June 14, 2015

Form 1 (Rule 3-1 (1) )

with our sworn Affidavit, we show that this case file, has been date stamped by:
The A.G.C. Registry, The Law Department [and] Risk Management, as entered in the

No. S 165441
Vancouver Registry

In the Supreme Court of British Columbia

Between:

Darcy Delainey CFA [and] Wonser De-Gbon CEO on behalf of our membership of
VGMP [Vancouver Granville Marijuana Party Electoral District Association]
Plaintiff(s)

and

His Worship Gregor Robertson, the lawful Mayor of The City of Vancouver
The Honourable Bill Blair, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada
Defendant(s)
NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM
[Rule 22-3 of the Supreme Court Civil Rules applies to all forms.]

This action has been started by the plaintiff(s) for the relief set out in Part 2 below.
If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for
response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff.
If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must
(a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of
this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and
(b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any new
parties named in the counterclaim.
JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response to civil claim
within the time for response to civil claim described below.
Time for response to civil claim
A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff(s),
(a) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after that service,
(b) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United States of America, within 35
days after that service,
(c) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days after that service, or
(d) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time.

Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Claim of the Plaintiff(s)

1. The filing of this Civil Claim is due to a total failure of the City of Vancouver Licensing Department
to accept the fact that no Maritime Authority [including the City or the CDSA] can implement
arbitrary regulations on any Federal Agency that restrict their ability to deliver on its mandate; this
is especially the case here, where the actual effect of implementing these recreational marihuana
regulations by the CDSA thru these City by-laws are trampling on our members' agents' officers'
medical marijuana rights to really benefit from our Marijuana Party right to protect our RUBRIC.
2. At face value, it's because Maritime jurisdiction bureaucrats really don't like our politics;
and frankly that's exactly why this centuries-old separation of jurisdiction authority to govern must
be respected as a fundamental Constitutional certainty, because the issue that is being ignored is
by definition proof of a political prejudice that is created by deliberately omitting the obvious fact
that: as of Sept 9th, 2015, 8425 Granville Street, Vancouver BC V6P 4Z9 is landed and
registered with Elections Canada as being the territorial common law Headquarters for VGMP.
1. [as to this Published Registration] Inside this Elections Act territory, Chief Executive Officer:
CEO - Wonser De-Gbon, and Chief Financial Agent [CFA]: Darcy Delainey are operating
Erbachay Health Center #1 Society, in order to continue to benefit from our common law rights
to deliver medical marijuana for our member, primarily under this new SCC ruling of R v Smith
[2015], in order to protect our RUBRIC, by benefiting from our commercial premise thru lawful
means to provide safe access to medical marijuana, as a valid ways and means to attract both
social and political participation under Freedom of Expression, in order to benefit from our free
and democratic society, under our political party guarantees found in Sec-1 of the Charter.
3. Upon receiving the first [of many since] $250. tickets, we contacted the License Department to
recognize and respect that no Municipality can hold such jurisdiction authority on any church, or
any recognized Federal Agency, [which includes our commercial premises] because, since the
founding of Canada, any EDA Office is outside any City's jurisdiction to arbitrarily levy fines or
exercise such overt control over our common law movement by imposing Maritime jurisdiction.
4. We filed a courtesy notice on May 27, 2016 that was basically an offer to talk and negotiate, in
private chambers, with just our Sec 1 Charter defence to no jurisdiction; or we would be forced to
file this civil motion. The City cannot just continue to ignore our no jurisdiction defence, and act
like we are just another dispensary; Frankly, it's a crime to even threaten these fines on us.
1. We accept that we entered into a standard contract to see whether the City would grant our
Erbachay Health Center #1 Society a license [as opposed to pressing our EDA society].
a. We did so because there were these bail out provisions, where we can choose to do so at
a later date, and after being rejected by the City's review board, we now choose to bail out
rather than be in dishonour of an arbitrary decision to just shut down our society once
asked, when we hold this 'no jurisdiction' option that fulfills our Marijuana Party RUBRIC.
1. One of the primary functions of this proceeding is to establish a civil means to resolve any
dispute, in order to preclude the pressing of criminal charges to settle disputes, especially.
2. The very nature of filing this civil motion results where anyone under the employ of Gregor
Robertson, and Bill Blair must respect the fact that until this civil case is resolved, results
where no criminal charges can be pressed, and no trespassing of our commercial
premises can be entertained. As outlined in Part-2, Part-3, and Part-3(a).
3. As we see it, under a Sec-8(3) CC /necessity defence - it's important to initiate this Civil
Claim in order to fix this inevitable conflict created by the City totally ignoring the fact that
[because we are a Federal Agency] they cannot arbitrarily slap us with by-law infractions
and/or criminal activity, and act to shut down Erbachay Health Centers, and /or criminally
charge any of our staff, when we really are just Peacefully protecting our RUBRIC by
being in our commercial premises, in a territory where the CDSA, and the City holds no
jurisdiction to enforce its arbitrary by-laws, [of being too close to a school - in this case].

