TURMEL: Crown 2.5-month timetable unacceptable too. JCT: The Crown dropped 10 days off their 3-month timetable after I told them I wanted it in 2 weeks: John C. Turmel, B.Eng., Tuesday May 4 2021 VIA EMAIl Benjamin Wong Department of Justice re: John Turmel v. HMTQ T-130-21 You propose a 77-day timeline of steps for your in writing S.369 motion to strike my claim: Canada's revised proposed schedule would be as follows: - Service and filing of Canada's Notice of Motion and Affidavits: 15 days from the date that the Court implements this schedule - Service and filing of the Plaintiff's Affidavits: 15 days from the date that Canada serves its Notice of Motion and Affidavits - Cross-examinations on affidavits: 10 days from the date that the Plaintiff serves his Affidavits - Service and filing of Canada's Motion Record: 15 days from the expiration of the time for cross-examinations, or, if the Plaintiff does not intend to serve an Affidavit or conduct cross-examinations, within 15 days of Canada being advised of this - Service and filing of the Plaintiff's Responding Record: 15 days from the date that Canada serves its Motion Record - Service and filing of Canada's Reply Submissions: 7 days from the date that the Plaintiff serves his Responding Record Your 77-day timelineis is just as unacceptable as your previous 87-day timeline when Rule 369 calls for my response in 10 days and your Reply in 4 days. Case Management Judge Prothonotary Aylen has asked for our submission on timetable by May 5. It is obvious that I want to follow the rules and you do not. Why would you abide by the S.369 rule on timetable for the Ethier appeal motion and not on this one? I suggest you submit your timetable and I'll submit mine and let the Prothonotary decide. Dated at Brantford on Sunday May 4 2021. _________________________ John C. Turmel Cc: benjamin.wong2@justice.gc.ca JCT: So I'll put in the timetable from the rules and she can choose to follow the rules or give him extra time.