TURMEL: Mike Ethier Reply on Appeal of Stay of Covid claims JCT: Michel Ethier served and filed his Appellant's Reply in his motion to a Judge appealing Case Management Judge Prothonotary Mandy Aylen's Order staying eeryone's actions pending the result of mine mine (we didn't mind if you got a copy of the documentation) without obliging the Crown to send him a copy. Remember, they're asking to be abvolved of the burden of sending him his own personal strike motion but the judge thought sending everyhone a copy of mine was too much of a burden and she just had to make it easy on them! File No: T-171-21 FEDERAL COURT Between: Michel Denis Ethier Appellant Plaintiff AND Her Majesty The Queen Respondent Defendant APPELLANT'S REPLY 1. Canada repeats that it accepts the Court's proposal to serve only one motion on a Lead Plaintiff and not the others when the Defendant's motion itself proposed to serve only one motion on a Lead Plaintiff. It was not the Court's proposal that Canada was accepting. 2. Canada argues the Order making me put in more effort to allow the Defendant to be absolved it putting in its due effort shows no palpable error. 3. Canada suggests I can put in the extra effort to get the Turmel motion to strike to ease their burden of sending me my own due copy of a motion to strike because I can get it at the Registry site. The Registry site say: Recorded Entry Summary Information Copies of public documents which are already in electronic format can be sent by e-mail, upon request to the Registry: fc_reception_cf@cas-satj.gc.ca. Indicate the Court File number in the subject of your email. In the text, you must clearly identify the document number and its name (this information is located in the Recorded Entry Summary column). 4. So instead of the Crown sending a copy to everyone, everyone must send an email to the Registry clerk who must send a copy of the document requested back to everyone. So instead of the Defendant CCing an email copy to all in one step, the clerk will have to send an individual email to everyone in many steps. Unless this is make-work for clerks during Covid. 5. So not only do I have to put in more effort in order to allow the Crown to be dispensed with the effort now required under the rules but the Registry clerks will have to put in more effort responding to each individual request to be emailled the document they were due. 6. Not obliging the Defendant to email a copy to all plaintiffs in order to be absolved of the sending each of us our own individual motion but obliging us to put in more effort to obtain the documentation and the Registry clerks to put in more effort to get the documentation to us is a palpable error that does not promote a more efficient resolution of the actions of the group, the stated purpose of the Order. Dated at Sturgeon Falls Ontario on May 3 2021. ____________________________ Michel Denis Ethier treeoflifemission @ yahoo.ca To: Registrar, fc_reception_cf @ cas-satj.gc.ca Cc: Benjamin.Wong2 @ justice.gc.ca JCT: I kept it short because all the arguments are laid out in the Appeal Motion at http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19a1.pdf The Crown added almost nothing new and the only new stuff I could Reply to that would not have been repetitive (not my style but is theirs) was that the Crown motion was to serve one Lead Plaintiff, the Judge did not propose it. That mischaracterization of who proposed it bothered me. Trying to make it look like it was the Court's proposal rather than theirs might help bias another judge into leaving it alone thinking it was the Case Management Judge who came up with the proposal rather than a party making it. And the fact that we're going to make their clerk put in extra effort is new. For instance, let's give the court a taste of what's coming before the judge decides. Let's let the judge see by everyone starting their requests right now. There are 23 entries in my file and you can order copies of them if they can be emailed. So take a few minutes to email the Registry at: fc_reception_cf@cas-satj.gc.ca to ask for a copy of some of the documents. Maybe not all but a dozen of the more interesting ones. Maybe a different email for every request. To get the minutes of the documentation for any claim, go to the Court's file search page at: https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/court-files-and-decisions/court-files#cont Click on "Search by Court Number" Enter the T-130-21 or other file number, say yours. The name will pop up at the bottom of the page. Click on the "More" for the file minutes: Here are the minutes the clerks entered for mine: Reverse Chronological, Newest at top Doc Date Filed Office Recorded Entry Summary null 2021-04-26 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: Mandy Aylen, Prothonotary dated 26-APR-2021 directing that The parties shall confer regarding the timetable for next steps in this proceeding and shall, by no later than May 5, 2021, provide the Court with a jointly- proposed timetable and the availability of the parties for a case management conference (in the event that the Court determines that one is required). placed on file on 26-APR- 2021 null 2021-04-26 Ottawa Copy of Order dated 26-APR- 2021 rendered by Mandy Aylen, Prothonotary concerning Direction of the Court dated April 26 2021 in Court file T- 263-21 placed on file. Original filed on Court File No. T- 263-21 null 2021-04-08 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: Mandy Aylen, Prothonotary dated 08-APR-2021 