TURMEL: Asking Covid Case Management Judge for no stays JCT: So the Covid 19 Apple Orange Resistance challenge has gotten bogged down on the Crown's attempt to cut all plaintiffs out of the proceeedings until mine is over. I consented as long as they gave them a copy of the documentation but when they said they would not and the judge said she couldn't force them, we decided to not have a lead plaintiff like was done before. John C. Turmel, B.Eng., Mar 18 2021 Court Administrator re: T-130-21 TURMEL: John Turmel Dear Sir/Madam: Would you please put this email response to the Mar 11 2021 Direction before Case Management Judge Aylen. In 2014, half of Canada's 36,000 cannabis patients had their permits invalidated. A group of over 300 filed suit to get their permits back proffering their previous Health Canada Authorization as proof of medical need. Justice Phelan was appointed Case Management Judge and on April 29 2014, he presided over an "unprecedented, remarkable, extraordinary" teleconferenced hearing in 10 provinces in 12 courthouses. No Lead Plaintiff was named and all 315 names are on the Style of Cause; https://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/decisions/en/218251/1/document.do BETWEEN: "In the matter of numerous filings seeking a declaration pursuant to s 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" MOTION IN WRITING CONSIDERED AT OTTAWA, ONTARIO, ORDER AND REASONS: PHELAN J. DATED: JANUARY 11, 2017 WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY: John Turmel FOR THE PLAINTIFF (T-488-14) Jon Bricker FOR THE DEFENDANT [44] For all these reasons, the motion is granted. The Court will issue an Order that: a) all of the claims/application listed are struck without leave to amend; and b) no costs being requested, no costs will be granted. (It is doubtful under the circumstances if the Court would have granted costs.) No plaintiff but me submitted written representations but the decision applied to all when they did not submit a reply without any need for a Lead Plaintiff. That style of cause is now listed as: "subsection 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" and the listing the 316 files. Since our current actions are also under "subsection 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms," that group title cannot be used again. Should a new title be sought, I would note that our Facebook Page is titled: APPLE ORANGE RESISTANCE. So a preferred style of cause might be: BETWEEN: "In the matter of numerous APPLE ORANGE RESISTANCE filings seeking a declaration pursuant to s 52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" In 2016, another group of cannabis patients filed templates for damages due to long delays in processing medpot grow applications. Justice Brown was appointed Case Management Judge. He named one plaintiff Lead and I was derelict in not realizing that the other plaintiffs would not be kept apprised while the Lead Plaintiff's action was pursued. Canada has noted as a precedent that no plaintiffs in that second group were kept apprised. I submitted we don't want that happening again. I had consented to Canada's request to file a motion to strike on one lead plaintiff with the pre-requisite that the other plaintiffs would be emailed the documentation of the Lead case. The Crown has refused to email a copy TO the others and this Court had found it cannot impose such a burden on an unwilling Defendant. If Judge Phelan's management could keep all plaintiffs on the style of cause and thus fully informed, then that is the right way to proceed here now that Canada has stated its unwillingness to send a copy of the documentation to other plaintiffs. John Turmel JCT: Only 10 of us were originally polled on whether we wanted a Lead Plaintiff to make the case and let it be persuasive in the others'. I don't know anyone who has chosen to be stayed so it looks like the Crown blew it in not aggreeing to email a copy to the others and now will have to prepare 60 individual motions for each of us. Har har har har har har. Sure, merging a letter with an email list doesn't take a rocket scientist so it's not much work to serve everyone. And so, what's the purpose of trying to duck so little work? in ducking a CC: with a list of emails? The only reason I can fathom for the request to save them almost no time is simply to make sure that most plaintiff remain uninformed. Can you think of another gain for the Crown? And it does waste time, and with people dying from lockdown, the longer they can stall, the more blood on their hands. If that's their true goal. What else?