Court File No. 39740 

                COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Between: 

           JOHN C. TURMEL AND J.J. MARC PAQUETTE
                                                  Appellants

                            and 

          HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF CANADA
                                                  Respondent


                  -----------------------
                  WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS 
                  -----------------------

1. Appellant sought a declaration that s.4(1) of the 
Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) was no longer 
known at law since July 31 2001 when Parker Court declared 
s.4(1) of no force and effect. On Oct 7 2003, the Court so 
ruled. 

2. P.E.I. Justice Matheson in the Queen v. Stavert also 
notes this is the gist of the Court of Appeal decision: 

"[16] The effect of the Hitzig decision from the Ontario 
Court of Appeal is to create a constitutionally valid 
medical exemption for marihuana users to s.4 of the CDSA, 
thus making s.4 of the CDSA constitutionally valid and in 
full force and effect. Having found that the MMAR had not 
created a constitutionally valid medical exemption to s.4 by 
July 31 2001, the Parker declaration was effective and there 
was no prohibition against possession of marijuana under s.4 
of the CDSA from July 31 2001 to Oct 2003."
http://www.canlii.org/pe/cas/pesctd/2003/2003pesctd85.html 

3. The Appellants will seek leave to appeal that effect on 
Appellants to the Supreme Court of Canada and wish the Order 
to reflect the gist of the judgment from Paragraph 170:  

"[170] First, if we do not suspend our order, there will 
immediately be a constitutionally valid exemption in effect 
and the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 of the CDSA will 
immediately be constitutionally valid and of full force and 
effect. In R. v. Parker, supra, this court declared the 
prohibition invalid as of July 31, 2001 if by that date the 
Government had not enacted a constitutionally sound medical 
exemption. Our decision in this case confirms that it did 
not do so. Hence the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 has been 
of no force or effect since July 31, 2001. Since the July 8, 
2003 regulation did not address the eligibility deficiency, 
that alone could not have cured the problem. However, our 
order has the result of constitutionalizing the medical 
exemption created by the Government. As a result, the 
marihuana prohibition in s. 4 is no longer inconsistent with 
the provisions of the Constitution. Although Parliament may 
subsequently choose to change it, that prohibition is now no 
longer invalid, but is of full force and effect." 

4. So the first draft Order we proposed was: 

"1. THIS COURT ORDERS the confirmation that the Government 
had not enacted a constitutionally sound medical exemption 
by July 31 2001 and that the marihuana prohibition in s. 4 
of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act has been of no 
force or effect after July 31, 2001. 
2. THIS COURT ORDERS that subsection 4(2)(c), section 7, 
subsection 34(2), subsection 41(b) and section 54 of the 
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, S.O.R./2001-227 are of 
no force and effect renders constitutional the medical 
exemption as described in the remaining provisions of the 
MMAR, thereby rendering the possession prohibition in s.4 of 
the CDSA no longer inconsistent with the provisions of the 
Constitution and prohibition is now no longer invalid, but 
is of full force and effect. 
3. THIS COURT ORDERS that the appeal is hereby dismissed 
without costs." 

5. Our next draft dropped Relief 1 of the Order which we 
again submit should be now included. 

6. Though the Crown consented to the Order issued for the 
Hitzig Order describing the operations performed on the 
Marijuana Medical Access Regulations (MMAR) that solved 
their problems, the Crown has not consented to it being part 
of our Order and prepared an Order which simply said our 
applications had been dismissed. 

7. The Crown argued that everything written under the 
heading of "Hitzig" in the judgment up to Paragraph 177 
where they mention Parker, Turmel, and Paquette only applies 
to the Hitzig applicants and nobody else. Appellants submit 
that everything that applies to the ailing Hitzig applicants 
applies to our ailing Parker and Paquette applicants too and 
nowhere did the court say that the failures of the MMAR 
detailed for the Hitzig applicants did not apply to the 
Parker and Paquette applicants too because the Parker and 
Turmel-Paquette applications for the declaration that the 
prohibition had become invalid after July 31 2001 were dealt 
with under the Hitzig heading, as was the declaration that 
that invalidity had ended on Oct 7 2003 upon the declaration 
that the court that the MMAR had been rendered 
constitutional. 

9. The Appellants submit that the original draft contains 
the information that should be included in the Order and 
requests that all three points be included. 

Dated at Brantford on Aug. 4 2003




______________________________
For the Appellants: 

John C. Turmel, B. Eng.
8-37 Colborne E.
Brantford, N3T 2G3
Tel/Fax: 519-753-0645 
Email: turmel@ncf.ca