c19023 TURMEL: Case Management Judge Aylen on Covid Orders JCT: The latest word on what we want was at my last post: Reply to Stays of Covid Apple Orange Resistance Plaintiffs https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.john-turmel/c/kOcYN99ysRg So the big question is whether a) plaintiffs remain in action like with Phelan b) get stayed while the Lead Plaintiff fights his case but receive documentation to follow the fight c) or get stayed and not sent any documentation. Date: 20210408 Docket: T-130-21 Ottawa, Ontario, April 8, 2021 http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19ayl6.pdf PRESENT: Case Management Judge Mandy Aylen BETWEEN: JOHN TURMEL Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant Docket: T-138-21 AND BETWEEN: RAYMOND TURMEL Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant Docket: T-171-21 AND BETWEEN: MICHEL DENIS ETHIER Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant Docket: T-208-21 AND BETWEEN: BIAFIA INNISS Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant Docket: T-219-21 AND BETWEEN: RAYMOND BRUNET Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant Docket: T-212-21 AND BETWEEN: NATHANAEL INNISS Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant Docket: T-220-21 AND BETWEEN: WILLIAM ERNEST WAYNE ROBINSON- RITCHIE Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant Docket: T-221-21 AND BETWEEN: WAYNE BRIAN ROBINSON Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant Docket: T-230-21 AND BETWEEN: TREVOR J. LEADLEY Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant Docket: T-242-21 AND BETWEEN: JASON BRAUN Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant CMJ: ORDER [1] The Court is case managing a group of more than 60 actions in which the self-represented Plaintiffs seek various forms of relief related to the federal Government's COVID-19 mitigation measures, including: (a) a declaration that the measures violate their Charter rights and are not saved by section 1 of the Charter; (b) an order prohibiting any measures that are not imposed on the flu; (c) a permanent constitutional exemption from any such measures; and (d) damages for pain and losses incurred by the Plaintiffs as a result of such measures. [2] The Statements of Claim in each action are almost identical and based on a "kit claim" made available on the internet by John Turmel, the Plaintiff in T-130-21. [3] The Defendant has indicated that the Defendant intends to bring a motion to strike the Statements of Claim, without leave to amend, JCT: Don't you wonder why a judge wouldn't let you amend a claim whose purpose is to stop mass murder? Sure, lockdown is based on a hoax but you didn't do this so we have to let it continue and you can't fix what is needed to stop it? They seem to forget the corpses happening. CMJ: as well as motions for security for costs in relation to certain Plaintiffs who the Defendant asserts have unpaid cost awards. JCT: She already said no, they would not need to deposit security for past costs until after my challenge is over. And it may only regard my brother Ray who hasn't paid costs from some past medpot actions. (At appeal court, Justice Phelan and Brown both dismissed the patients with no costs!) CMJ: [4] A case management conference was held on March 11, 2021 among the parties in the initial group of actions assigned into case management - namely, T-130-21, T-138-21, T-171-21, T-208-21, T-219-21, T-212-21, T-220-21, T-221-21, T-230-21 and T-242-21 [Initial Group of Actions]. During that case management conference, the Court proposed that Mr. Turmel's claim in T-130-21 move forward as the lead claim and that the balance of the actions be held in abeyance, pursuant to section 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act [Act], pending a final determination in T-130-21 and any appeal therefrom. Following that final determination, it would then be open to the Plaintiffs in the stayed actions to seek to have their actions move forward upon establishing that they are differently situated than T-130-21 and thus should not be bound by the outcome of that action. JCT: If they were not kept informed, they'll now get to make their uninformed decision? CMJ: [5] A number of the Plaintiffs expressed a willingness to proceed in this manner. However, they took issue with the information that would be provided to them by the Defendant regarding T-130-21 and requested that if their action was stayed, that they still be provided with all filings made in relation to T-130-21, including, for example, the Defendant's motion to strike. The Defendant indicated that they would not agree to voluntarily serve all Plaintiffs with the materials in T-130-21, as there was no obligation to do so under the Federal Courts Rules. JCT: There is such obligation if they are not stayed. Crown can only not send them the data they are normally due by being granted the stay and so if they won't keep them in the loop, the Crown shouldn't get their stay of convenience. CMJ: Moreover, the Defendant indicated that they would not agree to periodically provide Mr. Turmel with a list of the email addresses of all Plaintiffs who commenced actions using the kit claim. JCT: So not only won't they do the easy CC:, they don't want me doing the easy CC: either. CMJ: [6] In order to permit the Plaintiffs an opportunity to consider the Court's proposal, the Court directed that any Plaintiff in the Initial Group of Actions who does not consent to a stay of their action based on the Court's proposal was to so advise the Court by March 18, 2021 and provide, by that date, any submissions