420scarecrow
Well-Known Member
Some excerpts:
Information on your Registration Certificate
HC: You will find enclosed your original Registration
Certificate Issued under the ACMPR. This insert includes
important information on the expiry date of your
registration and on what you need to do to submit a renewal
application.
As you may be aware,the current regulatory requirement under
the ACMPR requires the expiry date of your registration to
correspond to the period of use that begins on the day on
which the medical document is signed by your health care
practitioner.
JCT: I've never seen where it states so in the ACMPR. I
always presumed it was just a policy. The form just states
how long the period, not when it starts, that's policy.
Under MMAR, it started when issued. Someone changed that
policy. I never saw it in the ACMPR. It would be nice to
find they're lawying again.
HC: You may also be aware that it can take in excess of
eight weeks to process an application and issue a
registration...
JCT: Aware in excess of 8 weeks? Igor Mozajko's 26-week
medical expired before being processed. Up to 35 weeks for
Donald Cote whose motion for interim remedy is being
responded to this Monday, no hop-to-it yet. I'd argue 48
weeks for Igor Mozajko with an expired 6-monther and a month
to get a new medical document and 4 more months to process
the second before he had to file to push them!!
HC: The time to review is highly dependent on a number of
factors...
JCT: Sure, none taking all that long and most not applying
to renewals of same info but all done in under 4 weeks with
the MMAR.
HC: Health Canada has heard from patients that the time it
takes to process an application can reduce the period of
time available to produce a limited amount of cannabis for
medical purposes.
JCT: It can reduce, not always. Limited hang-out, should
have said: Does reduce... Oh, HC has heard that the process
times reduces the production time. Never dawned on them
before but now they've heard. Patients had to tell them.
they hadn't discussed that when they changed it from Date of
Issuance to Date of Doctor Signing. Patients had to tell
them before anyone noticed the short-changing that started
to happen.
I think it wasn't the patients telling them but our Gold
Star Plaintiff patients telling the judge and then Justice
Brown demanding:
the back-dating that occurs. And I direct that the Crown
deal with that in its motion to strike.
HC: In response to these concerns,
JCT: They usually say: Due to the Hitzig decision, or Allard
decision or Smith decision, we've done this. Here, it's
"we've heard from patients" who really are the Turmel Kit
patients case-managed by Justice Brown.
HC: Health Canada has issued a class exemption
JCT: How big is the class? All 90,000 grow permits so far?
90K is a pretty big number, sad there's no mention of how
many it affects.
HC: under section 56 of the CDSA
JCT: Wow, a Class Exemption from the Minister of Justice
under S.56! Never seen one before but it took the man at the
top to fix this 90K problem. They usually held out until the
courts ordered them to fix it. Guess they had no way to hold
out here.
HC: that allows for the period of use of your registration
to begin on the date of your registration was issued by
Health Canada.
JCT: The date the registration is issued is called the
Effective Date on the permit, one of our two data!! May as
well not lose the title "Effective Date" of that datum, the
other being Expiry Date, which the Crown deem insufficient
to make any case. Sure worked for Cause of Action B.
I can't wait to find out what date the Minister signed the
S.56 Class Exemption. Has to be after Justice Brown's brain-
slapping in the Terry Johnsgaard hearing on Jan 5?
HC: This means your registration certificate is valid for
the length of time that your health care practitioner
originally authorized.
JCT: Like it was under the old MMAR. I'm interested in who
changed it to work differently and the background
discussions on that change. Because, there were background
discussions to make the change, this is government. I'd love
to hear the advantages cited for changing it. Wouldn't you?
Then they give a link for info that doesn't work to learn
more about the class and about the text of this exemption.
It should be in the Crown's Monday Response to argue Cause
of Action B is now mooted since everyone's short-changed
time has been ordered restituted. They don't even have to
mail out new permits with the right expiry date, it's on the
computer. But mailing out perfected permits would be classy.
HC: For your information, the proposed regulatory framework
under the Cannabis Act also contemplate that the period of
use of a registration would begin on the date of the initial
registration and not on the date that the medical document
was signed by the health care practitioner.
JCT: So why did they change from the "doctor" to now
"effective? There were background discussions.
They are going back to like it was under the MMAR. So why'd
they wait? But who changed it both times and why? Who caused
this debacle?
HC: A copy of the consultation is available at..
JCT: Another site that didn't work but removing the doubled
part got me to a page where they don't talk about the
medical document date at all. If someone finds it, let me
know. Though I'd expect Wendy Wright to produce it Monday.
