TURMEL: Crown Factum of Aylen/Zinn Covid "no false alarm" appeal JCT: On Jan 19 2021, I filed an action to declare "any" restrictions to mitigate the Covid Mortality Hyped Hundredfold false alarm unconstitutional and seeking damages from lockdown. 75 others paid the $2 filing fee to file similar Statements of Claim that were stayed pending adjudication of mine when they can decide to quit or continue on their own. If I lose, I pay my costs and if they quit, they pay no costs since they didn't cause any work to the Crown. On July 12 2021, Prothonotary Mandy Aylen, now promoted to judge, struck it without leave to amend because there had to be a restriction on me and there wasn't yet. On Oct 18 2021, Justice Zinn dismissed my appeal. My goal is to get the pandemic declared a deliberate false alarm which would stop the panic immediately. It's an easy to explain false alarm by the comparison of the Covid "Case Fatality Rate" (CFR) Apple to the hundredfold too small Flu "Infection Fatality Rate" (IFR) Orange. Comparing the Covid mortality rate to the wrong Flu mortality rate exaggerated the Covid rate. So all the death and misery so far and upcoming could have been avoided if she had issued the declaration that any restrictions based on a false alarm is unconstitutional. Sure the Crown would appeal she can't do that, but a judge can do anything that is just. My appeal is that informing Canadians that the Covid pandemic is was a false alarm would have saved lives lost during continued lockdown and Vaccine Adverse Effects for many who would not have taken the jab if those judges had told them the threat was a false alarm. My memorandum is at http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19095.txt The Crown's Memorandum: Court File No.: A-286-21 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: JOHN C. TURMEL Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent RESPONDENT'S MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW CR: OVERVIEW 1. The Motion Judge did not err in affirming the Prothonotary's original order to strike the claim that forms the subject of this appeal. The Prothonotary identified the relevant legal principles concerning the elements of proper pleadings and the causes of actions alleged, and applied them to find that the appellant's claim failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process. On the appeal motion, the Motion Judge found no reviewable error in the Prothonotarys identification or application of these principles. The appellant has not established any error in either of these decisions that would warrant appellate intervention. Canada therefore requests that this appeal be dismissed with costs. PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS A. THE JOHN TURMEL CLAIM 2. The appellant's claim (the "john Turmel Claim") is one of more than 70 virtually identical claims in which the self- represented plaintiffs seek various forms of relief related to federal COVID-19 mitigation measures. JCT: Actually, only 2 forms of relief: 1) Declaration the threat is a false alarm, 2) Damages for our political leaders being suckered by an Apple Orange comparison. CR: The statements of claim in each action are based on a "kit" made available on the internet by Mr. Turmel, and seek: (a) a declaration that the federal government's COVID- 19 mitigation measures infringe subsections 2(c) and (d), 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") and are not justified under 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 personal 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 3. The Chief Justice of the Federal Court ordered that the claims be collectively case managed by Prothonotary Aylen (as she then was), who ordered that the other claims be stayed pending the final determination of the John Turmel Claim.2 4. The claims allege that the World Health Organization is exaggerating COVID-19 fatality rates, and that only 1 in 230,000 Canadians have died of COVID-19.3 The claims allege that COVID-19 is a "man-made virus, albeit a very mild one," and that most COVID-19 deaths were in long-term care homes.4 They allege that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is rare, and provides several paragraphs of statistics comparing COVID-19 mortality rates to those associated with the flu. 5. The claims allege a "cover up" to "fudge the statistical Cases and Fatalities data."5 They refer to alleged changes by the American Centres for Disease Control and Prevention to its death certificate guidelines, 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 claims allege is "deliberate malevolence."6 6. The claims allege that "Covid-Mitigation restrictions include lockdowns & curfews, quarantines, mandatory masks, mandatory social distancing, mandatory vaccine, [and] mandatory immunity card for public services."7 They allege 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."8 7. The claims allege 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,"9 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.10 8. The claims refer 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.11They allege 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."12 