Date: 20010628
Docket: T-938-01
Neutral Citation Number: 2001 FCT 717
BETWEEN:
NICOLE MASSICOTTE
Applicant
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
[1] The applicant, Denise Beaudoin, filed on May 28, 2001, into the Federal Court Registry an "APPLICATION UNDER Section 18(1) of the Federal Court Act" and then states, immediately under the above heading "NOTICE OF MOTION FOR INTERLOCUTORY ORDER OF MANDAMUS (Pursuant to Rule 372.1)".
[2] The applicant then goes on to state, in the said Notice of Motion:
THE MOTION IS FOR an interim Order of Mandamus pursuant to Rule 372(1) compelling the Respondent to grant an interim Section 56 Exemption until such time as Health Canada convinces the Applicant's doctors that the prescription should be changed and the exemption revoked.
THE GROUNDS ARE that not filling my prescription because doctors have failed to convince a pharmacist they are right violates my right to life; though getting my medicine while the pharmacist tries to convince the doctors to change their prescriptions does not.
[3] Section 18.1 of the Federal Court Act (Act) deals with applications for judicial review while section 18(1) of the Act deals with the issue of the Trial Division's exclusive original jurisdiction relating to extraordinary remedies such as to issue an injunction, a writ of certiorari, writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or grant declaratory relief against any federal board, commission or other tribunal.
[4] The applicant is representing herself and, unfortunately, is not very familiar with the Federal Court Act or the Federal Court Rules.
[5] In reading through the very brief motion record, it would appear that it is the intention of the applicant to proceed with an application for judicial review and, at the same time, make an application under section 18.2 for an interim order in the form of a mandamus to cause the Minister of Health to issue to the applicant an interim section 56 (of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (CDSA) exemption to use marijuana for medical purposes.
[6] Section 18.1 of the Act states:
| 18.1 (1) An application for judicial review may be made by the Attorney General of Canada or by anyone directly affected by the matter in respect of which relief is sought. (2) An application for judicial review in respect of a decision or order of a federal board, commission or other tribunal shall be made within thirty days after the time the decision or order was first communicated by the federal board, commission or other tribunal to the office of the Deputy Attorney General of Canada or to the party directly affected thereby, or within such further time as a judge of the Trial Division may, either before or after the expiration of those thirty days, fix or allow. (3) On an application for judicial review, the Trial Division may (a) order a federal board, commission or other tribunal to do any act or thing it has unlawfully failed or refused to do or has unreasonably delayed in doing; or (b) declare invalid or unlawful, or quash, set aside or set aside and refer back for determination in accordance with such directions as it considers to be appropriate, prohibit or restrain, a decision, order, act or proceeding of a federal board, commission or other tribunal. (4) The Trial Division may grant relief under subsection (3) if it is satisfied that the federal board, commission or other tribunal (a) acted without jurisdiction, acted beyond its jurisdiction or refused to exercise its jurisdiction; (b) failed to observe a principle of natural justice, procedural fairness or other procedure that it was required by law to observe; (c) erred in law in making a decision or an order, whether or not the error appears on the face of the record; (d) based its decision or order on an erroneous finding of fact that it made in a perverse or capricious manner or without regard for the material before it; (e) acted, or failed to act, by reason of fraud or perjured evidence; or (f) acted in any other way that was contrary to law. (5) Where the sole ground for relief established on an application for judicial review is a defect in form or a technical irregularity, the Trial Division may (a) refuse the relief if it finds that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice has occurred; and (b) in the case of a defect in form or a technical irregularity in a decision or order, make an order validating the decision or order, to have effect from such time and on such terms as it considers appropriate. |