as to why their action should not be stayed. The Defendant was given until March 24, 2021 to serve and file any responding submissions and the objecting Plaintiffs were then given until March 29, 2021 to serve and file any reply submissions. [7] The Court received the following submissions from the Plaintiffs: A. The Plaintiff in T-138-21 advised that, while on the case management conference he agreed to the stay, he has changed his decision and wants to "participate in any procedures even if only to watch and listen". No further submissions were provided in support of this position. B. The Plaintiffs in T-208-21, T-212-21 and T-219-21 advised that they do not consent to having their actions stayed and want to receive updates and documentation from T-130-21. No further submissions were provided in support of this position. C. The Plaintiff in T-221-21 advised that he does not want his action stayed pending the final determination in T-130-21. No submissions were provided in support of this position. JCT: I provided submissions as to why their actions should not be stayed so they shouldn't have to. She'd better not count "no submissions" against them when I put the submissions in as to why they should remain apprised. CMJ: [8] No submissions were received from the Plaintiffs in T-171-21, T-220-21, T-230-21 or T-242-21. At the case management conference, the Plaintiffs in T-171-21 and T-220- 21 had indicated that they opposed the stay, the Plaintiff in T-230-21 had indicated that they consented to the stay and the Plaintiff in T-242-21 had indicated that they were undecided. [9] Mr. Turmel filed submissions in which he drew to the Court's attention the approach taken by Justice Phelan in his case management of over 300 proceedings involving Canada's medical marijuana regulations, noting that Justice Phelan's determination applied to all plaintiffs and applicants without designating a lead plaintiff/applicant. He suggested that the Court could proceed in a similar manner and designate the style of cause as "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". [10] Mr. Turmel noted that in a different group of case managed proceedings involving claims for damages due to long delays in processing medicinal marijuana grow applications, Justice Brown designated a lead claim and did not require that the other plaintiffs be kept informed, which Mr. Turmel felt was an error that should not be repeated in this case. JCT: An error by me in not asking, not an error by Justice Brown in not being asked. He's the ballsiest judge we've ever had. And he got to see the sleazy moves by Health Canada and the Crown not only on us but on him! Just recently in the action of Gisele Pilon, they asked Judge Brown for more time to argue against her getting an interim exemption while waiting for her official exemption knowing her official one had already been sent a week before! And I got to tell him how they misled him again. You can trust I caught themand let the judge know about all the other sleazes too. CMJ: [11] Mr. Turmel proposes that the Court should proceed as per Justice Phelan's approach and keep all Plaintiffs on the style of cause, as this would keep them fully apprised of the status of the legal proceeding. [12] By way of their responding submission, the Defendant advised that the Defendant supports the Court's proposal to designate a lead claim and to stay the remaining claims pursuant to section 50(1)(b) of the Act. JCT: They keep saying it was the Court's proposal but it was their initial proposal to file only one motion to strike them all that led her to that solution, right? They asked to file one motion and that has to be on a Lead Plaintiff. So the Court may have proposed it but only as a solution to the request of the Crown. Think of it as a proposal by the Court as a result of the request of the Crown. CMJ: The Defendant submits that interests of justice favour a stay of proceedings as the actions raise similar issues, a stay will conserve judicial and party resources and the stay will not result in any injustice to the parties. Specifically: A. Allowing a lead claim to proceed has the potential to significantly narrow the issues in dispute in the other files and to conserve resources that would otherwise be spent on those issues. B. Since the Initial Group of Actions was filed, more than 50 additional actions have been commenced and there is a significant likelihood of more such claims, which, if not stayed, would consume further resources while also creating a moving target for the Defendant's forthcoming motion to strike. C. A temporary stay will not result in any injustice to the Plaintiffs as they will have the opportunity to make submission on the merits of their claim following the final determination of the lead claim. Moreover, the Plaintiffs wishing to monitor the status of the lead claim may do so through the Court's website or through a public website set up by Mr. Turmel that appears to be providing comprehensive updates on the status of the claims. [13] By way of reply, Mr. Turmel confirmed that the Court's proposal "would have been fine had Canada agreed to cc the other plaintiffs but no longer now that it has refused". Mr Turmel made numerous additional submissions in response to those made by the Defendant, the majority of which related to the other Plaintiffs. As I already advised Mr. Turmel at the case management conference, he does not represent the other Plaintiffs and cannot speak for them. That said, I have nonetheless taken into consideration his additional submissions in this regard. JCT: Justice Phelan and Justice