ontario, September 15, 2023
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Southcott

BETWEEN:
RYAN CHALLENGER
Plaintiff
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Defendant
ORDER

UPON motion dated August 24, 2023, seeking interim relief
described as a personal constitutional exemption and an
order of mandamus requiring Health Canada to process
immediately the Plaintiff's application for a registration
to produce marijuana for medical purposes;

AND UPON reviewing the Defendant's written representations,
which oppose the Plaintiff's motion in part on the basis of
an argument that the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim and
motion materials were prepared using template "kits"
prepared and distributed by John Turmel;

AND UPON noting that the Judgment in Canada (Attorney
General) v Turmel, 2022 FC 1526 [Turmel] declared John
Turmel a vexatious litigant pursuant to s 40 of the Federal
Courts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, and granted relief including
ordering that no further proceedings may be instituted in
this Court using originating documents, including template
documents, which are in any way prepared, distributed or
disseminated by Mr. Turmel, except with leave of the Court
[the Turmel Judgment];

AND UPON noting that, while the Plaintiff asserts in his
written representations in reply that he does not know Mr.
Turmel and that Mr. Turmel did not assist him with the "kit"
he introduced, the Plaintiff references having relied on
explanations by what he describes as a compassionate group
he identified through online research;

AND UPON noting that the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim and
motion materials include certain language, including the
motion seeking interim relief described as a personal
constitutional exemption, consistent with that employed in
the Statement of Claim and motion materials in Court file T-
488-14, one of the proceedings identified in Turmel (at para
28) as having been commenced by Mr. Turmel using his kits;

JCT: Actually, I never filed an action in 2017 for damages
due to delayed permit processing though almost 400 others
did. T-188-14 was an action demanding an exemption in in
2014. But of course, both templates would look similar.

J: AND UPON concluding that the Turmel Judgment prohibits
the Plaintiff's commencement of the within action except
with leave of the Court;

AND UPON noting that the Plaintiff asserts in his written
representations in reply that his motion has sought leave to
file the within action;

JCT: His motion may have sought leave but he forgot to ask
for it in the Statement of Claim.

J: AND UPON noting that the only reference to leave in the
Plaintiff's motion record is a generic reference to the
Plaintiff's intention to make a motion to the Court "with
leave of the judge to lift any stay or on short notice if
necessary";

AND UPON concluding that, in the absence of any express
reference to a request for relief from the prohibition in
the Turmel Judgment and any asserted grounds for such
relief, the Plaintiff's motion does not represent a properly
constituted motion seeking such relief;

AND UPON concluding on this basis that the Plaintiff's
motion must be dismissed;

AND UPON noting that the Defendant has not claimed costs in
this motion;
IT IS ORDERED that:
1. The Plaintiff's motion is dismissed.
2. No costs are awarded.
"Richard F. Southcott" Judge

JCT: Too bad he didn't ask for leave in the Statement and
specify that it was from the prohibition in my vexatious
litigant decision of Judge Fothergill, still it's nice that
there were no costs.

But what are they going to do about his Statement of Claim
that didn't ask for leave.

He knows that he needs and how simple it is to use the court
process so I suggested he find a young lawyer to do the
claim for him so he wouldn't need leave to file since it
would be my template. So he can still file a new action and
motion without using my template.

Just because his cause of action is the same should not bar
him from trying again to get an interim permit and forcing
Health Canada to explain the 18 month delay. Hope he pursues
it.

Isn't Health Canada evil?

Remember my appeal of being declared a vexatious litigant
is Tues Sep 26 2023 9:30am at 180 Queen St. W. Toronto. I'll
also ask if my a vexatious litigant bars others from filing
my templates.

The court is going to have to find that
1) I filed repeated actions against the CRTC not to get
quantitatively equitable free time in partisan political
debates but to vex them.

2)a) I filed actions against banks not to abolish interest
rates for the good of humanity but to vex them;
c)b) I used templates not to help foreclosed debtors avoid
eviction but to vex the banks.

3) I sued Drasons Den not because they libeled me but to vex
them.

4)a) I filed many actions to strike the prohibitions on
cannabis forcing the Crown to stay 4,000 possession charges
in 2002 not because it was a valuable medication but to vex
the Crown;
b) I published self-defence templates not to help those
charged avoid criminal records but to vex the Crown;
c) I published templates not to help those who had had their
permits cancelled by the Court to get their permits back but
to vex the Crown;
c) I published templates not to help those who had their
permits stalled get damages for lost rent and pot, and
expedite delivery if not yet processed, but to vex the
Crown;
d) I published templates not to help high dosers strike down
the 150-gram cap imposed by the court but to vex the Crown.
e) I published templates not to help patients oppose
- Failure to provide juice and oil;
- annual authorization for permanent illnesses;
- Cap on patients per grower and licenses per site

5) I published templates not help people avoid restrictions
for the Covid false alarm but to vex the Crown. I was hit
with $3000 in court costs and the other 80 were hit with
$500 each. So I started a GiveSendGo to help pay the costs
of those who tried to warn the world Covid was a false alarm
needing no vax:
http://givesendgo.com/covidfalsealarmcourtcosts

As you can see, these are all good deeds and I'm proud of
them all. None are frivolous and n one vexatious.

Only one was vexatious. In 1977, I had been busted and
convicted as Ottawa's Gambling Crusader for trying to run
legal blackjack games. Then in 1978, the Supreme Court
Rockert decision ruled a 1-night stand was not a gaming
house because it did not impugn the reputation of the
neighborhood. So I started running transient disco-casino
all around town. So the Crown charged me with possession of
a gambling device, the cards, and Judge Bernir Ryun said "it
made anyone who played a game in his home guilty" before
fining me $200 as the last person in Canadian history
convicted of possession of a deck of cards.

So to vex them, I laid an information against Simpsons Sears
for possessing cards for sale. I was only vexing them back.

So let's see if the court decides that all my actions were
not good deeds to help victims but only to vex the Crown.

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