18.1 (1) Une demande de contrôle judiciaire peut être présentée par le procureur général du Canada ou par quiconque est directement touché par l'objet de la demande. (2) Les demandes de contrôle judiciaire sont à présenter dans les trente jours qui suivent la première communication, par l'office fédéral, de sa décision ou de son ordonnance au bureau du sous-procureur général du Canada ou à la partie concernée, ou dans le délai supplémentaire qu'un juge de la Section de première instance peut, avant ou après l'expiration de ces trente jours, fixer ou accorder. (3) Sur présentation d'une demande de contrôle judiciaire, la Section de première instance peut_: a) ordonner à l'office fédéral en cause d'accomplir tout acte qu'il a illégalement omis ou refusé d'accomplir ou dont il a retardé l'exécution de manière déraisonnable; b) déclarer nul ou illégal, ou annuler, ou infirmer et renvoyer pour jugement conformément aux instructions qu'elle estime appropriées, ou prohiber ou encore restreindre toute décision, ordonnance, procédure ou tout autre acte de l'office fédéral. (4) Les mesures prévues au paragraphe (3) sont prises par la Section de première instance si elle est convaincue que l'office fédéral, selon le cas_: a) a agi sans compétence, outrepassé celle-ci ou refusé de l'exercer; b) n'a pas observé un principe de justice naturelle ou d'équité procédurale ou toute autre procédure qu'il était légalement tenu de respecter; c) a rendu une décision ou une ordonnance entachée d'une erreur de droit, que celle-ci soit manifeste ou non au vu du dossier; d) a rendu une décision ou une ordonnance fondée sur une conclusion de fait erronée, tirée de façon abusive ou arbitraire ou sans tenir compte des éléments dont il dispose; e) a agi ou omis d'agir en raison d'une fraude ou de faux témoignages; f) a agi de toute autre façon contraire à la loi. (5) La Section de première instance peut rejeter toute demande de contrôle judiciaire fondée uniquement sur un vice de forme si elle estime qu'en l'occurrence le vice n'entraîne aucun dommage important ni déni de justice et, le cas échéant, valider la décision ou l'ordonnance entachée du vice et donner effet à celle-ci selon les modalités de temps et autres qu'elle estime indiquées. |
|
[7] Section 18.1(2) of the Act clearly states that the judicial review application must be in respect of a decision and must be made within a delay of 30 days after the decision was communicated to the applicant.
[8] The decision referred to by the applicant is dated May 14, 2001 and, for a better comprehension, I believe it necessary to include same as part of my judgment.
May 14 2001
Madame Nicole Massicotte
203, chemin Pilon
Duhamel (Québec)
J0V 1G0
Madame Massicotte,
Par la présente, nous donnons suite à votre demande en vertu de l'article 56 de la Loi réglementant certaines drogues et autres substances concernant une exemption pour la marihuana à des fins médicales. Tous les renseignements que vous avez fournis ont été révisés. Nous vous informons de notre intention de refuser votre demande d'exemption. Nous vous avisons également que vous avez la possibilité d'intervenir avant qu'une décision ne soit prise.
En se fondant sur les renseignements fournis, nous avons déterminé que votre demande d'exemption ne rencontre pas les exigences de l'article 56. Les raisons de cette intention de refus sont les suivantes:
La section 5.5.1(D) iii et iv du Document d'orientation provisoire réfère à la nécessité de fournir les renseignements portant sur toutes les thérapies qui ont été essayées ou envisagées. Votre médecin indique que vous souffrez de reflux gastro-oesophagien et d'arthrose sévère, et que les anti-inflammatoires non stéroidiens (AINS) sont contre-indiqués. Il mentionne que l'effet recherché dans votre cas avec la marihuana est un effet relavant. Dans sa dernière correspondance du 23 janvier 2001, Dr. Boucher mentionne que vous êtes très réticente à essayer d'autres traitements et que vous vous dites plus soulagée par la prive de marihuana. Par ailleurs, aucun médicament qui aurait été essayé ou envisagé pour un effet relaxant n'est mentionné dans votre demande. Puisqu'il existe un grand nombre de traitements disponibles au Canada pouvant donner un effet relaxant, il semble que d'autres modalités de traitement dans votre cas devraient être essayées ou envisagées. Le fait d'essayer ou d'envisager les diverses modalités de traitement disponibles s'appliquerait également pour le traitement de la douleur.