Brown also pointed out that I or the Lead Plaintiff could not represent the others though you have to wonder what the purpose of having a Lead Plaintiff is if not to make representations that affect the others. I may have spoken first and Justice Phelan did point out I was not speaking for the others and did invite additional represnetations from any other plaintiffs in the teleconference in 12 courtrooms in 10 provinces. The Lead Plaintiff before Justice Brown also spoke first and then to the Appeal Court but the others could not be invited to add anything. And of course, I cannot represent the others but my arguments may be applied to the others, and have always been allowed so far. CMJ: [14] None of the other Plaintiffs made any submissions in reply to the Defendant's submissions. JCT: I did in my "Reply to Stays of Covid Apple Orange Resistance Plaintiffs https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.john-turmel/c/kOcYN99ysRg CMJ: [15] Pursuant to section 50(1)(b) of the Act, the Court may, in its discretion, stay its own proceedings where it is in the interests of justice to do so. In considering a request for a stay under section 50(1)(b), the tri-partite test set out in RJR Macdonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 110 does not apply. Rather, the question is whether it would be in the interests of justice for a stay to be granted [see Clayton v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 1]. [16] The interests of justice test is a wide-ranging test that can embrace many elements and the Court must consider the totality of the circumstances of a particular case when considering whether to exercise its discretion to stay its proceedings. The Court should be guided by certain principles, including securing the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits, as expressly provided in Rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules, and the fact that as long as no party is unfairly prejudiced and it is in the interests of justice, the Court should exercise its discretion against the wasteful use of judicial resources. The Court should also take into consideration the public interest in moving a proceeding forward fairly and with due dispatch [see Jensen v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd., 2019 FC 373; Coote v Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Co, 2013 FCA 143; Clayton, supra]. JCT: Oops. We have have to use that: the public interest in moving a proceeding forward fairly and with due dispatch.. CMJ: [17] As was stated by the Court in Jensen, the case law establishes that the interests of justice test is anchored in three overarching principles: (1) a flexible approach aimed at protecting the interest of a just, fair and efficient resolution of a proceeding; (2) the existence of some form of prejudice, harm or injustice, as opposed to simple inconvenience, to be suffered by the moving party in the absence of a stay; and (3) the determinative place of the particular factual circumstances presented to the Court. JCT: Would your ability to argue why your case should go on if I lose be affected by not being informed on my case? CMJ: [18] It is evident to the Court, from the comments made at the case management conference and the minimal submissions made in response to the Court's proposal, that the Plaintiffs were largely prepared to agree to a stay of the proceedings provided that they were served with all of the materials filed in T-130-21. JCT: Bingo. I don't want the others being kept uninformed to happen again. I can't make that mistake again. CMJ: It was only when I noted at the case management conference that, under the Rules, there would be no obligation on the part of the Defendant to serve the Plaintiffs with the materials filed in T-130-21 and the Defendant advised that they were not prepared to provide Mr. Turmel with weekly or periodic contact information for any new kit claim proceedings that the majority of the Plaintiffs, led by Mr Turmel, then changed their position on the Court's proposal. JCT: Right. When the Crown unreasonably refused to CC the data, we couldn't just give up on getting it just to make it convenient for them! If they can't do a lousy CC, why should we consent to a stay without info to make it easy on them? CMJ: [19] I am satisfied that there will be no prejudice or harm to the Plaintiffs if their proceedings are stayed pending the determination in T-130-21. Indeed, there has been no suggestion from any of the Plaintiffs of any specific harm or prejudice. To the extent that the Plaintiffs are concerned about being kept informed regarding the status of T-130-21, I agree with the Defendant that the recorded entries in T-130-21 are available for viewing on the Court's website and, as acknowledged by Mr. Turmel in his reply submissions, the Plaintiffs can obtain updates on the status of T-130-21 on Mr. Turmel's website. JCT: The only difference is that you have to watch my site every day for a posting rather than get it in the mail to guarantee you get it. But I did mention why making them watch for updates isn't as good as letting them not watch for updates. You'll also be able to watch for news at http://facebook.com/groups/appleorangeresistance And notice she won't even give me the email list so I can send it to them to make them not have to watch. She's making sure they have to watch for updates. CMJ: While the Plaintiffs and Mr. Turmel would prefer that their access to information regarding T-130-21 be rendered more convenient for them by requiring the Defendant to serve them with all of their materials, I am