directing that 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. placed on file on 08- APR-2021 5 2021-04-08 Ottawa Order dated 08-APR-2021 rendered by Mandy Aylen, Prothonotary Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Case Management Conference Result: 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. - 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. -SEE ATTACHED ORDER FOR FULL DETAILS Filed on 08-APR-2021 entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1488 page(s) 10 - 23 Interlocutory Decision null 2021-03-29 Ottawa Letter from Plaintiff dated 29-MAR-2021 submissions in response to the Defendants March 24, 2021 letter - sent to Court received on 29-MAR-2021 null 2021-03-24 Ottawa Letter from Defendant dated 24-MAR-2021 Further to the direction of the Court (Aylen ,P) dated March 11, 2021. Re: proposal to designate a lead claim. received on 24-MAR-2021 null 2021-03-18 Ottawa Letter from Plaintiff dated 18-MAR-2021 further to the Courts direction dated March 11, 2021 -sent to Court received on 18-MAR-2021 null 2021-03-11 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: Mandy Aylen, Prothonotary dated 11-MAR-2021 directing that A case management conference was held today in these 10 related files. The Plaintiffs in T-219-21 and T- 221-21 were not in attendance. As was made clear in my earlier Direction, all parties are required to attend all case management conferences. Any future failure to do so may result in cost consequences or the dismissal of your proceeding. The Court has proposed that these files be stayed pursuant to Section 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act pending the final determination in T-130-21 (Mr. John Turmel?s claim). Following the determination in T-130- 21 (which includes any appeals therefrom), a Plaintiff would then be entitled to request that the stay of their proceeding be lifted on the basis that they are differentially situated than Mr. Turmel. In the case of a stay, the Court would not obligate the Crown or Mr. Turmel to serve a Plaintiff with any documents related to T-130-21. The Court requires that any Plaintiff in this group of 10 files who does not consent to a stay of their action based on the proposal above so advise the Court by no later than March 18, 2021 and provide, by that date, any submissions as to why their action should not be stayed. The Crown shall serve and file any responding submissions by no later than March 24, 2021. The Plaintiffs opposing a stay of their action shall file any reply submissions by no later than March 29, 2021. placed on file on 11-MAR-2021 null 2021-03-11 Ottawa Ottawa 11-MAR-2021 BEFORE Mandy Aylen, Prothonotary Language: E Before the Court: Case Management Conference Result of Hearing: direction to follow held via zoom audio only Duration per day: 11-MAR-2021 from 12:00 to 12:42 Courtroom : Judge's Chambers (VC) Court Registrar: Kathy Craigie Total Duration: 42min Appearances: John Turmel NA zoom audio representing Plaintiff self represented Benjamin Wong NA zoom audio representing Defendant Comments: DARS back up not used at the request of the Court. Heard together with T-138-21, T-171-21, T-208-21, T-219-21, T-212-21, T-220-21, T-221-21, T-230-21, T-242-21 Minutes of Hearing entered in Vol. 1060 page(s) 265 - 267 Abstract of Hearing placed on file null 2021-03-08 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: Mandy Aylen, Prothonotary dated 08-MAR-2021 directing that A case management conference shall be held, by Zoom (audio only), on March 11, 2021 at 12:00 pm (Eastern). The Court expects all parties to be in attendance." placed on file on 08-MAR-2021 null 2021-03-03 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: Mandy Aylen, Prothonotary dated 03-MAR-2021 directing that 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. placed on file on 03-MAR-2021 null 2021-03-02 Ottawa Letter from Defendant dated 02-MAR-2021 Further to the Courts direction dated March 1, 2021, providing availability for a case management conference received on 02-MAR-2021 null 2021-03-02 Ottawa Letter from Plaintiff dated 02-MAR-2021 Further to the Courts direction dated March 1, 2021. re: avail for CMC received on 02-MAR-2021 null 2021-03-01 Ottawa Letter from Plaintiff dated 01-MAR-2021 - Plaintiff requested the letter be brought to the attention of the CJ. re: Prothonotary being assinged to the matter. received on 01-MAR-2021 null 2021-03-01 Ottawa Acknowledgment of Receipt received from both parties by email with respect to Doc 4 placed on file on 01-MAR-2021 null 2021-03-01 Ottawa Oral directions received from the Court: Mandy Aylen, Prothonotary dated 01-MAR-2021 directing that 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 (b) The timetable for the Crown's motion to strike. (c) The timetable for the Crown's motion for security for costs (if necessary). placed on file on 01- MAR-2021 4 2021-02-26 Ottawa Order dated 26-FEB-2021 rendered by Chief Justice Crampton Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Order dated 22-FEB-2021 Result: "IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Rule 383 that Prothonotary Mandy Aylen is assigned as Case Management Judge in this matter. A copy of this order shall be placed in each file listed in Schedule A." Filed on 26- FEB-2021 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1482 page(s) 424 - 425 Interlocutory Decision 3 2021-02-22 Toronto Order dated 22-FEB-2021 rendered by Kevin Aalto, Prothonotary Matter considered without personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Letter from Defendant dated 11-FEB-2021 Result: 1. This action together with those matters listed on Schedule A shall continue as specially managed proceedings ... see attached e-order Filed on 22-FEB-2021 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1482 page(s) 167 - 168 Interlocutory Decision null 2021-02-15 Toronto Letter from Plaintiff to Federal Court, Court Administrator dated 15-FEB-2021 In response to Defendant's February 11, 2021 letter to request the above matter specially managed proceeding, the Plaintiff consents to Canada's request for leave to seek relief by way of a single motion. cc: Benjamin.Wong2@justice.gc.ca received on 15-FEB-2021 null 2021-02-11 Toronto Letter from Defendant dated 11-FEB-2021 requesting that the within proceeding be a specially managed proceedings. received on 11-FEB-2021 null 2021-01-20 Toronto Letter from Respondent dated 20-JAN-2021 Benjamin Wong has carriage of the file behalf of HMQ. received on 20-JAN-2021 2 2021-01-19 Toronto Acknowledgment of Service received from Defendant with respect to DOC.1 (BY EMAIL) filed on 19-JAN-2021 1 2021-01-19 Toronto Statement of Claim and 2 cc's filed on 19-JAN-2021 Certified copy(ies)/copy(ies) transmitted to Director of the Regional Office of the Department of Justice Section 48 - $2.00 JCT: The numbered ones seem to be official court documents. The "null" seem to be background documents and letters. But whatever documents were sent electronically may be requested. So do and give the Registry such a taste of what could happen if a thousands sign on that they will want to overturn Aylen's decision. I don't think you have to have an ongoing action to request the document be emailed to you. Reporters must ask. So I'd guess that all 600 of our AppleOrangeResistance could send in requests for copies of all those documents. Michel Ethier's T-171-21 has more entries than me. Since he's appealing the stay that is also staying your participation, it should be of interest to you. Throw in a dozen requests for his documents. So let's give them a taste of the nightmare we can give them if they insist on making you put more effort to get your due documentation so the Crown can put in less to give your due. I'd bet that if even a dozen of our 600 members put in a dozen requests each, the clerks would tell the judge about it. Ethier did mention what could happen, so let's show it happening too. Imagine if all 600 sent in the dozen requests! Har har har har har har. But we make so me requests now as a warning rather than have to do it later as a pain in the fingers. I don't want to make them waste their time, I like the clerks. I've known some great clerks. A clerk can steer you right better than any lawyer. They've seen all the mistakes without having ot had made them to learn. I'm not saying argue better the case, I'm saying steer you right in getting case before the court. And I'll take a second to boast about my greatest legal innovation. You'll notice a unique blurb in my motions: AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging the time for service, filing, or hearing of the motion, or amending any defect of the motion as to form or content, or for any Order deemed just. This is my sapper tool in case Her Majesty The Clerk gets uppity for any reason. Normally, HMTC would tells the lawyer, that's wrong, go fix it or make a motion to a judge to accept it. "Wrong font," go fix it or make a motion to a judge to accept it. "Wrong cover color," go fix it or make a motion to a judge to accept it. You need to make a motion to a judge to accept something unorthodox that's not in the Rules. So with my motion to a judge for remedy, I always add the motion to accept any screw-ups. And when you point out to the clerk that the motion to fix anything is in the Notice, HMTC has to send it to a judge for a decision. I've seen some stunned clerks! Her defences are sapped in advance (engineers were called sappers because they sapped the underworks of fortresses). A lawyer who is a professional can't ask to fix screw-ups in advance! Lawyers are stopped by HMTC while the amateur guerrilla lawyer can't be stopped. You cannot imagine how many times we've told a clerk: Sorry, send it to a judge" nor imagine how many times the judge let it in! Why jerk us around if it's trivial? Cute, eh? I've called the blurb "Open Says Me" with the Magic Key. What an advantage over professionals to have the motion to fix screw-ups ready in advance! Finally, who is Michel Denis Ethier? He was one of my greatest medpot warriors. Fought many charges and I believe he is the last man in Ontario to be convicted of driving while intoximated by cannabis. He and I have never had an accident but a cop followed him for 20 minutes, (he's known as a pot protestor so the cop had an agenda) and said he crossed the middle line and hit the shoulder a couple of times. I was his expert witness on the math, which the judge didn't follow. So he knows the ropes, has much experience (mainly with the criminal rather than civil) and must appreciate his chance to get his name in at the top. Most of my cases end up at the top. And to get your righteous cause in at the top even with an unrighteous judiciary will make for pride in posterity. It doesn't matter what the judges rule. What matters is what we said and what posterity rules. If some judge says "Comparing Apple to Orange! Watermelon to Grape. it's all fruit to me" who will doubt whom posterity will rule to be the imbecile in the matter?