4. Also, CDSA rules for recreational marihuana cannot be arbitrarily forced down our throats,
when many of these rules are contrary to delivering better medicine to our members.
2. As we see it, the City is in dishonour, by refusing to discuss our [s-1] no jurisdiction defence,
which is forcing us to seek remedy in this court; hopefully, this filing will result in the City and
Bill Blair to stand down from this unconstitutional challenge to trample on our common law
rights to protect medical marijuana under this new R v Smith /SCC ruling. But until we reach
an amicable understanding, we are initiating this Civil Claim to have the courts settle this.
Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT
1. In regard to addressing the issue of suing the City: we see no real economical harm created by
the City's past history of just ignoring any dispensary and [in this case] which included our no
jurisdiction status; in our case, it's annoying to file with the courts to get our democratic rights
respected. But, frankly [at face value] the City Law Department just might want this court to rule,
in order to avoid future liability, with a clear ruling on sorting out this jurisdictional issue.
1. We require this court to rule on holding our medical marijuana defence that [at face value] it's
protected by this R v Smith /SCC ruling, of last spring; and also respond to this new Federal
program for recreational marihuana that's being gradually implemented under S-55 of the
CDSA, thru this laborious legal process of one Federal Court ruling at a time, until their
recreational marihuana program is comprehensive, and then passed into law by Parliament
2. This Federal in-limbo status that the City is administering will inevitably sort itself out, but in
the meantime, this sorting out needs to include the fact that we [as a Federal Agency, of a
Federally recognized Party] are seeking protection from this BC Supreme Court to enforce all
kinds of BC case law precedents that apply to [thus regulate] things like: growing plants for a
dispensary, and this dispensary supplying medical marijuana to [what BC courts define as]
with a personal medical need that is greater than the risks to themselves, and to our society.
3. BC does not need to reinvent the wheel [like the Feds need to do]; Maritime jurisdiction has
always defined both marihuana and marijuana as illegal /a crime. As far as we see it, the
influx to open all kinds of dispensaries only started [in BC] with this R v Smith ruling winning in
BC, and this at-large expansion across Canada happened after R v Smith won at the SCC.
4. As we see it, [due to R v Smith] the Crown prosecutors charge what they call bad examples of
what they think should be not be permitted, and the Crown has lost most of these cases
where a good enough 'medical marijuana' defence was respected in BC Supreme Courts.
1. This in-limbo status creates a reality where, VPD and the Crown ignore to charge any
dispensary, who [by and large] amicably agree to service medical marijuana needs.
2. We're offended that the City's own policy states that it will only deal with any dispensary on
an individual case basis, and then refuses to treat us as holding an exemption, by ticketing
us after filing this May 27th courtesy notice = guilty until proven innocent [11d - R v Oakes]
1. The city is now just stonewalling the whole issue [of our no jurisdiction] and again
resolving this in court seems like the only civil means to achieve a peaceful resolution.
2. As an EDA office, the City cannot ban us from being too close to a school. In fact, in
our case: of the cluster of dispensaries in our district, we are the furthest from the
school, and the only dispensary on the other side of a wide Granville Street artery.
3. We see very little reason [at face value] to change anything in how Erbachay Health
Center does commerce; To our knowledge there are no complaints specifically directed at
our Offices. There is no good reason to refuse a dialogue by City Officials, there is no
good reason to not reach a peaceful solution in order to operate EDA offices in our District.
1. We'll need to adjust administration practices to keep EDA activities separate from the
commercial activities, in order to make it easy to comply with the EDA filing periodic
Elections Canada statements. The function of the EDA is to protect our members by