Nous vous suggérons de communiquer avec le Dr. Jean Boucher dans le but de lui faire part de cette intention de refus. Si vous désirez nous communiquer toutes autres informations qui, selon vous, motiveraient que votre demande ne soit pas refusée en tenant compte des raisons fournies ci-dessus, vous devrez le faire part par écrit à la personne soussignée au plus tard en date du 28 mai 2001. Si, après cette date, nous n'avons rien reçu de votre part, votre demande sera automatiquement refusée.
Vous pouvez nous envoyer toute autre information par la poste à l'adresse ci-haut ou par télécopieur au numéro (613) 952-2196. Veuillez indiquer clairement votre numéro de dossier sur votre correspondance, soit le 9010-7-M0033(EX).
Pour toute question concernant le processus de demande d'exemption, vous pouvez contacter la Division de l'évaluation et coordination de la recherche au (613) 954-6540.
Veuillez agréer, Madame, mes meilleures salutations.
"J. Gomber"
Jody Gomber, Ph.D.
Directrice générale
Programme de la stratégie antidrogue et
des substances contrôlées
[9] As is apparent from the letter of May 14, 2001, the applicant was informed that she should communicate with her doctor, Dr. Jean Boucher, in order to submit further and better information and that if this were not to be done by May 28, 2001, the letter was to be considered as a decision denying the applicant's request for the use of "marihuana à des fins médicales".
[10] The above delay of May 28, 2001 for further documentation is now extended to July 30, 2001.
[11] The applicant filed an affidavit with her present application. In the said affidavit she states (I only quote 9 paragraphs of a total of 17 paragraphs).
1. I have suffered cancer, many surgeries, and severe arthritis and my doctor summarily signed an application for a Section 56 exemption for me to consume marijuana for medicinal purposes.
2. Exhibit A is May14 2002 Health Canada Letter of refusal to grant an exemption on the grounds that my physician, Doctor of Medicine Boucher, failed to sufficiently "document any therapies that have been tried or considered" to the standards demanded by Judy Gomer, Drug Strategy and Controlled Substances Programme Director General and Doctor of Philosophy.
3. Ex. B is the May 25 2001 letter of Dr. Boucher refusing to provide more documentation for his prescription.
12. The crux issue is: Will the court allow sick people to wait to have their prescriptions filled until their doctors have convinced the Minister's pharmacists that the prescriptions are correct? Or will the court order that sick people get their medicine until the Minister's pharmacists have convinced the doctors to change their prescriptions and permit revocation of the exemptions?
13. Even if the court does grant that Government pharmacists may examine doctors on reasons for their prescriptions, patients should have their medicine while their doctors write their explanatory essays to the examining pharmacist on their thoughts and philosophies for the various treatments tried and why they were discontinued and on ALL other possible treatments and why they didn't try them first.
14. After all, Health Canada keeps pointing out the many available treatments that could have been used and they could be quizzing the doctors forever. So while the doctors submit to their tests, call it a temporary, even preliminary, but necessary exemption if you will, but let it be cancelled if and when a pharmacist proves the doctors wrong to the satisfaction of, not a medically incompetent Minister Minister (sic) of Health but to other real doctors.
15. Sick people should not be made to chase their doctors to prove the pharmacists are wrong. Make the pharmacists prove the doctors wrong before I am denied my medicine by the stock-boy. Of course, should the pharmaceutical stock-boys convince my doctor to change my prescription, my Doctor of Medicine I'll believe. But Health Canada's Doctor of Non-Medicine's opinion shouldn't count. Doctors should be in command of dispensing pharmaceutical stocks, not the stock-boy, not even a Government stock-boy.
16. Time is of the essence because their Letter of Intent to Refuse gave me two weeks, actually 10 days after I received it in the post, to get my doctor to come up with ALL the documentation and ALL the essays demanded or my Application will be officially "refused without any further opportunity to respond." It's hard enough to get an appointment in 10 days, let alone his written thoughts on the philosophies on all the issues raised.
