TURMEL: Issues to Covid Restrictions Case Management Judge 

JCT: I've reported on the order of Case Management Judge 
Aylen to 10 plaintiffs. We are today 57. I've responded: 

John C. Turmel, B.Eng., 

Tuesday Mar 2 2021 
VIA EMAIl 

Chief Administrator
Courts Administration Service 
fc_reception_cf@cas-satj.gc.ca

Dear Sir or Madam: 

     re: John Turmel v. HMTQ T-130-21 

Could you please place this letter before Case Management 
Judge Aylen: 

    "The parties shall, by no later than March 5, 2021, 
    provide their availability for a case management 
    conference (by Zoom - audio only) during the week of 
    March 8, 2021.
    The purpose of the case management conference will be to 
    address the following:
    (a) Whether the parties consent to T-130-21 being the 
    lead file, with the balance of the files held in 
    abeyance and bound by the outcome of any determinations 
    in T-130-21.

I cannot advise the other plaintiffs to be bound by the 
outcome of any determination of the Lead Plaintiff's 
original T-130-21 file.

In the ongoing "delsc" claims for damages due to grow permit 
processing delays before Justice Brown, any time any 
additional facts or arguments appeared, they was 
incorporated into later Statement of Claim templates. 

Later "delsc2" Statements claimed not just the cannabis that 
was not produced during the delay but also added the lost 
site rent. 

Later Statements claimed for the restitution of the 
processing time subtracted off the permit which was 
adjudicated when Judge Brown permitted the Lead Plaintiff's 
claim be amended to the updated version. 

The latest "delsc8" claim included an affirmation that the 
Court of Appeal found lacking. Both an original delsc and an 
updated delsc8 edition are still before Judge Brown. 

So I cannot advise anyone to be bound by a persuasive 
decision on an original claim when there is a good chance 
later claims will be improved. 

I will advise any plaintiffs who can't attend the zoom call 
to email their consent to a stay pending a decision on the 
Lead Plaintiff but not to be bound by it. 

(b) The timetable for the Crown's motion to strike.
(c) The timetable for the Crown's motion for security for 
costs (if necessary)."

I have no comment on timetables other than to follow the 
timetables in the rules. 

Other issues not yet addressed are: 

a) Canada's request for leave to seek relief by way of a 
single motion to one plaintiff and not the others that would 
be applicable to all of the proceedings has been consented 
to as long as the other plaintiffs receive all documentation 
by email before ceding right to be served personally with 
relevant documents. I would further ask that the Court order 
that Defendant provide Lead Plaintiff with the list of 
plaintiff emails, say once a week. 

b) The Defendant notes the parties may also require other 
procedural directions as the parties may also require other 
procedural directions as these claims unfold, that case-
management would also be consistent with the Court's 
approach to past claims downloaded from the same website as 
the current claims. 

The past approach was to email the document to the 
Defendant, Efile it, and under service, submit a pdf of the 
metadata from "sent" email, and thirdly upload a letter 
requesting Judge Brown okay the email metadata rather than 
an affidavit of service. He always granted use of the 
metadata. I would ask the Court keep Steps 1 and 2 but skip 
Step 3, a letter to the judge asking to allow the metadata. 

c) The Defendant notes some plaintiffs have previous unpaid 
judgments and ask that security be posted. Considering the 
no-cash cost of emailling out a copy of the documentation, 
those plaintiffs could then decide if it is worth putting up 
security after the first case is decided. 

Dated at Brantford on Tuesday Mar 2 2021. 
_________________________
John C. Turmel 

JCT: For the response about the zoom meeting: 

If you can't be bothered, just send an email back to the 
court, it's in the heading of my previous letter, saying any 
day is fine with you but that you shall not attend but do 
consent to Lead Plaintiff being appointed and having your 
action stayed but not bound by it if you get a copy of the 
documentation emailled to you. 

You also consent to other procedural matters. 

Of course, if you want to hear the call, just email that 
you're ready. 

I don't know what they're going to do with the other 47 
plaintiffs not involved at this point. In the past, new 
plaintiffs got the Order of the court staying cases until 
the Lead is done added to everyone's file. Probably again. 

So funny we're to discuss the motion timetable when it's in 
the rules? Lots of our requests she didn't look at yet.