offering safe refuge from Maritime Rule, especially while inside our EDA territory.
2. ON THIS: As to a related attached pamphlet we see this Civil Claim file to settle any
disputes as far better than any police acting on any complaint with criminal charges.
2. IN CONCLUSION: The primary function of this Civil Claim is to express that we are not
challenging our 'no jurisdiction defence'; the members, agents and officers insist that 'we' hold a
right to stand before and under our 'no jurisdiction defence' in BC Supreme Court, in order to
never loose our right to BC case law precedents as Supreme, to protect our positive law rights.
Part 3:

LEGAL BASIS - SUMMATION FOR ANY MARIJUANA PARTY EDA LEGAL DEFENCE:

1. Our Marijuana Party EDAs hold an unfettered common law defence in BC [especially].
1. This is primarily due to the fact that BC voted against being converted into being under
principalities /ward system. AND we voted out HST, therefore those practices that Bill Blair is
implementing on the rest of Canada can /and are being challenged as unenforceable in BC.
2. Both phrases listed below that apply to our Sec 1 of the Charter defence are based on case laws
that uphold our territorial common law defence under our 'no jurisdiction' necessity defence.
3. There is no way to get around it: because the SCC says R v Oakes is the backbone of all our
common law Freedoms known to man, results where we can't be denied our Sec 1 defence to no
jurisdiction, because any time those interim provisions of S-55 of the CDSA [thru their Federal
Courts] attempt to take away our right to be governed under BC case law as Supreme, is the day
Our Party was entitled to our Sec 1 Charter guarantee to protect our free and democratic society.

4. FOR THE RECORD Sec 1 states: [quote] The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits
prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
1. First all our fundamental Freedoms can be encroached on with these 2 reasonable limitations
1. The 1st phrase is: 'prescribed by law' and the second is: 'free and democratic society'
2. The DCL is our common ground and the first reference for legal definitions for the Charter,
2. This DCL definition for PRESCRIBED BY LAW is: The limitations will be prescribed by law
within the meaning of Sec 1 of the Charter, if it is expressly provided by statute or regulations,
or results by necessary implication of a statute or from the operating requirements. The
limitation may also result from the application of common law. [important] R v Therens -1985
1. Sounds like a lot of double talking legalese because that its intent [to deceive]
This case law precedent for this phrase is Mr. Therens, who drove home at about 2AM
and fell asleep behind the wheel about 1/2 block away from his house and crashed
into his neighbours tree in their front yard. No one woke up, so he walked home,
poured himself a stiff drink and went to bed. He was woken up by police banging on
his door, they made him take a Breathalyzer, he failed so they charged him. AND he
won in the SCC, with a common law defence of them having no proof that his story
was not true, so he could not be assumed guilty when he had a plausible excuse AND
the offence /charge was excessive because this neighbour held no hard feelings
therefore no harm was done. [aka a perfect interpretation of common law in action]
2. When this 'landmark decision' came down, they made a big deal or pointing to this
myth of: Rejoice, Look how great this Charter is. At the time everyone hated this new
gadget called breathalyzer. AND, then the veil of illusion moved in.
3. NOW on the definition of FREE AND DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY it's the cornerstone and a very
inspiring description of a common law Utopian society that you could possibly imagine,

1. [quote]- Section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section that
confirms that the rights listed in the Charter are guaranteed. The section is also known as
the reasonable limits clause or limitations clause, as it legally allows the government to
limit an individual's Charter rights. This limitation on rights has been used in the last
twenty years to prevent a variety of objectionable conduct, . It has also been used to
protect from the unreasonable interference of government in the lives of people in a free
and democratic society by defining these limits - AND THEN the SCC gave this SCC case
law application as the reason to subvert every common law right known to mankind, under
a SCC s.1 very important [landmark] case law precedent called; R v Oakes.-1985