17. This Affidavit is made in support of a motion to a judge with the power to do anything that is just for an interim Order of Mandamus compelling the Respondent to grant an interim Section 56 Exemption until such time as Health Canada convinces the Applicant's doctors that the prescription should be changed and the exemption revoked.
[12] As can be seen from paragraph 17 of the applicant's affidavit, the applicant makes the request that the Court order the respondent to grant to her "an interim Section 56 exemption".
[13] As I have stated, the applicant believes that, pursuant to Rule 372 of the Federal Court Rules, I have the jurisdiction to issue the interim order of mandamus that she is requesting.
[14] Rule 372 states:
372. (1) A motion under this Part may not be brought before the commencement of a proceeding except in a case of urgency.
Undertaking to commence proceeding
372(2)
(2) A party bringing a motion before the commencement of a proceeding shall undertake to commence the proceeding within the time fixed by the Court.
372. (1) Une requête ne peut être présentée en vertu de la présente partie avant l'introduction de l'instance, sauf en cas d'urgence.
Engagement
372(2)
(2) La personne qui présente une requête visée au paragraphe (1) s'engage à introduire l'instance dans le délai fixé par la Cour.
and is found under Part 8 of the Rules and is titled Preservation of Rights in Proceedings - Pantie 8 Sauvegarde des droits.
[15] I am satisfied that even if I were to have sufficient evidence before me that would enable me to grant the interim order requested, Rule 372 is meant to safeguard an applicant's right in the case of an urgency and pending disposition of proceedings.
[16] The issue before me is not a preservation of a right. The applicant will not lose any right if I do not grant the interim order she now requests. It simply means, and I do not minimize the seriousness of her request, that the applicant would have to proceed with an application for judicial review by serving and filing such an application with supporting affidavits from herself and from her doctor or doctors, if that is her desire, and then make a request pursuant to section 18.2 of the Act, again with the necessary evidence.
[17] If this were to be done, the respondent would be granted a short delay, because of the urgency of the issue, to file its evidence.
[18] In this specific case, I am prepared to allow the present application before me to be the commencement of an application for judicial review. I am prepared to allow the applicant to submit sufficient evidence, one or more affidavits, to show urgency and to show by means of a detailed affidavit from one or more medical doctors why it is necessary that the applicant be permitted the medical use of marijuana.
[19] The applicant shall have a delay to the 30th day of July, 2001 to file any further affidavits she may wish to serve and file in support of her claim.
[20] It is up to the applicant to file this evidence as quickly as possible. Within 10 days of serving the affidavits on the respondent, the respondent shall file, if that is respondent's wish, whatever affidavit evidence he wishes to place before the Court.
[21] The applicant should request that she be granted an expedited hearing, to which, because of the seriousness of the present request, I am sure the Court will give serious consideration.
[22] I believe it is necessary for me to comment on the attitude of the applicant and of those who attended the hearing with her, who are also applicants in other motions before me relating to the same subject matter.
[23] It must be understood that at the present time in Canada it is a criminal offence to grow and use marijuana even for medicinal purposes unless permitted pursuant to section 56 of the CDSA. Therefore, to be permitted the use of marijuana for medical reasons, the person making such a request must show sufficient evidence that the applicant requires marijuana to alleviate pain or nausea. Having said this, the respondent has a duty not to put impediments in the way of such requests that would make the granting of such a request under section 56 illusory. The respondent should, first of all, ensure that such a request as is being made by the present applicant be dealt with in the shortest possible delay, not months as appears to be happening in this case.
[24] Secondly, the consideration of such requests should be given in a generous and sympathetic manner and not in a restrictive or narrow manner. Any doubt, if the person is ill, should and must be resolved in favour of the applicant.
O R D E R
[25] Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the present application now before the Court is to be considered an application for judicial review of a decision dated May 14, 2001.
[26] The delays, according to the rules of the Federal Court, commence as of today unless shortened by the present decision.
"Max M. Teitelbaum"
J.F.C.C.
Calgary, Alberta
June 28, 2001