TURMEL: Crown Arguments to strike Apple-Orange actions JCT: Case Management Judge Aylen allowed the Crown to file an incomplete Motion Record of only the Notice and Affidavit without the Memorandum of Written Representations and offered to waste 4 extra weeks of time on affidavits. I cut that down by stating I wouldn't have any affidavits so the clock started on the 2-week second part of the Crown Motion Record right way. So June 7 today was the date when they had to file the remainder of the motion record that was allowed to be filed incomplete. As I suspected, my appeal of the Order allowing them until June 7 has now been mooted. I'd asked that they be ordered to complete it forthwith. In the Ethier appeal, he completed his appeal Reply on May 3 and had his decision 4 days later on May 7. Here I filed my appeal Reply on May 28 and 10 days later, still no decision from the judge so now now it's too late. So here's their case as to why you don't have any cause to be angry about lockdowns based on a statistical Apple-Orange comparison hoax. Remember, I've got 15 days to respond with 15 days worth or more dead people. So I'd rather respond quickly. Like when I alerted them I would not be filing any affidavit on their motion on the day after they filed to save 4 weeks of deaths the judge had offered to let me spend. So this will be the draft of my Motion Record in Response. http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19cnmba.pdf is the Book of Authorities if you want to dig deeper. File No.: T-130-21 FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: JOHN TURMEL Plaintiff (Responding Party) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant (Moving Party) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT (Motion to Strike or for Security For Costs) OVERVIEW PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS A. The Claim B. Existing Costs Awards Against The Plaintiff PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE PART III - SUBMISSIONS PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT PART V - Authorities Cited CR: A. The Court Should Strike The Claim Without Leave To Amend 1) No Jurisdiction To Grant Relief In Relation To Provincial COVID-19 Measures 2) The Claim Discloses No Reasonable Cause of Action 3) The Claim Is Scandalous, Frivolous, and Vexatious 4) Leave To Amend Should Be Refused B. If The Claim Is Not Struck, The Plantiff Should Be Ordered To Provide Security For Costs JCT: They suckered the judge into appointing me Lead Plaintiff so they could object to me. Remember in her Para.9 of her April 8 2021 decision: 9. The Court noted that.. none of the plaintiffs disputed the John Turmel Claim's suitability as a lead claim. JCT: In the Ethier appeal filed today, it was pointed out that as the judge canvassed objections to Turmel as Lead Plaintiff, Crown supported the suitability while not telling the Court they were going to be disputing Turmel's suitability due to owed costs from past actions. You have to wonder what they hope to do by disqualifying me? Get someone else appointed Lead Plaintiff, get another couple of months of lockdown to their credit? Remember, Wong and Aylen know that the lockdown is based on the Apple Orange comparison to exaggerate the threat by a hundredfold. They know that no asymptomatic transmission has been found. And they're going to be blamed for very kid who committed suicide and old-ager who died lonely with any family since March when it could have been decided. As a matter of fact, everyone will someday be faced with the question of when they found out that we had been Apple- Oranged and what they did or didn't do once they found out. Did they complain about all the needless deaths? or did they do nothing? or did they work to prolong the lockdown? CR: OVERVIEW 1. The plaintiff alleges that the federal Government's COVID-19 mitigation measures infringe several of his Charter rights, but has failed to identify a federal measure that has personally affected him. JCT: I claimed all of them affected me but they need to know which of all of them. CR: This claim should be struck without leave to amend for want of jurisdiction, JCT: So the Federal Court has no jurisdiction over the Federal Government. That's news to me. CR: failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, JCT: Dead relatives from lockdown based on false info is no cause of anger to seek remedy. CR: and being scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious. JCT: How scandalous, frivolous and vexatious to be complaining about all our dead relatives and friends and the inconveniences we are suffering. CR: 2. The majority of the measures identified in the claim are provincial measures. JCT: I thought he said we had not idenfitied any of all the measures, now they're provincial. Doesn't matter who made up the restrictions, if the Feds are banned from locking down, so will be the provinces. CR: To the extent that federal measures are engaged, the plaintiff has also failed to plead material facts concerning his personal circumstances or to explain how his Charter rights are engaged. JCT: Needs to have the sufferings explained better. "I don't see" is their whole case. CR: Instead of pleading material facts, the claim is replete with irrelevant and incomprehensible statements. JCT: All the math showing the fraudulent stats are irrelevant and incomprehensible statements. Remember, lawyers are the sharp kids who were no good in math. Bottom of the math barrel. In lawying, logic is not necessary. So lawyers not understanding math is nothing special. CR: as well as spurious, extreme and scandalous allegations JCT: He says our statements are spurious. That can be said about almost any other statements than mathematical ones. And only lawyers could call math evidence "extreme and scandalous." Sure, killing killing people based on a hoax is extreme and scandalous but it is truth. CR: 3. If the claim is not struck without leave to amend, the plaintiff should be required to pay security for costs. JCT: So they want to start all over again with a new Lead Plaintiff who doesn't owe costs? Just another four months of extra deaths! CR: Canada has six costs awards against the plaintiff that remain unpaid. Canada