HC: Registration Call Centre at 1-888-337-7705
JCT: Could call to ask what date it was signed and what site
says so?
Regardless, Health Canada tried to impede patient supply,
got caught red-handed, and now have to cover it up. Pretty
good limited hang-out so far. "Prodded by concern for
patients losing their grow time," they took action, not
prodded by the judge on their case, is a limited hang-out.
"We did wrong, but only so much."
Anyway, Canada gets to hand in the documentation for the new
change to the court on Monday to mooten Cause B.
And we did it. It won't make the news but we stopped them.
Our Actions benefited 90,000 growers who'll never know why
they got their time back. If they ever find out. Don't even
have to send out updated permits.
Say a patient visits the doctor to renew on Jan 1, 3 months
before he thinks his permit expires on April 1; but is actually
extended to July 1 without his being aware. It doesn't really
matter any more how much in advance he gets his renewal
medical document since it gets added on at expiry of the
first registration as it should be. Many patients will then
get a pleasant surprise when the new permit starts after the
full term of the first permit.
Wow, 90,000 people mandated a S.56 fix by the Minister.
Biggest S.56 Class Exemption in Canadian history. Dwarfs my
making them drop 4,000 charges in 2003. Saying Health Canada
issued the S.56 Order is another limited hang-out. The
Minister may issue a S.56 exemption, no one else. You think
McGuire issued it? No mention that it had to come from the
top. Can't wait to see his Order. What a trophy that will be
going up on my wall. A S.56 Class Exemption for my team and
everyone else!
Still, helping 90,000 people with only our little band of
bold bitchers is a sweet victory. And you all have your own
Gold Star Trophy proving you asked for the Biggest Win no
one will ever hear about.
And all it took was Justice Brown directly putting them on
the spot! Couldn't use the "frivolous with no facts"
argument when he's demanding the explanation. They had to
cave.
Now back to Cause of Action A: Took Too Long. I'd bet that
most of the 90,000 were not processed in under 4 weeks like
in the old days and may join the suit for damages.
Have to change the Statement of Claim back to just Cause A
with any other improvements!
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-turmel/RAT3vv6Vu7Q
http://johnturmel.com/fullterm.jpg
Information on your Registration Certificate
HC: You will find enclosed your original Registration
Certificate Issued under the ACMPR. This insert includes
important information on the expiry date of your
registration and on what you need to do to submit a renewal
application.
As you may be aware,the current regulatory requirement under
the ACMPR requires the expiry date of your registration to
correspond to the period of use that begins on the day on
which the medical document is signed by your health care
practitioner.
JCT: I've never seen where it states so in the ACMPR. I
always presumed it was just a policy. The form just states
how long the period, not when it starts, that's policy.
Under MMAR, it started when issued. Someone changed that
policy. I never saw it in the ACMPR. It would be nice to
find they're lawying again.
HC: You may also be aware that it can take in excess of
eight weeks to process an application and issue a
registration...
JCT: Aware in excess of 8 weeks? Igor Mozajko's 26-week
medical expired before being processed. Up to 35 weeks for
Donald Cote whose motion for interim remedy is being
responded to this Monday, no hop-to-it yet. I'd argue 48
weeks for Igor Mozajko with an expired 6-monther and a month
to get a new medical document and 4 more months to process
the second before he had to file to push them!!
HC: The time to review is highly dependent on a number of
factors...
JCT: Sure, none taking all that long and most not applying
to renewals of same info but all done in under 4 weeks with
the MMAR.
HC: Health Canada has heard from patients that the time it
takes to process an application can reduce the period of
time available to produce a limited amount of cannabis for
medical purposes.
JCT: It can reduce, not always. Limited hang-out, should
have said: Does reduce... Oh, HC has heard that the process
times reduces the production time. Never dawned on them
before but now they've heard. Patients had to tell them.
they hadn't discussed that when they changed it from Date of
Issuance to Date of Doctor Signing. Patients had to tell
them before anyone noticed the short-changing that started
to happen.
I think it wasn't the patients telling them but our Gold
Star Plaintiff patients telling the judge and then Justice
Brown demanding:
the back-dating that occurs. And I direct that the Crown
deal with that in its motion to strike.
HC: In response to these concerns,
JCT: They usually say: Due to the Hitzig decision, or Allard
decision or Smith decision, we've done this. Here, it's
"we've heard from patients" who really are the Turmel Kit
patients case-managed by Justice Brown.