not prepared to impose such a burden on the Defendant. JCT: What a burden? If a judge thinks adding a CC to an email is too burdensome, maybe she can ask a Registry clerk just how not burdensome it is to CC a list. Just because a judge couldn't get it done doesn't mean a clerk couldn't! CMJ: If the Plaintiffs are interested in T-130-21, they can put in the effort to follow its progress. JCT: Justice Phelan didn't make them put in any effort, Justice Brown only cut them out of the loop by my error, but now she's deliberately making them put in effort. What was good enough for Judge Phelan isn't good enough for Prothonotary Aylen. Second time what's good enough for a full judge isn't good enough for the substitute judge. CMJ: [20] Moreover, I will require that the Registry provide a copy of any final determination in T-130-21 to each of the Plaintiffs. JCT: Not much help making sure you hear the action that was "Dismissed" but not the arguments that were dismissed. Get it? You're not going to get my arguments, you're only going to get the Court-interpreted result. CMJ: [21] As the Statements of Claim are based on Mr. Turmel's kit claim, they are substantially similar, with only minor variations regarding the basis for the damages sought by some of the Plaintiffs. The claims in the actions therefore significantly overlap. I note that none of the Plaintiffs have disputed T-130-21's suitability as a lead claim by suggesting they are differently situated. In such circumstances, considerations of judicial resources, efficiency and the orderly conduct of multiple proceedings all support the Court's proposal. JCT: No one's saying it isn't right to have a Lead Plaintiff, we're saying it isn't right to force plaintiffs to put in an effort to get the information they would have received had the Court not found it more convenient for the Crown and and Registry but make the Plaintiffs put in effort. Second time I make that point. CMJ: [22] In light of the above, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to stay these proceedings pending a final determination of the lead claim and any appeal therefrom. Proceeding in this manner will ensure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of the issues raised in the Statements of Claim. JCT: For the Crown and the Court but at the expense of the plaintiffs who must put in the effort to help the Crown avoid the burdensome CC. I think someone will have to appeal that the CC would be too burdensome. CMJ: It will remain open to the Plaintiffs to request that the Court permit their claims to proceed following the final determination of T-130-21 if they can demonstrate that they are differently situated than T-130-21 such that they should not be bound by any final determination made therein. JCT: Get that. After you don't get to see my fight without putting in the effort to watch for it, your claims can proceed: if they can demonstrate that they are differently situated than T-130-21 such that they should not be bound by any final determination made therein. You're supposed to explain to her why my loss shouldn't bind you without your sitting at ringside. She wants you to tell her the difference without having seen the original! She's made it as inconvenient for you as possible while making it convenient for the Crown and the Registry. After we'd agreed to everything to make it convenient for them, she wouldn't order the Crown to make it convenience for us. Don't believe the bull that she didn't have the power to order the Crown to send the "burdensome" CC to enjoy the convenience of being granted serving only one file. She had the power to order the Crown in the interests of justice to keep those she was cutting out of the action informed. CMJ: THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The actions bearing Court File Nos. T-138-21, T-171- 21, T-208-21, T-219-21, T-212-21, T-220-21, T-221-21, T- 230-21 and T-242-21 are hereby stayed pending the final determination (by judgment or order) in T-130-21 and any appeal therefrom. 2. The Registry shall provide a copy of any final determination in T-130-21 to each of the Plaintiffs in T-138-21, T-171-21, T-208-21, T-219-21, T-212-21, T-220- 21, T-221-21, T-230-21 and T-242-21. JCT: "Turmel lost and without having been kept informed, is there anything else you want argue?" 3. In the event that any party in T-138-21, T-171-21, T- 208-21, T-219-21, T-212-21, T-220-21, T-221-21, T-230-21 or T-242-21 takes the position that their action is differently situated than T-130-21 such that the final determination in T-130-21 (and any appeal therefrom) should not apply to their action, that party shall, within 30 days of the final determination in T-130-21 and any appeal therefrom, requisition a case management conference to establish a schedule for a motion to determine whether their action should move forward. JCT: You'll have 30 days to figure out any arguments you'd have that were different from the arguments I made that you may have missed that you would have been able to present with me like before Phelan. 4. The terms of this Order shall apply to any new Statement of Claim filed subsequent to the date of this Order which is substantially identical to those filed in T-130-21, T-138-21, T-171-21, T-208-21, T-219-21, T-212- 21, T-220-21, T-221-21, T-230-21 or T-242-21. JCT: So the first 9 others and everyone after today is automatically stayed with no recourse to be kept informed without putting in the effort themselves. But what about the other 50 who have filed in between? 