has a prima facie right to security for costs in these circumstances, and the plaintiff has not shown that the Court should exercise discretion not to award security in this case. JCT: Imagine, not having paid past costs is their only card. We should start all over with someone else while people are dying. Shysters will say anything. Who thinks they've contemplated what's going to happen if they manage to suppress the true stats from the courts for another few months of blood on their hands. Of course, I don't expect they understand what they have done. But they will someday have to answer when they found out it was a statistical hoax killing people and why they tried to keep it going. Har har har. I love watching shysters and judges kill people knowing they'll someday they'll have to explain why! "I didn't see" won't cut it. It was their job to see. CR: PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS A. THE CLAIM 4. This claim is one of more than 60 virtually identical claims that purport to seek relief related to the Government of Canada's COVID-19 mitigation measures. The claim seeks: (a) a declaration that the federal government's COVID-19 mitigation measures infringe sections 2(c) and (d), 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") and are not saved by section 1 of the Charter; (b) an order pursuant to subsection 24(1) of the Charter prohibiting any COVID restriction measures "that are not imposed on the deadlier Flu"; (c) a permanent constitutional exemption from any such measures; and (d) an order for "unspecified damages for pain and losses incurred" as a result of stress, damaged personal connections, inconvenience and time lost in line-ups, and higher prices.1 5. The claim alleges that the World Health Organization is exaggerating COVID-19 fatality rates, and that only 1 in 230,000 Canadians have died of COVID-19.2 JCT: Notice we say 1/230,000 Canadians "not in long-term- care" have died. But dropping the "not in long-term-care" from the facts makes it false that 1/230,000 Canadians have died. 11,000 over 38,000,000 is only 1/3,454, not 230,000. So I'm wrong if you delete my qualifier. Shysters do that kind of stuff. It's called lawying. CR: It alleges that COVID-19 is a "man-made virus, albeit a very mild one," JCT: I don't allege C19 has HIV inserts in its genome, Nobel Prize winner discovering HIV Luc Montagnier does. CR: and that most COVID-19 deaths were in long-term care homes.3 JCT: CTV alleged that 98.5% were in long-term-care, not me. But if they want to argue CTV's numbers were wrong, sure, go ahead, give us the right numbers. CR: It alleges that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is rare, JCT: WHO said "very rare." "None documented" But if they want to cut out what I actually said and focus on what I did not say, I'm used to it. CR: and provides several paragraphs of statistics comparing COVID-19 mortality rates to those associated with the flu. JCT: COVID-19 mortality rates were compared to those associated with the flu to exaggerate the threat. So it's not me providing the stats comparing C19 to Flu, the world health authorities did. CR: 6. The claim alleges a "cover up" to "fudge the statistical Cases and Fatalities data."4 JCT: No, I never said they fudged the Cases and Fatalities. I said they fudged the hospitalized Case Fatality Rate (CFR) and out-of-hospital Infection Fatality Rate (IFR). But the fact they confuse Cases with Fatalities is telling. How to argue with someone who doesn't even get the basics of the issue? CR: It refers to alleged changes by the American Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to its death certificate guidelines, JCT: CDC upping Covid over lightning on death certificates on March 24 2020 is an alleged change? Lawying again. Of course all real changes can be called "alleged" even when true. CR: as well as an effort by the mainstream media to suppress "HydroxyChloroQuine HCQ" as an alternative to "a Bill Gates- funded Oxford Recovery HCQ test", which the claim alleges is "deliberate malevolence."5 JCT: Killing 32 times more patients with 9.6 grams overdoses compared to the successful 1-gram protocol used in France would qualify as "deliberate malevolence." Just not to someone with their eyes closed. CR: 7. The claim alleges that social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and Disqus, have "instituted draconian censorship policies,"6 and that doctors protesting COVID-19 measures are being "defamed by Big Brother at [the Associated Press] and Facebook."7 JCT: And he's going to show they did not? Har har har har har har. No, he's just going to say they did not, not show. CR: 8. The claim alleges that "Covid-Mitigation restrictions include lockdowns & curfews, quarantines, mandatory masks, mandatory social distancing, mandatory vaccine, mandatory immunity card for public services."8 JCT: I thought he said I had not specified which measures I wanted to strike down. That was then, this is now. CR: It alleges that "lockdown gain does not justify lockdown pain" and that lockdown measures are not supported by evidence, and have increased "suicides, murders, abuses, addictions, [and] truancy."9 JCT: That's the argument for other challengers to focus on. I focus on the Apple-Orange comparison not justifying lockdown pain! Never mentioned lockdown gain since I can't think of any with a hoax scamdemic. CR: 9. The claim alleges that COVID measures have resulted in line-ups at stores, higher prices, stress, neighbours "snitching" on neighbours, and lost friendships due to "accusations of deniers putting alarmists at risk from the invisible plague,"10 and that: Such restrictions on civil liberties to mitigate a sham- virus are an arbitrary, grossly disproportional, conscience-shocking violation of the Charter Section 2 right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association is gone, S.6 right to [m]obility, S.7 right to life, liberty and security, S.8 right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure, S.9 right to not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, S.12 right to not be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.11 JCT: Does he think repeating my points is discounting them? All he