2. CASE LAW IN POINT: The Oakes case was all about being [quote] caught with 8 vials
of hashish oil outside of a tavern in London, Ontario. He claimed he had purchased 10
vials of hashish oil for $150 for his own use. He was also in possession of $619.45 which
he claimed to have received from a government program. Despite Oakes' protests that the
vials were meant for pain relief and that the money he had was from a workers'
compensation cheque, Section 8 of the Narcotic Control Act (NCA) established a
'rebuttable presumption" that possession of a narcotic inferred an intention to traffic unless
the accused established the absence of such an intention. Oakes made a charter
challenge, claiming that the reverse onus created by the presumption of possession for
purposes of trafficking violated the presumption of innocence guarantee under section
11(d) of the Charter. The issue before the Court was whether s. 8 of the NCA violated s.
11(d) of the Charter, and whether any violation of s. 11(d) could be upheld under s. 1.
[11(d) - innocent until proven guilty at a fair trial is upheld, by the SCC]
3. We are upholding our common law claim under s.1, as a Loyal opposition under the Act.
David Oakes had a Workman's Comp check stub. He's the original medical marijuana
defendant in Canada. IN FACT it's this case law that created the MMAR that Hitzig and
Parker challenged and won on this legal common law Sec 1 of the Charter application.
4. AT FACE VALUE: The entire Charter hinges on Sec 1, and it really is a conspiracy to defraud
our Freedom by everyone in authority due to this 'if' added to 'prescribed by law' NAMELY:
all our freedoms can be taken away; if it is expressly provided by statute or regulations,
or results by necessary implication of a statute or from the operating requirements.
1. Under our no jurisdiction defence, the CDSA and City are expressly prohibited from
encroaching on any operating requirements that are necessary to protect our RUBRIC
5. We are not seeking a general injunction that applies to every dispensary and grower, because
the City says so. We are pressing what our Party considers one of the better case scenarios,
because our registered EDA HEAD offices, and the dispensary inside this Office, cannot be
construed to be in the City' or the CDSA's control, especially when our we actually act civilly to
deliver services in an orderly manner [AS IN] not helter skelter common law cowboys, who
hold erroneous colours of right to violate trust laws that are really harmful to society.
6. As to our Sec 1 defence, the limitations of our claim of right requires the BCSC to prescribe
limits that exist in BC case law precedents /that protect our right to medical marijuana
/that were gained under R v Smith for us to understand and prosper under.
As we interpret these limitation The dispensary must operate with good book keeping
practices, and work within an established set of case law precedents that the BCSC will
respect as a foundation that is binding on our activities, in order to carry-on with a set of
reasonable rules to address legitimate complaints that protect society and our guarantee to
Freedom of Expression* that extends to protecting our political beliefs. [*DCL]
1. Our membership is comfortable with having Erbachay Health Center's operating practices
be a guideline /starting point on how we should structure our EDA dispensary.

1. ON THIS: The dispensary has a state of the art POS computer system that delivers
everything required to operate good books, with excellent inventory control that
registers all transactions and properly addresses transactions of members and
suppliers, like any properly run legal entity [like] a private members association /club.
2. The EDA's fiduciary function is to protect our membership by offering safe refuge from
Maritime powers; in our case, Elections Canada auditors can easily verify that the EDA
itself operates at arms length from the dispensary's commercial activities, in order to easily
comply with passing any of their audits. We are offering this solution in order to restore
the public trust in common law being Supreme over Maritime law that has historically
decimated our Freedoms thru deceitful practices.
3. As we see it, the City is acting like it has authority to ignore our common law guarantees
because it holds a Certificate from Bill Blair to eventually take-on /absorb these costs.
Part 3(a):

