TURMEL: C19 Case Mgt Judge orders zoom attendance for administration JCT: I think the Case Management Judge just made a big mistake: Federal Court Ottawa, ON K1A 0H9 March 3, 2021 Court Files T-130-21 - TURMEL, John v HMTQ T-138-21 - TURMEL, Raymond v HMTQ T-171-21 - ETHIER, Michel Denis v HMTQ T-208-21 - INNISS, Biafia v HMTQ T-219-21 - BRUNET, Raymond v HMTQ T-212-21 - INNISS, Nathanael D v HMTQ T-220-21 - ROBINSON-RITCHIE, William Ernest Wayne v HMTQ T-221-21 - ROBINSON, Wayne Brian v HMTQ T-230-21 - LEADLEY, Trevor J v HMTQ T-242-21 - BRAUN, Jason F v HMTQ Direction of Madam Prothonotary Aylen dated March 3, 2021; "Further to the Court's Direction issued March 1, 2021, the Court expects that all Plaintiffs will participate on the upcoming case management conference. The Court will not accept the delivery of a party's position by letter or by proxy. The Court therefore awaits the Plaintiffs' availability for a case management conference next week, based on the dates of availability now communicated by the Crown - namely, on March 10th and on March 11th between 9-10 am and after 11 am Eastern." JCT: Is that 9-10am on March 10th and then after 11am on March 11th? I prefer after 11am with no fixed 60 minutes! Remember: 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. (b) The timetable for the Crown's motion to strike. (c) The timetable for the Crown's motion for security for costs (if necessary)." JCT: Agreeing the Math Expert being Lead Plaintiff and being stayed pending Lead Plaintiff's hearing is fine but not to be bound. Things change and later claims may be improved so no one agrees to be bound if we can be upgraded to latest edition like Justice Brown let the Delay Damages claims be. So by tomorrow, the Covid Resistant Ten must email the court whether they're available to personally attend a zoom call next week on March 10th and on March 11th between 9-10am and after 11am Eastern." JCT: Note the Eastern because our Top Ten are filed in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver. http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19list has plaintiffs in 6 provinces and 7 courthouses. I've already mentioned how discussion of timetables is unnecessary because they're already laid out in the timeline. From the Federal Court site: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/representing-yourself/practice-guides/how-to-file-a-motion Rules applicable to a motion in writing only There is no deadline for service and filing of the moving party's motion record. The responding party's motion record must be served and filed within 10 days following service of the moving party's motion record. A moving party may serve and file written representations in reply within 4 days after being served with the responding party's motion record. JCT: So she wants everyone to attend a discussion about two timelines for 1) Motions that the Crown can serve and file whenever they want, 2) Responses we must serve and file in 10 days; 3) Replies they must serve and file in 4 days! Don't you wonder what there is to discuss about timetables that are set in the rules? OK, it seems the reason a timeline is required is because Her Majesty is in default of filing a Statement of Defence within 60 days and their only reason can be they were moving to strike. But why does it say they can take their time with a written motion? How much time? Or are they allowed all they want unless there's a hearing to set timetable. So could talking about the timetable now allow the setting of the start rather whenever they want? As for Actually, in case someone does want to interim remedy for a particular restriction, they'll need to be motions will need to be stayed without leave of the judge. In the medpot delay damages actions, sure everyone was "stayed" while the Lead Plaintiff sought his remedy but plaintiff with urgent problems could file a motion (Aarrgg, my permit expires in 2 days, my renewal hasn't arrived, I have to destroy everything, I need an interim exemption pending trial of my damages action.) So no being bound and no being stayed with leave of the court to file. So the motion was made asking for leave at the same time. I had sent an email to the Covid Resistant Ten that if they couldn't make the week, they should indicate that they approve being stayed with leave to file seekable until the Lead Plaintiff and will accept any timetable stuff. As if she read my mind, now she says emailling her isn't good enough, she needs personal attendance on trivial administration details! Wonder why? If people are going to have to personally attend minor hearings, then why have a Lead Plaintiff at all? It only saves the Crown printing up a separate PDF for every file. Seems to save us nothing. Why should it be convenient for the Crown to be able to serve only me and then make inconvenient for everyone else with personal attendance. And notice, none of the issues I raised are on the agenda. Whether you get pdfs of all documents the Crown doesn't have to serve on you, and whether I can have the list of emails too. Stay tuned. The first ten should reply if they're available. And if not, maybe you can attend the zoom call with the rest of the other plaintiffs.