does is call every fact an allegation. CR: 10. The claim specifically refers to the Ontario government's declaration of an emergency and "Stay-At-Home" order enacted under s 7.0.1(1) of the provincial Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, and alleges that Ontario has closed schools despite only one COVID-19 death among children under 20 between January 15 and July 13, 2020.12 JCT: I allege 1 Ontario under-20 died. And he gets to prove my allegation isn't true. Who thinks he will or who thinks he's just going to forget to finish his point. CR: 11. The claim refers to a statement by the Prime Minister describing the requirements for international travellers arriving by air to produce a negative COVID-19 test before entering Canada, for all travellers to quarantine upon entering Canada, and the potential for "fines and prison time" for not following these requirements.13 It alleges that "The Prime Minister and his Government have been duped," and that "Restrictions on civil liberties are not warranted for a Covid threat if they are not warranted for the tenfold deadlier Flu threat."14 JCT: Getting tricked by an Apple Orange comparison is being duped but he may want to show it's something else. CR: 12. The claim asks the rhetorical question "Who benefits?," and alleges that "Personal Protection Equipment producers, Skip-the-Dishes delivery come to mind but vaccine companies seem to have most to gain by an exaggerated scamdemic."15 JCT: All I did was point out who was happy with lockdown. CR: 13. The claim alleges that the vaccine promotion is a "scam", and that some would prefer alternatives including "drinking the waters of your own cistern", vitamins, and supplements.16 JCT: If the virus is a hoax, then vaccines to deal with the hoax are a scam too. And censoring alternatives is part of it. CR: 14. The claim also alleges that the government owes Canadians $2 trillion in compensation, which it could pay by borrowing "new interest-free credits from the Bank of Canada."17 JCT: I didn't say we were owed $2 trillion. I pointed out Canada paid $2 trillion in interest over 45 years so they could pay $2 trillion in damages for being duped over 45 years too. The $2 trillion came from past results, not my estimate of requested damages. The final number could be more, it could be less. CR: B. EXISTING COSTS AWARDS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF JCT: Appointing me Lead Plaintiff was to make it easier on the Crown. Without me, whom will they make Lead Plaintiff? Everyone else is stayed. Surely they don't hope getting mine dismissed for security will get everyone else who doesn't owe cost awards dismissed too? CR: 15. The Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada have previously ordered the plaintiff to pay Canada's costs in six separate proceedings, totalling $11,840.59:18 (a) FC File No.: T-488-14: the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff's motion to lift the stay of his Charter challenge to Canada's medical cannabis regulations, with costs of $250;19 (b) FCA File No.: A-342-14: the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff's appeal of a Federal Court decision staying his challenge to Canada's medical cannabis regulations, with costs of $3,350;20 (c) SCC File No.: 36937: the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision in A-342-14, with costs that were later assessed at $807.86;21 (d) FC File No.: T-561-15: the Federal Court dismissed the plaintiff's constitutional challenge to the Canada Elections Act, and granted summary judgment in favour of Canada, with costs of $6,105.03. An appeal of this decision was later dismissed for delay in Federal Court of Appeal File No. A- 202-16;22 (e) SCC File No.: 37647: the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the plaintiff's application for leave to appeal the Federal Court of Appeal decision in A-202-16, with costs that were later assessed at $877.70;23 (f) FC File No.: T-1932-18: the plaintiff discontinued his Charter challenge to Canada's medical cannabis regulations. Costs of the discontinued action were subsequently assessed at $450.24 JCT: Nothing before 2014. I'm sure I didn't pay them before then either. CR: 16. These cost awards remain unpaid, and the total outstanding, including post-judgment interest is currently $13,003.39.25 PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE 17. The issues in this motion are: (a) Should the claim be struck, without leave to amend? (b) If the claim is not struck without leave to amend, should the plaintiff be ordered to provide security for costs? JCT: Can't wait to find out how they want to proceed without me as Lead. I guess they'll deal with that once I'm gone. CR: PART III - SUBMISSIONS A. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE THE CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 1) No Jurisdiction To Grant Relief In Relation To Provincial COVID-19 Measures JCT: We're not stressing provincial measures, they are. We're only focused on Federal measures expecting the lesser jurisdictions to follow once the hoax is established. CR: 18. Of the COVID-19 measures specifically identified in the claim, only the pre-flight testing requirement for travellers entering Canada by air and 14-day quarantine requirement for all international travellers are federal measures.26 JCT: Getting them struck down because the threat is a hoax is important because if the threat is proven a hoax, then none of the other measures are warranted either. CR: While this Federal Court has clear jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of these measures, as detailed below, the claim does not contain facts capable of establishing that these measures infringe the plaintiff's Charter rights. JCT: The argument isn't that the measures infringe my rights, it's that the measures based on a false premise infringe my rights. I could take the infringement if they weren't lying about the premise. CR: 19. However, this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of the other measures specifically identified in the claim. This includes Ontario's "Stay-At- Home" and school-closure orders,27 which are provincial and clearly beyond this Court's jurisdiction.28 JCT: Okay, if we prove the threat is an exaggerated hoax, Ontario may still keep its "Stay-At-Home" and school-closure orders which are provincial and clearly beyond this Court's jurisdiction. Not without a lot of yelling. CR: The claim also refers generally to "lockdowns & curfews, quarantines, mandatory masks, mandatory social distancing, mandatory vaccine, mandatory immunity card for public services."29 Although the claim does not identify any specific measures matching some of these descriptions, insofar as these measures exist for the general public - for example, the requirement to wear mask in retail settings in Ontario,30 or Quebec's former curfew requirement31 - they are also provincial or municipal measures and are similarly beyond this Court's jurisdiction.32 JCT: Sure, if they want to keep them once it's proven they're not needed, it's beyond this Court's jurisdiction. CR: 2) The Claim Discloses No Reasonable Cause of Action JCT: Lockdown measures based on a hoax disclose no reasonable Cause of Anger? CR: 20. It is fundamental to the trial process that a plaintiff plead material facts in sufficient detail to support the claim and relief sought.33 A statement of claim must tell the defendant who, when, where, how and what gave rise to liability, and plead the constituent elements of each cause of action.34 A claim that fails to plead the necessary material facts will be struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.35 21. As noted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Mancuso, courts and opposing parties cannot be left to speculate as to how facts might be arranged to support a cause of action.36 It is "fundamental to the trial process that a plaintiff plead material facts in sufficient detail to support the claim and relief sought", in order to enable issues and relevant evidence to be identified and enable the defendant to respond to the allegations.37 22. The importance of material facts is heightened in Charter cases. The Supreme Court of Canada has cautioned that Charter decisions must not be made in a factual vacuum and that the pleading of sufficient material facts is essential to a proper and contextual consideration of the Charter issues.38 It is "essential to the proper presentation of Charter issues" that a plaintiff plead sufficient material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to each alleged Charter infringement as defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in its case law.39 JCT: This is standard gibberish to say that there aren't enough necessary facts before those with their eyes closed say they don't see enough. CR:23. Courts have also emphasized the importance of the individual plaintiff's circumstances in Charter cases. JCT: I may not exemplify all the woes cited but I'd bet some of the other 76 plaintiffs whose actions are stayed do. CR: Plaintiffs cannot rely on facts applicable to other individuals to support an alleged infringement of their individual Charter rights, and it is instead incumbent on the plaintiff to demonstrate that the elements of each alleged Charter infringement are met in their individual circumstances.40 JCT: The law infringes everyone but they want to know how it infringes me in particular. That's why they don't want us all together and got us split apart. CR: 24. Finally, while courts must generally accept the facts pleaded as true for the purposes of a motion to strike, they are not required to accept speculation, bald allegations or conclusory statements of law dressed up as facts.41 JCT: Agreed. I hope he can show some speculation, bald allegations or conclusory statements of law dressed up as facts. But they never do. It's just a standard beef. CR: Rule 181 requires particularization of every allegation, especially for allegations of malice or fraudulent intention.42 Plaintiffs are also not permitted to make broad allegations in hopes of later discovering facts to support them or to file inadequate pleadings and rely on the defendant to request particulars.43 JCT: Agreed if I made broad allegations in hopes of later discovering facts to support them or to file inadequate pleadings and rely on the defendant to request particulars. Give us an example... Har har har. CR: 25. The claim fails to meet these basic requirements of pleadings. JCT: Okay, don't need any examples, stating it is enough. CR: While it alleges that COVID-19 measures have resulted in harms such as "suicides, murders, abuses, addictions, [and] truancy," "stress from the distress shown by many," and "neighbours snitching on neighbours," it provides no material facts that establish a link between COVID-19 measures and the harms alleged, nor does it allege that the plaintiff has personally suffered these harms.44 JCT: He needs a link established between COVID-19 measures and "suicides, murders, abuses, addictions, [and] truancy," "stress from the distress shown by many," and "neighbours snitching on neighbours." He hasn't looked around. Besides, he has his eyes closed. CR: 26. To the extent that the plaintiff is alleging that COVID-19 measures have infringed the rights of others, he also does not meet any of the requirements for public- interest standing. JCT: I'm not victim enough but our group is. Doesn't matter, I'm objecting to the fraud on all, not the effects of the fraud on me. Are his reasons good enough to let the lockdown killings continue? CR: In deciding whether to grant public-interest standing, the Supreme Court of Canada has held that courts should have regard to (1) whether the claim raises a serious justiciable issue, JCT: Should the lockdown deaths continue? CR: (2) whether the plaintiff has a genuine interest in the outcome, and JCT: Do I have an interest in seeing the deaths stop? CR: (3) whether the proceeding is a reasonable and effective way to bring the issue before the courts.45 JCT: Is there another way? CR: The plaintiff does not meet any of these requirements, and with respect to the third factor in particular, there is no reason why the Charter issues cannot instead be raised instead by an individual personally suffering from the harms alleged. JCT: I'm not here complaining about suffering from the harms alleged, I'm here complaining about the lies