LEGAL BASIS - in-default Provisions of Sec 279(1) CC: TRAFFICKING IN PERSON

1. PREAMBLE: At face value, this in-default provision of Sec 279 CC is complying with Sec 1 of
the Charter, NAMELY: [quote] The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the
rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can
be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
1. ON THIS: this new to Canada, yet very old Law, [from when John Locke repealed slavery]
actually needed to be introduced by the organic nature of the form itself, in order to offer a
safeguard to protect our free and democratic society from trespass by those overt powers
contained under Civilian Oversight reforms; because this limitation [set in Sec 279(1)] really
does constitute a reasonable limitation that is prescribed by law, in order to guarantee that
the minority rights of our Marijuana Party to protect our beliefs must also be protected, from
abuse under Maritime Rule that is being enforced by/under Civilian Oversight Authority.
1. To demonstrate this, we are quoting the 1998 Civilian Oversight's founding principles:
Police are rightly and necessarily given extensive powers. Police power is necessary to
ensure that free people are protected and that their duly enacted laws are enforced.
Police must be authorized to do things that would be illegal for ordinary citizens, and
police must not be unduly fettered in the exercise of those powers.
2. Records will show that that this Commissioners Office has carried on with the same mantra
where he does not blame the escalating abuse of power that this mandate was dishing out;
QUOTE: What is at fault is the legislation itself. It is unclear, ambiguous and does not
provide adequate remedies to the Office of the Police Complaint Commissioner to ensure
effective civilian oversight. - This American trained Commissioner was appointed to bring
the same protection that American police get for enforcing Federal Law as Supreme, which
is accomplished by operating under flawed laws or sets of laws that have sunset clauses.
3. Consequently, because of Civilian Oversight, police started engaging in what feudal law
/times called Highway Robbery and today it's called Civil Forfeiture, where the police really
are 'Profiteering from the Proceeds of what they call crime [common law commerce in food
and medicine are not taxable]. This historically starts revolts like King Henry 8th had, and
that's because these ever increasing fees were causing inflation and destroying common
law commerce, which is exactly what Bill Blair is trying to implement on our medical
cannabis trade, trying to convert a valid commercial common law medical activity [under
SCC /R v Smith] to being a criminal act for not paying taxes on recreational marihuana.
4. The SCC /Smith decision actually addressed this historic fact that they cannot tax food or
medicine, because the natives get restless and revolt. This decision basically ruled that
when this plant is used as medicine, the CDSA cannot control or regulate this activity.
2. In the Commonwealth, this abuse of powers, eventually resulted where the organic nature of
the archetypal form itself had to [and did] include this default provision of Sec 279 (1) CC of