HC: Health Canada has issued a class exemption
JCT: How big is the class? All 90,000 grow permits so far?
90K is a pretty big number, sad there's no mention of how
many it affects.
HC: under section 56 of the CDSA
JCT: Wow, a Class Exemption from the Minister of Justice
under S.56! Never seen one before but it took the man at the
top to fix this 90K problem. They usually held out until the
courts ordered them to fix it. Guess they had no way to hold
out here.
HC: that allows for the period of use of your registration
to begin on the date of your registration was issued by
Health Canada.
JCT: The date the registration is issued is called the
Effective Date on the permit, one of our two data!! May as
well not lose the title "Effective Date" of that datum, the
other being Expiry Date, which the Crown deem insufficient
to make any case. Sure worked for Cause of Action B.
I can't wait to find out what date the Minister signed the
S.56 Class Exemption. Has to be after Justice Brown's brain-
slapping in the Terry Johnsgaard hearing on Jan 5?
HC: This means your registration certificate is valid for
the length of time that your health care practitioner
originally authorized.
JCT: Like it was under the old MMAR. I'm interested in who
changed it to work differently and the background
discussions on that change. Because, there were background
discussions to make the change, this is government. I'd love
to hear the advantages cited for changing it. Wouldn't you?
Then they give a link for info that doesn't work to learn
more about the class and about the text of this exemption.
It should be in the Crown's Monday Response to argue Cause
of Action B is now mooted since everyone's short-changed
time has been ordered restituted. They don't even have to
mail out new permits with the right expiry date, it's on the
computer. But mailing out perfected permits would be classy.
HC: For your information, the proposed regulatory framework
under the Cannabis Act also contemplate that the period of
use of a registration would begin on the date of the initial
registration and not on the date that the medical document
was signed by the health care practitioner.
JCT: So why did they change from the "doctor" to now
"effective? There were background discussions.
They are going back to like it was under the MMAR. So why'd
they wait? But who changed it both times and why? Who caused
this debacle?
HC: A copy of the consultation is available at..
JCT: Another site that didn't work but removing the doubled
part got me to a page where they don't talk about the
medical document date at all. If someone finds it, let me
know. Though I'd expect Wendy Wright to produce it Monday.
HC: Registration Call Centre at 1-888-337-7705
JCT: Could call to ask what date it was signed and what site
says so?
Regardless, Health Canada tried to impede patient supply,
got caught red-handed, and now have to cover it up. Pretty
good limited hang-out so far. "Prodded by concern for
patients losing their grow time," they took action, not
prodded by the judge on their case, is a limited hang-out.
"We did wrong, but only so much."
Anyway, Canada gets to hand in the documentation for the new
change to the court on Monday to mooten Cause B.
And we did it. It won't make the news but we stopped them.
Our Actions benefited 90,000 growers who'll never know why
they got their time back. If they ever find out. Don't even
have to send out updated permits.
Say a patient visits the doctor to renew on Jan 1, 3 months
before he thinks his permit expires on April 1; but is actually
extended to July 1 without his being aware. It doesn't really
matter any more how much in advance he gets his renewal
medical document since it gets added on at expiry of the
first registration as it should be. Many patients will then
get a pleasant surprise when the new permit starts after the
full term of the first permit.
Wow, 90,000 people mandated a S.56 fix by the Minister.
Biggest S.56 Class Exemption in Canadian history. Dwarfs my
making them drop 4,000 charges in 2003. Saying Health Canada
issued the S.56 Order is another limited hang-out. The
Minister may issue a S.56 exemption, no one else. You think
McGuire issued it? No mention that it had to come from the
top. Can't wait to see his Order. What a trophy that will be
going up on my wall. A S.56 Class Exemption for my team and
everyone else!
Still, helping 90,000 people with only our little band of
bold bitchers is a sweet victory. And you all have your own
Gold Star Trophy proving you asked for the Biggest Win no
one will ever hear about.
And all it took was Justice Brown directly putting them on
the spot! Couldn't use the "frivolous with no facts"
argument when he's demanding the explanation. They had to
cave.
Now back to Cause of Action A: Took Too Long. I'd bet that
most of the 90,000 were not processed in under 4 weeks like
in the old days and may join the suit for damages.
Have to change the Statement of Claim back to just Cause A
with any other improvements!
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.fan.john-turmel/RAT3vv6Vu7Q
http://johnturmel.com/fullterm.jpg