causing the suffering from the harms alleged. And some of the others may have suffered the woes claimed but they've been stayed. CR: 27. As detailed below, the claim also does not contain material facts to satisfy the essential elements of any of the specific Charter infringements alleged. JCT: Everyone's rights are infringed except mine? CR: 28. Freedom of peaceful assembly (Charter s 2(c)): The claim does not identify a federal measure that has directly prevented the plaintiff from peacefully assembling with others.46 JCT: I have to show how lockdown prevents me from peacefully assembling. Is my $880 ticket for attending the peaceful April 3 2021 Brantford anti-lockdown protest assembly preventing me from peacefully assembling? CR: 29. Freedom of association (Charter s 2(d)): The claim does not identify a federal measure that has directly prevented the plaintiff from joining with others to form associations, pursue other constitutional rights, or meet on more equal terms the power and strength of other groups or entities.47 JCT: Preventing me from attending protests might. CR: 30. Mobility rights (Charter s 6): The claim does not allege that the plaintiff has been personally prevented from entering, remaining in, or leaving Canada, or from moving to or working in another Canadian province.48 JCT: No, it just threatens me with punishment if I go to the wrong place. If I don't pay my fine, they can suspend my driver's license which may impact my mobility. CR: Although the claim refers to the federal pre-flight testing and 14-day quarantine requirements which have applied to travellers entering Canada since at least January 2021, the plaintiff does not allege that he has travelled internationally during this time or that he plans to do so anytime in the near future.49 JCT: Spend all the time he wants on how the lockdown based on fraud affects me and I'll spend time on whether the effects are justified or not. CR: 31. Right to life, liberty and security of the person (Charter s 7): The claim does not put forward any facts capable of demonstrating that any federal measures deprive the plaintiff of life, liberty, or security of the person, or that any such deprivation is inconsistent with the principles of fundamental justice.50 JCT: If I don't pay my fine, suspending my driver's license may impact my security of the person. CR: 32. For the purposes of the present motion, Canada accepts that the requirement to quarantine for 14 days after returning to Canada from an international destination engages an individual's liberty interests. However, as noted above, the claim does not allege that the plaintiff has travelled internationally during this time or that he plans to do so anytime in the near future.51 JCT: My mobility right hasn't been impacted yet because I haven't travelled. So the fact liberty interests of others are threatened by the fraudulent stats backing the lockdown shouldn't matter? CR: 33. While the claim also broadly alleges that COVID-19 measures have caused stress and seeks damages in relation to this stress,52 it provides no material facts concerning the psychological impact of COVID-19 measures on the plaintiff personally, let alone facts sufficient to show a "serious and profound effect" on his psychological integrity, which would be required to engage security of the person.53 JCT: Lucky there are 76 other plaintiffs who can provide material facts concerning the psychological impact of COVID- 19 measures on the plaintiffs personally. That's why they don't want them all involved, easier to throw me out if I'm alone. CR: 34. Unreasonable search and seizure (Charter s 8): The claim does not identify any federal measures that authorize a search or seizure, and does not allege that the plaintiff has been personally subject to such a search or seizure.54 JCT: Wonder if any of the other 76 claims do? CR: 35. Arbitrary detention or imprisonment (Charter s 9): The claim does not allege that the plaintiff has been detained or imprisoned pursuant to any federal measures.55 The Supreme Court of Canada has held that not every interaction with the state will amount to the detention, and that a detention requires "significant physical or psychological restraint."56 Although the claim refers to the quarantine requirement applicable to international travellers arriving in Canada, it does not allege or contain facts capable of establishing that this requirement constitutes such a restraint, or that the plaintiff has been personally affected by it. JCT: None of the 77 plaintiffs? CR: Furthermore, in Canadian Constitutional Foundation et al v Attorney General of Canada [CCF], the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently held that "the claim that quarantine is arbitrary detention is frivolous" when denying a motion for an interlocutory injunction against mandatory hotel quarantine measures.57 JCT: Some judge found complaining about lockdown frivolous? Yes. CR: 36. Cruel and unusual punishment (Charter s 12): The claim does not contain any facts capable of demonstrating punishment or treatment that is grossly disproportionate in the sense that it outrages standards of decency and is abhorrent or intolerable to society.58 Indeed, in CCF, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice also held that "the claim that quarantine. is cruel and unusual punishment is frivolous."59 JCT: Don't tens of thousands of protestors in the streets demonstrate that lockdowns outrage standards of decency and are abhorrent or intolerable to society. CR: 37. Instead of the material facts to support the causes of action alleged, the claim contains an array of bald and irrelevant assertions, opinions, and conclusions. JCT: Lack of facts is repeated though not once backed up. CR: Absent these material facts, it is plain and obvious that the claim cannot succeed. Accordingly, the Court should find that the claim fails to disclose a reasonable cause of action. JCT: Calling our facts "irrelevant assertions, opinions, and conclusions" without specifying how and the concluding that there are no material facts. Just notice he hasn't contradicted one fact yet. No contradiction that the threat was Apple Oranged a hundredfold. That no evidence of symptomless spread has been been found. All he'd have to do is show some to prove my bald allegation wrong. Can't show that CTV took down the 166 deaths not in long-term-care. Didn't show that the March 24 2020 CDC guideline change didn't happen. Didn't show that the PCR tests weren't showing false positives. So much of what we've shown is labelled "irrelevant assertions, opinions, and conclusions" but not once shown to be wrong. 