5. The terms of this Order may be varied or amended as the Court determines necessary. JCT: That's important. When Judge Brown ordered that everyone pending the determination with the Lead Plaintiff, he added "without leave of the court." We had plenty of interim motions to file and I just amended the Notice of Motion to say Tdke Notice of the motion with leave of the court" so it really was no bar for anyone needing interim remedy. And around 80 plaintiffs filed interim motions and got hop-to-it permits. 6. There shall be no costs associated with this Order. "Mandy Aylen" Case Management Judge She had said at the hearing that they could provide me with the Statements of Claim so I could get their emails myself. And now no mention of that. So I have no way to get the emails from any new plaintiffs. She has now left me no way to get their emails and they'll have to watch my site for developments rather than get them in their box. Or get me their emails. But Yahoo mail has a limit on the number of CCs. Great. It also means you don't get into a zoom call like the other Phelan plaintiffs did. You not only don't get any documentation, you can't partake in the trial of my action, you can't add something I missed. You won't even know what I missed before being asked to tell her after the fact what you have that's different. But weirdly, I got another Direction from CMJ Aylen and we find out what's going on for those in between the original 9 and the newbies: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19ayl7.pdf Prothonotary Aylen dated April 8, 2021; T-130-21- TURMEL, John v Her Majesty the Queen CMJ: "The Court is obtaining submissions from the parties in the 50 plus additional kit claim proceedings regarding whether their proceedings should be stayed on the same terms as the Court's Order issued in this proceeding. Once those submissions have been received and a determination has been made in relation thereto, the Court will set a schedule in this proceeding, in consultation with the parties, for the motion to strike." JCT: No timetable here but there is an another Direction to the other 50 plaintiffs: http://smartestman.ca/c19ayl8.pdf CMJ: The Court has issued the attached Order in T-130-21 and nine other proceedings commenced based on Mr. Turmel's kit claim. As set out in the Order, T-130-21 has been designated as the lead claim and the other nine claims have been stayed pending a final determination in T-130-21 and any appeal therefrom. Following the final determination in T-130-21, it will be open to the Plaintiffs in the other nine actions to request that the Court permit their claims to proceed if they can demonstrate that they are differently situated than T-130-21 such that they should not be bound by any final determination made therein. The Court proposes to proceed in the same manner in relation to your proceeding. In the event that you oppose a stay of your proceeding on the terms as set out in the attached Order, you must provide the Court, by no later than April 15, 2021, with any submissions as to why your action should not be stayed. The Defendant may file any responding submissions by April 20, 2021. JCT: So instead of just telling them they're stayed like the initial group, she's inviting their comments before staying them like the initial group. Pure waste of almost two weeks! Anyone expect a different result? But let's just do it again. I think that's going to be my ground of appeal, that with people dying, she's wasting time. The whole purpose of the first hearing was to get to the timetable for the Crown's motion. Wait two more weeks while she does the same for the in-betweens as she did for the initials and any later plaintiffs. We'll just have to wait some more before getting the proof of what's killing millions before a judge. I think she forgets we're exposing the fraudulent statistics behind a genocidal hoax! Say some kid commits suicide next week from depression during the new lockdown, it could be said: "If only she'd gotten the facts to a judge before then, he wouldn't be dead." When lives are being lost, you can't mosey over to the fire with your bucket of water. The longer she stalls getting our proof of fraud before the court, the more deaths will be blamed on her. The good news is that all 50 plaintiff emails are listed with the names. So now the only missing ones will be any newbies. http://SmartestMan.Ca/scc3 has three of my Supreme Court Memoranda from the early anti-bank era and in one, I explain to the judges the "Equation of Responsibility" for those with power to stop the slaughter who do not end it. Every day adds up. Then it was 46,000 dead babies a day who would not be dying if they ordered the bank computers restricted to a pure service charge and the interest charge abolished with everyone getting an interest-free credit card. http://SmartestMan.Ca/1974 the Mr. Spock Upgrade of the bank software. 17 million dead babies a year, 40 million with adults dying of poverty 40 years ago. Every judge who had the power to order the Spock Upgrade but did not has over a billion souls needlessly lost now waiting to greet them on the other side. Let the judge who said my software upgrade was "too esoteric" explain it qwhen they meet their victims. And I'd say the victims we are losing today are important enough to appeal and get the numbers to a judge. 1) I'll appeal her decision to take her sweet duplicating the process while people are dying from lockdown and 2) an initial other plaintiff will file an appeal about being cut off on grounds a) she's under the misimpression that adding a CC to a document is a "burdensome" chore or that b) she doesn't have the power to order it done.