TURMEL: Crown wants not to serve other Covid plaintiffs JCT: In my Feb 13 report titled: TURMEL: Crown seeks union of 10 Covid restriction plaintiffs, the Crown wrote: CR: In light of the common issues, Canada will be requesting leave to seek this relief by way of a single motion that would be applicable to all of the proceedings. Case-management would also be consistent with the Court's approach to past claims downloaded from the same website as the current claims. Benjamin Wong In my letter to the Case Management Judge ("CMJ") Aylen https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.john-turmel/c/- F6XGCr0Qmk I mentioned "Case-management was not consistent with the Court's approach to past claims," I mention it was only consistent with the second group before Justice Brown where other plaintiffs were not kept informed of developments in their actions but not consistent with the first group before Justice Phelan who were on the style of cause heading, were all served documentation, and all took part in the "unprecedented, extraordinary, remarkable" hearing of the Crown's motion to strike in a teleconference in 10 provinces in 12 courtrooms. I've pointed out in my submission to the CMJ I didn't want others excluded from being kept apprised again and that it was quite trivial for the Crown to have kept everyone in the loop first time, why not now? Crown's response: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19l7c.pdf Department of Justice VIA EMAIL Our File Number: LEX-500040961 March 24, 2021 Federal Court Attention: Registry CR: Dear Ms. Craigie: Re: TURMEL, John v HMTQ, T-130-21 TURMEL, Raymond v HMTQ, T-138-21 ETHIER, Michel Denis v HMTQ, T-171-21 INNISS, Biafia v HMTQ, T-208-21 BRUNET, Raymond v HMTQ, T-219-21 INNISS, Nathanael D v HMTQ, T-212-21 ROBINSON-RITCHIE, William Ernest Wayne v HMTQ, T-220-21 ROBINSON, Wayne Brian v HMTQ, T-221-21 LEADLEY, Trevor J v HMTQ, T-230-21 BRAUN, Jason F v HMTQ, T-242-21 I am writing on behalf of the defendant in the above- noted matters, HMTQ in Right of Canada (vCanadab), in response to the Court's March 11, 2021, direction. I ask that you kindly place this letter before the case- management judge, Madam Prothonotary Aylen. Canada agrees with the Court's proposal to designate a lead claim and to stay the remaining claims pursuant to s 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act pending final determination of the lead claim. JCT: The Crown says it was "the Court's proposal to designate a lead claim and to stay the remaining claims." I think it's clear that the Crown asked for "a single motion that would be applicable to all of the proceedings. It wasn't the Court's proposal they are just agreeing to. It was their own proposal they're agreeing to. CR: The power to temporarily stay a proceeding pending other proceedings in the same court is a broad discretionary power akin to granting an adjournment. The question in each case is whether a stay is in the interests of justice, having regard to such factors as whether the proceedings raise similar issues, whether a stay will conserve judicial and party resources, and whether it will result in injustice to the parties.1 1 Astrazeneca Canada Inc v Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC, 2011 FCA 312 at paras 5, 14, 19; Re Marihuana Medical Access Regulations, 2014 FC 435, paras 18-19. JCT: So how is staying the others in the interests of justice? will save judicial and party resources? or not result in injustice to the others? Even the clowns at the Ministry of Justice must be familiar with merging a document with a list of recipients. How are the interests of justice served by leaving some out of the loop? What resources do they say will be wasted by sending everyone a copy of the motion? And now can not receiving the documentation they would normally received but keeping them apprised ourselves not an injustice? And none of these concerns were raised for the first group! CR: In the circumstances of this case, each of these factors favours a stay. The above-noted claims are substantially similar. The Court's proposal to designate a lead claim, and to stay the other claims pending final determination of that claim, has the potential to significantly narrow the issues in dispute in the other files and to conserve judicial and party resources that would otherwise be spent on those issues. JCT: Again, quit saying it was the court's proposal, as if they can trick her into thinking she did! And how can having a lead plaintiff narrow the issues? conserve resources? CR: Since the above-noted claims were filed, another 50- plus plaintiffs have also filed similar claims. There appears to be a significant likelihood of more such claims, which if not stayed, would consume further resources, while also creating a "moving target" for Canada's forthcoming motion to strike and complicating the proceedings with multiple claims at different stages of progress. JCT: He can repeat how merging the document with the list so everyone gets their due copy consumes their resources. It's not the first time Her Majesty has pleaded technical incompetence for no good reason. Merge-printing and emailing does not expend much resources. Adding more plaintiffs does not complicate the proceedings at different stages of progress. How are the different stages going to affect their serving their motion? Say someone joins after they served it on us. So they just send them a copy of past documents too. Finally, a temporary stay will not result in an injustice to the plaintiffs. Following the final determination of the lead claim, the plaintiffs in the other matters will have the opportunity to provide submissions on the merits of their claims. JCT: So without watching what happened, they'll still be to present their own submissions. Not quite as effective as if they had watched. Actually, not watching gives the chance to ask for things that are already settled while they weren't watching. Plaintiffs wishing to monitor the status of the lead claim during any stay would also have the opportunity to do so via the Federal Court's online docket or at https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.john-turmel, a public website where Mr. Turmel appears to be providing comprehensive updates on the status of the claims. JCT: Yes, it's true, they can keep watching my site every day to see if I posted anything rather than get the news themselves in the mail. Canada accordingly requests that the Court designate a lead claim and stay the remaining claims pending the final determination of the lead claim. However, if the Court decides not to stay the claims of those plaintiffs who do not consent to a stay, Canada requests that it be permitted to serve and file a single motion to strike those claims. Sincerely, Benjamin Wong Counsel Jct: Exactly what they did with Justice Phelan. Put everyone's name on the motion and send a copy to everyone. Not separate motions for each. So of course, we agree with that last request to serve and file a single motion on all of us in the group. And newbies can be added to the style of cause in later documentation if not the earlier. Though I like giving people the incentive to check my blog every day, I don't think it's necessary and I don't think all would. And they would be denied the information they are due. We have until Mar 29 to file our Reply, I will with mostly what's in this report, and don't expect anyone else to have to. Just like in the actions before Phelan. I filed mine, others got copies and could sit back and watched the results.