3) The Claim Is Scandalous, Frivolous, and Vexatious 38. A claim will be struck for being scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious if it: (a) is so deficient in relevant material facts that the defendant cannot know how to answer;60 JCT: Here they confuse not knowing how to answer with not having sufficient facts. If they have no answer, how can there be enough facts for them to find one? CR: (b) includes statements that are irrelevant, incomprehensible, and inserted for colour;61 JCT: We're still waiting to find out which statements are irrelevant, incomprehensible, and inserted for colour, repeating there's nothing to see with his eyes closed. CR: (c) is replete with extreme and scandalous allegations that are unsubstantiated;62 or JCT: Still hasn't shown any yet. CR: (d) is overly-long, unwieldy and repetitive.63 JCT: Imagine accusing the master of KISS (Keep It Super Simple) of being overly-long, unwieldy and repetitive. I take pride in being short, apt and terse. CR: 39. Prolixity, repetition and the bare pleading of a series of events are not substitutes for the requirement to plead material facts so that a defendant can understand and defend the allegations.64 Although the claim is 43 pages, it is almost entirely devoid of material facts concerning either the measures being challenged or how the plaintiff is personally affected by these measures.65 JCT: He can repeat "I don't see" a million times with his eyes closed. Lucky, he can't explain what he does not see that I see. Lawying. CR: 40. Instead of providing material facts, the claim is replete with irrelevant and incomprehensible statements as well as spurious, extreme and scandalous allegations. JCT: Still hasn't given one example. And who's repetitive? CR: For example, the claim includes: (a) lengthy allegations against third parties such as the World Health Organization, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Facebook, Youtube, and the Province of Ontario;66 JCT: Too bad he can't quote any. (b) references to COVID-19 as a "sham-virus," "Shamdemic," "exaggerated plague" and "scamdemic;"67 JCT: Too bad he can't show how they don't apply to a hoax. CR: (c) allegations such as "The only way to cover up when deaths do not match exaggerated expectations is to fudge the statistical Cases and Fatalities data," "the Prime Minister and his Government have been duped" and "It's the same persuasion technique as Global Warming;"68 and (d) lengthy diatribes, such as "What kind of evil cabal would use global media and medical establishments to hype a mini-virus a hundredfold with an Apple-Orange comparison into an imaginary plague to convince a gullible world into shutting down life-support systems and imposing famine on a quarter billion people and innumerable woes on many hundreds of millions more? Why condemn so many to death on a cross of hype? Qui bono? Who benefits? Personal Protection Equipment producers, Skip-the-Dishes delivery come to mind but vaccine companies seem to have most to gain by an exaggerated scamdemic."69 JCT: He just thinks all the deaths are necessary. CR: 41. Contrary to the rules of pleading, the claim is "unwieldy and non-compliant," and utterly fails to set out a concise statement of material facts in support of the plaintiff's causes of action.70 Accordingly, the Court should find that the claim is scandalous, vexatious, and frivolous. JCT: Just because the slows can't see doesn't mean the quicks haven't too. CR: 4) Leave To Amend Should Be Refused 42. This claim should be struck without leave to amend. The Federal Courts have previously struck several claims filed either by the plaintiff or by others relying on his litigation "kits," on the grounds that the claims failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action or were scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.71 The present claim suggests the plaintiff has not heeded the Court's guidance in those decisions concerning the elements of proper pleading and that the defects in the present claim would not be remedied by further amendments.72 JCT: If only he could give one example where such a Court was right. And all those decision were appealed all the way to other judges with the same difficulty keeping their eyes open. At least they're all on record, for now. B. IF THE CLAIM IS NOT STRUCK, THE PLANTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR COSTS JCT: And replaced with a plaintiff without such costs. CR: 43. If the claim is not struck in its entirety without leave to amend, Canada requests that the plaintiff be ordered to provide security for costs prior to taking any further steps in this action. Canada also requests that security be fixed at $11,350.00, which reflects Canada's anticipated costs and disbursements of this action should it proceed.73 44. Pursuant to Rule 416(1)(f) of the Federal Courts Rules, the Court may order the plaintiff to provide security for the defendant's costs where the defendant has a costs order against the plaintiff that remains unpaid.74 45. Canada has six unpaid costs orders against the plaintiff totalling $13,003.39, including post-judgment interest.75 On this basis, Canada has a prima facie right to security for costs and the only remaining question is whether the Court should exercise its discretion under Rule 417 to refuse security.76 46. Rule 417 provides that the Court may refuse to order security for costs if a plaintiff demonstrates impecuniosity and the Court is of the opinion that the case has merit. Neither requirement is met in this case. JCT: Though not one point made has been shown to be wrong.. CR: 47. The Federal Court of Appeal has distinguished impecuniosity from merely having insufficient assets.77 The onus is on the plaintiff seeking to establish impecuniosity to demonstrate not only