'TRAFFICKING IN PERSON' being added to Bill C-46. [which clearly states that]
1. For the purposes of subsections (1) and 279.011(1), evidence that a person who is not
exploited lives with or is habitually in the company of a person who is exploited is, in the
absence of evidence to the contrary, is proof that the person exercises control, direction or
influence over the movements of that person for the purpose of exploiting them or
facilitating their exploitation. [279.011 - calls for a maximum of 5-years in prison for each
infraction, and up to a $1-million damage award to each victim]
1. Habitually is one of those trick words in law, it includes anyone in a habit /uniform [like]
judges, police officers, sheriffs and lawyers, who in our case - cannot morally or legally
participate in exploiting any of our Marijuana Party members rights to protect our beliefs
under common law that were upheld by this new SCC /Smith decision.
2. The foundation of this Law is based on John Locke' /Blackstone's form holding a never
ending series of traps to bar the return of institutionalized slavery in the Commonwealth.
3. As to the record: [for example] This provision of Sec 279 CC, has always been in-default, in
spite of there being 50 revisions since Bill C-46 was introduced. In BC, 6 provisions in the BC
Trustee Act [that are never published] are getting the same abuse. Constitutionally both of
these Acts simply cannot hold any in-default provisions. The default nature of this Trustee Act
results where: every contract oath that civil servants in BC took [since 2001] are in-default.
4. Let's face it, Locke' and Gladstone's emancipation standard were implemented to stop
Maritime Rulers from trampling on its own citizens' /Loyal Subjects' common law rights.
1. When Sec 279 (1) is applied to our Party members /Loyal Subjects results where it
becomes self evidence that an officer who is not exploited [like a cop, judge, lawyer] who is
habitually in the company of a person who is exploited, [like a member of our party, by
denying us the right to be under common law], is proof [by itself] that this officer exercise
control, direction or influence over the movements of our members for the purpose of
exploiting them or facilitating their exploitation under arbitrary Maritime Rule.
2. Frankly that's why we are seeking a civil ruling in this Civil Court that respects the fact that
our membership can and must be protected by this SCC / R v Smith ruling, in order to
protect our common law 'no jurisdiction' defence, under this in-default provision of Bill C-46.
5. As we see it: The City is acting like any liability that it is entertaining under sec 279 CC is
because they are confident that the liability for their actions or inaction is not paid by this city's
taxpayers In fact, their abuse is protected by a Certificate provided by Bill Blair, which is why
we must attach him to appear, in order to defend the fact that his Certificates cannot authorize
the trespass of our EDA commercial premises, without being liable for trafficking in our person.
6. Again we re-iterate the original premise of Part-2 - point 1; up to now, there really has been no
harm created on our commercial activities, therefore there is no liability for past policies.
Until we are trampled on, which will inevitably occur, which results where we have no
reasonable reason for not summoning Bill Blair into this grievance with our City;
1. Frankly, under the principle of the Supremacy of the Law, and Respondent Superior,
if he does not stand down, when given a chance to do so, then Bill Blair, the AG in charge of
implementing these CDSA recreational marihuana reforms, is liable to face a 15-years in
prison, and this NATO /Federal Government must payout up to a million dollar per victim for
trafficking in persons, on potentially about 38,000 old MMAR medical marijuana growers,
and well over a million legitimate medical marijuana consumers, in Canada.
2. Authority has to wake up to the fact that: with Bill Blair coming into power, he is resuming to
impose a Harper policy of raiding dispensaries and growers, and in many cases never press
charges. At face value, police [under Civilian Oversight] are somehow sanctioned to profit
from a common law activity that cannot be taxed; that's exactly why this in-default provision
[Sec 279 CC] must protect our Marijuana Party EDA Offices and membership, especially.

1. By definition, Bill Blair is violating Sec 279 (1) CC, and all police officer that participate in
ignoring this in-default provision of Sec 279 CC are committing what was called rape:
1. These raids are [by definition] proof that police exercise indiscriminate control,
direction or influence over the movements over our medical marijuana rights for the
purpose of exploiting our rights or facilitating their exploitation under Maritime Rule.
3. Under these circumstances, we really must press this Civil Claim, in order to stop the
confiscation of property of our EDA dispensaries, and growers, who are acting under
common law medical marijuana rights that were won under the SCC /R v Smith decision.
4. We accept [that without a Marijuana Party affiliation] that: a cop could see this lack of a
membership as 'the absence of evidence to the contrary' to holding a common law right,
under R v Smith. BUT with a valid membership, our members must be treated with respect
OR these Authorities that press or arrest us, are violating these TRAFFICKING IN PERSON
provisions, therefore are liable to 5-years in prison and a $1-M damage award, per victim.
7. This Federal politician cannot arbitrarily authorize the use of force by anyone under him, on any
of our Federal Marijuana Party Electoral District Offices, and /or disrespect our membership's
right to safe access to their medicine, without Bill Blair being liable for trafficking in that person.
1. Furthermore, under R v Smith, and all kinds of Parliamentary rules, and all kinds of SCC
rulings, Bill Blair is prohibited [directly and/or indirectly] from trampling on our RUBRIC .
2. Frankly, [by definition] there are and can be no Elections Act rule to stop any of our Officers
or Agents from protecting our medical marijuana beliefs, especially when we actually see
ourselves as being obligated to press this positive law initiative under this R v Smith ruling.
3. Historically, Federal Authorities have never, and will never stop calling any common law
right as being a criminal activity, especially when they insist on taxing the crap out of this
commodity. Look at the outrageous taxation on anything they call a sin -[like]- alcohol or
tobacco, in order to punish us for what in fact is a religious opinion of our oppressors.
1. This example of ramming their religious views of punishing we pot smokers is evil and
unconstitutional, and frankly [due to their own abuse] it's now called an act of slavery.
2. No court can continue to tolerate or protect the bigotry and hate that those Authorities in
power breed, without destroying Canadian values that respect the nature of really being
in a tolerant multi-cultural society. Canadians actually, by and large, accept gay rights,
abortion rights, Islamic rights, etc, but somehow a right to a medicine called cannabis
must be persecuted, so that Maritime Authorities can start taxing our herbal medicine.
IN CONCLUSION: As to the original May 27, 2016 courtesy notice - the City refused to start
negotiating in good faith, which results where this Civil Claim will be filed as a public hearing;
1. We regret that the option of City officials starting a dialogue was squandered; we clearly tried the
accepted way of offering amicable negotiation in private chambers, and this gracious offer was
forfeited. Regardless, we must seek injunctions to protect our Free and democratic society.
[Set out the street address of the address for service. One or both of a fax number and an e-mail address
may be given as additional addresses for service.]
Plaintiff's(s') address for service:

Vancouver Granville EDA [VGMP]

8425 Granville St, Vancouver, BC V6P 4Z9

Fax number address for service (if any):

N/A

E-mail address for service (if any):

darcy@erbachay.com

Place of trial:

Vancouver Supreme Court

The address of the registry is:

800 Smithe Street, Vancouver BC

Date: .[dd/mmm/yyyy]

.................................................................................
Signature of
[ x ] plaintiff [ ] lawyer for plaintiff(s)

.......Darcy Delainey..............................................
Rule 7-1 (1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states:
(1) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action
must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period,
(a) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists
(i) all documents that are or have been in the party's possession or control and that could, if available, be
used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and
(ii) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and
(b) serve the list on all parties of record.

Appendix
[The following information is provided for data collection purposes only and is of no legal effect.]
Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM:
This Civil Claim falls under a necessity defence of Sec 8 of the Territories Act, because Bill Blair
directives that ignore our Territorial rights are serious violations of all kinds of Parliamentary Rules.
We contend that: The City of Vancouver by it's own nonfeasance and actions, rejects any claim to respect
our no jurisdiction territorial defence. Contrary to Sec 1 of the Charter, City Officials are aggressively
pursuing a policy of violating Sec 279 CC default provision of Trafficking in our Person, which result in the
trampling on our guarantees to protect our RUBRIC under our common law rights and freedoms.
Furthermore, we protest that The City of Vancouver is rejecting this fundamental of Sec 1 of the Charter

[NAMELY] By simply rejecting any offer to negotiate any reasonable limits prescribed by laws, in
private chambers, results where we can assume no such public rights exist. Therefore under a
necessity defence we are demonstrably justified to seek remedy in a public civil proceeding, in
order to seek injunctions that respect our guaranteed right to protect our beliefs that the majority
in power think are wrong or false, in order to protect our free and democratic society, until this
Civil proceeding goes thru the steps that are necessary under due process.

Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING:

[Check one box below for the case type that best describes this case.]
A personal injury arising out of:
[ ] a motor vehicle accident
[ x ] medical malpractice
[ x ] another cause

A dispute concerning:
[ ] contaminated sites
[ ] construction defects
[ x ] real property (real estate)
[ x ] personal property
[ x ] the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters
[ ] investment losses
[ ] the lending of money
[ ] an employment relationship
[ ] a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate
[ x ] and, a matter not listed here
Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES: [Check all boxes below that apply to this case]
[ ] a class action
[ x ] maritime law
[ ] aboriginal law
[ x ] constitutional law
[ x ] conflict of laws
[ ] none of the above
[ ] do not know

Part 4: [If an enactment is being relied on, specify. Do not list more than 3 enactments.]
Sec 8 CC Territories Act, in order to establish our territorial rights to protect our commercial premises
inside our Electoral District Association's Offices from trespass by any Maritime Authority.
Sec 1 of the Charter of Rights and Freedom, in order to respect the fact that as being in a recognized
Loyal opposition that we are actually graced with being treated as employees under the Charter.
Sec 279 (1) CC default provisions of Bill C-46, in order to organically move this private chambers indefault provision, into holding a case law precedent, in order to stop the escalating abuse of power
contained in enforcing Civil Forfeiture powers of any kind, against our officers, agents and membership.