that the plaintiff's own assets are insufficient, but also that the plaintiff is unable to raise the money elsewhere, such as by borrowing from family or others.78 The impracticality of accessing money from other sources must be supported by material evidence and established by the plaintiff with robust particularity.79 48. In the present case, the plaintiff has provided no evidence whatsoever concerning his financial circumstances, let alone evidence sufficient to establish that he cannot pay the outstanding costs awards or borrow or access funds from another source. He accordingly has not established that he is impecunious. JCT: Far better to name a new Lead Plaintiff.. CR: 49. With respect to merit, Canada also relies on its submissions in the paragraphs above that the Court lacks jurisdiction over most of the measures identified, and that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, and is scandalous, vexatious, and frivolous. There is accordingly no reason for the Court to refuse security for costs in this case. JCT: Such prolixity! CR: PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT 50. For these reasons, Canada requests an Order: (a) striking the claim without leave to amend; or (b) in the alternative, an order requiring the plaintiff to provide security for costs in the amount of $11,350, and not take any further steps in the action until security for costs is provided; (c) the costs of this motion and of the action, fixed at $1,000; and (d) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may allow. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Dated at Toronto this June 7, 2021. Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Ontario Regional Office Per: Benjamin Wong Counsel for the Defendantt TO: The Administrator Federal Court of Canada AND TO: John C. Turmel Plaintiff, self represented PART V - AUTHORITIES CITED 1 Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44 2 Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 3 Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 4 Canada v Harris, 2020 FCA 124 5 Canada v Mozajko, 2021 FCA 25 6 Canadian Constitution Foundation v Attorney General of Canada~ 2021 ONSC 2117 7 Divito v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47 8 Feeney v R, 2020 CarswellNat 4891 9 Harris v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 232 10 Heli Tech Services (Canada) Ltd v Weyerhaeuser Company, 2006 FC 1169 11 John C Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen, 2016 FCA 9 12 John Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen, 2016 FC 532 13 Kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 14 Lessard-Gauvin v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 418 15 MacKay v Manitoba, [1989] 2 SCR 357 16 Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 17 Mapara v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 305 18 Merchant Law Group v Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 FCA 184 19 Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1 20 Operation Dismantle Inc v Canada, [1985] 1 SCR 441 21 Order of the Court dated April 26, 2021 in Duncan Paterson v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-263-21) 20 Operation Dismantle Inc v. Canada ]1985] 1 SCR 441 21 Order of the Court dated April 26 2021 in Duncan Paterson v. HMTQ T-263-21 22 Order of the Court dated November 6, 2015, in John C Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-488-14) 23 Order of the Court dated October 11, 2016, in Macdonald et al v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-1113-16) 24 Order the Court dated October 11, 2016 in Hathaway v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-983-16) 25 Order of the Federal Court of Appeal in John Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: A-202-16) 26 R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 27 R v Le, 2019 SCC 34 28 R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13 29 R v Mennes, 2004 FC 1731 30 R v Tessling, 2004 SCC 67 31 R v Turmel, [2017] SCCA No 262 32 Reference re Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 52(1), 2017 FC 30 33 Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79 34 Roach v Canada, [1994] FCJ No 33 35 Sivak v Canada, 2012 FC 272 36 Spencer v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 361 37 Spottiswood v Her Majesty the Queen, 2019 FC 553 38 Toney v Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2013 FCA 217 39 Turmel v Canada, 2020 FC 537 40 Turmel v R, [2016] SCCA No 125 41 Wang v Canada, 2016 FC 1052 NOTES 1 Order of the Court dated April 26, 2021 in Duncan Paterson v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-263-21) at para 1, Canada's Book of Authorities [CBOA], Tab 30; Claim at paras 1, 130, Canada's Motion Record [CMR], Tab 2 at 5-6,47. 2 Claim at para 2, CMR, Tab 2 at 6. 3 Claim at paras 6-70, CMR, Tab 2 at 8-28. 4 Claim at paras 71-96, CMR, Tab 2 at 29-35. 5 Claim at paras 74-79, 87-96, CMR, Tab 2 at 29-31, 33-35. 6 Claim at paras 97-102, CMR, Tab 2 at 36-37. 7 Claim at paras 106-111, CMR, Tab 2 at 39-41. 8 Claim at paras 103-105, CMR, Tab 2 at 37-38. 9 Claim at para 103, CMR, Tab 2 at 37. 10 Claim at para 103, CMR, Tab 2 at 37. 11 Claim at para 104, CMR, Tab 2 at 38. 75 12 Claim at paras 112-113, CMR, Tab 2 at 41- 42; Emergency Management and Civil Protection Act, RSO 1990 c E.9, s 7.0.1(1), CBOA, Tab 3; Declaration of Emergency, O Reg 7/21, CBOA, Tab 2; Stay-At-Home Order, O Reg 11/21, Schedule 1, s 1(1) [Ontario Stay-At-Home Order], CBOA, Tab 9; Rules For Areas In Stage 1, O Reg 82/20, Schedule 3, s 3(1) (January 15, 2021) [Ontario Stage 1 OIC], CBOA, Tab 8. 13 Claim at para 114, CMR, Tab 2 at 42. 14 Claim at paras 117-118, CMR, Tab 2 at 43. 15 Claim at paras 119-120, CMR, Tab 2 at 43- 44. 16 Claim at paras 121-127, CMR, Tab 2 at 44- 46. 76 17 Claim at paras 128-129, CMR, Tab 2 at 46. 18 Affidavit of Deborah Telesford affirmed May 20, 2021 at para 2 [Telesford Affidavit], CMR, Tab 3 at 50. 19 Order of the Court dated November 6, 2015, in John C Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-488-14). 20 John C Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen, 2016 FCA 9 at paras 5-7, 27, CBOA, Tab 20. 21 Turmel v R, [2016] SCCA No 125, CBOA, Tab 49. 22 John Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen, 2016 FC 532 at paras 1, 13-17, CBOA, Tab 21; Order of the Federal Court of Appeal in John Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: A- 202-16), CBOA, Tab 34. 77 23 R v Turmel, [2017] SCCA No 262, CBOA, Tab 40. 24 Turmel v Canada, 2020 FC 537 at para 1, CBOA, Tab 48. 25 Telesford Affidavit at paras 2-3, CMR, Tab 3 at 50-51. 78 26 Claim at para 114, CMR, Tab 2 at 42; Minimizing the Risk of Exposure to COVID-19 in Canada Order (Quarantine, Isolation and Other Obligations), OIC 2021-0001, ss 1.1(3), 3 [Quarantine Act OIC], CBOA, Tab 6; Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 18, s 35(1) [Transport Canada Interim Order], CBOA, Tab 5. 27 Claim at paras 112-13, CMR, Tab 2 at 41-42; Ontario Stay- At-Home Order, Schedule 1, s 1(1), CBOA, Tab 9; Ontario Stage 1 OIC, Schedule 3, s 3(1), CBOA, Tab 8. 28 Lessard-Gauvin v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FC 418 at para 20 [Lessard-Gauvin], CBOA, Tab 23; Toney v Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2013 FCA 217 at para 10, CBOA, Tab 47; Feeney v R, 2020 CarswellNat 4891 at paras 16, 17, 23, CBOA, Tab 17. 29 Claim at para 103, CMR, Tab 2 at 37. 79 30 Ontario Stage 1 OIC, Schedule 3, s 3.1, CBOA, Tab 8. 31 Ordering of measures to protect the health of the population amid the COVID-19 pandemic situation, OIC 2-2021, CBOA, Tab 7. 32 While the federal government has adopted targeted COVID- 19 mitigation measures in specific contexts, such as medical isolation measures for inmates in federal correctional institutions (Commissioner's Directive 822: Medical Isolation and Modified Routine for COVID-19), the plaintiff does not suggest that he is personally affected by any of these measures and the claim does not appear to challenge them, CBOA, Tab 1. 33 Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 at para 16 [Mancuso], CBOA, Tab 25. 34 Mancuso at paras 16 to 21, CBOA, Tab 25. 35 Mancuso at para 27, CBOA, Tab 25. 36 Mancuso at para 16, CBOA, Tab 25. 37 Mancuso at paras 16 and 17, CBOA, Tab 25. 80 38 Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79 at para 51, CBOA, Tab 42; Mancuso at para 32, CBOA, Tab 25. 39 Mancuso at para 21, CBOA, Tab 25; MacKay v Manitoba, [1989] 2 SCR 357 at para 9, CBOA, Tab 24. 40 Harris v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 232 at para 22 [Harris 2019], CBOA, Tab 18. 41 Operation Dismantle Inc v Canada, [1985] 1 SCR 441 at paras 27, 29, CBOA, Tab 29; Mancuso at para 17, CBOA, Tab 25; Sivak v Canada, 2012 FC 272 at para 91, CBOA, Tab 44. 42 Merchant Law Group v Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 FCA 184 at para 35 [Merchant], CBOA, Tab 27. 81 43 Mancuso at para 20, CBOA, Tab 25. 44 Claim at para 103, CMR, Tab 2 at 37. 45 Canada (Attorney General) v Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45 at paras 2, 37, CBOA, Tab 12. 82 46 Roach v Canada, [1994] FCJ No 33 at para 51, CBOA, Tab 43. 47 Mounted Police Association of Ontario v Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 1 at para 66, CBOA, Tab 28. 48 Divito v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47 at para 17, CBOA, Tab 16. 49 Claim at paras 114-115, CMR, Tab 2 at 42. 50 Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 at paras 57-58, CBOA, Tab 11. 83 51 Canadian Constitution Foundation v Attorney General of Canada~ 2021 ONSC 2117 at para 18 [CCF], CBOA, Tab 15; see also Spencer v Canada (Attorney General), 2021 FC 361 at para 61, CBOA, Tab 45. 52 Claim at paras 103, 130, CMR, Tab 2 at 37, 47. 53 Blencoe v British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44 at paras 81-82, CBOA, Tab 10. 54 R v Tessling, 2004 SCC 67 at para 18, CBOA, Tab 39. 55 R v Grant, 2009 SCC 32 at paras 44, 54-55, CBOA, Tab 35. 56 R v Le, 2019 SCC 34 at para 27, CBOA, Tab 36. 84 57 CCF at para 39, CBOA, Tab 15. 58 R v Lloyd, 2016 SCC 13 at para 24, CBOA, Tab 37. 59 CCF at para 39, CBOA, Tab 15 60 Mancuso at para 17, CBOA, Tab 25. 85 61 Reference re Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 52(1), 2017 FC 30 at paras 40-41 [Turmel Kit Reference], CBOA, Tab 41. 62 R v Mennes, 2004 FC 1731 at para 78, CBOA, Tab 38. 63 Wang v Canada, 2016 FC 1052 at para 31 [Wang], CBOA, Tab 50. 64 Wang at para 31, CBOA, Tab 50. 65 Kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 at para 8, CBOA, Tab 22. 66 See for example, Claim at paras 6, 37, 56, 96-98, 112- 113, CMR, Tab 2 at 8, 15, 23, 35-38, 41-42. 67 Claim at para 71, 104, 106, 111, 120, CMR, Tab 2 at 29, 38, 39, 41, 43-44. 86 68 Claim at para 70, CMR, Tab 2 at 28. 69 Claim at paras 37, 120, CMR, Tab 2 at 15-16, 43-44. 70 Mancuso at para 12, CBOA, Tab 25. 71 Turmel Kit Reference at paras 4, 12, 38-41, 44 (striking 316 claims, including the plaintiff's claim with Court File No.: T-488-14), CBOA, Tab 41; Order the Court dated October 11, 2016 in Hathaway v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-983-16), CBOA, Tab 33; Order of the Court dated October 11, 2016, in Macdonald et al v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-1113-16), CBOA, Tab 32; Spottiswood v Her Majesty the Queen, 2019 FC 553 at paras 56-57, 96, CBOA, Tab 46; Harris 2019 at paras 3, 4, 19-20, 23-24, CBOA, Tab 18; Canada v Mozajko, 2021 FCA 25 at paras 2, 10, CBOA, Tab 14; Canada v Harris, 2020 FCA 124 at paras, 26-43, 50 [Harris 2020], CBOA, Tab 13. 87 72 Harris 2020 at para 47, CBOA, Tab 13. 73 Telesford Affidavit, Exhibit "G", CMR, Tab 3 at 67. 74 Rules, Rule 416(f), CBOA, Tab 4. 75 Telesford Affidavit at paras 2-3, Exhibits "A", "B", "C", "D", "E" and "F", CMR, Tab 3 at 53-66. 76 Mapara v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 305 at para 5, CBOA, Tab 26. 88 77 Heli Tech Services (Canada) Ltd v Weyerhaeuser Company, 2006 FC 1169, paras 6-8, CBOA, Tab 19; Mapara, paras 8, 13- 14, CBOA, Tab 26. 78 Mapara at paras 13-14, CBOA, Tab 26. 79 Mapara at paras 13-14, CBOA, Tab 26. 89 JCT: Wonder what he'll answer when he's asked why he worked to prolong lockdowns. Oh right, he had his eyes closed. So now I have 15 days to prepare a Motion Record in Response which will have only Written Representations in rebuttal. No go back and see how many times he said I was wrong without proving it once.