9. The claims ask the rhetorical question "Who benefits?," and allege 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."13 10. The claims allege that the vaccine promotion is a "scam", and that some would prefer alternatives including "drinking the waters of your own cistern", vitamins, and supplements.14 11. The claims also allege that the government owes Canadians $2 trillion in compensation, which it could pay by borrowing "new interest-free credits from the Bank of Canada."15 JCT: I didn't say it owes $2 trillion. I said that Pierre Trudeau changed the Bank Act to force federal and provincial governments to no longer access interest-free loans and instead fund government services with private bank borrowings at interest. Over the past almost 50 years, over $2 trillion was collected in taxes. So if they could collect $2 trillion to waste it on interest, they can collect $2 trillion over the next 50 years to compensate the victims of their having fallen for the Apple Orange trick. I didn't estimate how much financial pain and only mentioned the $2 trillion as already having been collected to be wasted. CR: B. THE PROTHONOTARY STRIKES THE JOHN TURMEL CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 12. Canada filed a motion to strike the John Turmel Claim on the grounds that it failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of the Court's process.16 In the alternative, Canada's motion requested that the appellant be ordered to provide security for costs in light of Canada's numerous costs awards against him that remain unpaid.17 JCT: This year's Action T-277-22 seeks a declaration that the vaccine requirement for air travel violates my mobility right, using the same arguments as those of Brian Peckford's Judicial Review of the Minister's Interim Order. So now we do have a restriction and I don't need to mention that S.7 right to life, liberty, security is violated, I only need to get it known mobility right violated because of the false alarm. It's the false alarm I want to make known. CR: 13. On July 12, 2021, the Prothonotary granted Canada's motion (the "Prothonotary's Order").18 She found that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action as it contained "bare assertions of Charter breaches without sufficient material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to each of the Charter rights alleged to have been violated."19 JCT: Sounds like a pretty good reason for not letting Canadians know the reason for lockdowns and vaccines was a false alarm. No matter how many corpses until they find out. CR: She also noted that the claim contained no facts to indicate that the appellant was personally subjected to any federal COVID-19 mitigation measures, and that the appellant could not rely on facts applicable to other plaintiffs to support his Charter breach allegations.20 JCT: Now, it contains the same facts Brian Peckford is using to challenge the air travel restrictions. 14. The Prothonotary held that the statement of claim was an abuse of process as it "pleads bare assertions without the necessary material facts on which to base those assertions, such that the Defendant cannot know how to answer it, [and] is replete with lengthy diatribes and makes scandalous and extreme allegations that are unsubstantiated, such as alleged cover-ups and conspiracies."21 JCT: Pretty good reason to have let millions die around the world by suppressing that it was a false alarm. And millions will die. Infrastructure was destroyed and lost food production will kill millions, maybe hundreds of millions. But she did have a valid legal reason for not letting the world know the panic was as false alarm. CR: 15. Given the nature of the deficiencies, and that the appellant had not suggested that his claim could be cured by way of amendment, the Prothonotary declined to grant leave to amend his claim.22 JCT: Great for not declaring the false alarm and letting millions die. CR: 16. Finally, the Prothonotary noted that, had she not struck the claim without leave to amend, she would have granted an order for security for costs in the amount of $11,350 in light of the appellant'S numerous unpaid cost awards and the absence of any demonstration that he was impecunious.23 JCT: And they've asked for it again in my new Statement of Claim against air travel restrictions. So someone else will have to be Lead Plaintiff and file the documentation I produce. CR: C. THE MOTIONS JUDGE AFFIRMS PROTHONOTARY AYLEN'S DECISION 17. The appellant appealed the Prothonotary's order. JCT: I want to get as many judges' names on orders refusing to inform Canadians of the false alarm as I can. CR: On October 18, 2021, Justice Zinn dismissed the appeal with costs (the "Motions Judge's Decision"), finding that Prothonotary Aylen did not err in striking the claim without leave to amend.24 JCT: He had a good reason for not informing the world that the threat was a false alarm too. Sad about all the corpses. But it's a valid legal reason to let them all die. CR: 18. In his decision, the Motions Judge first identified that the governing standard of review - intervention by the Federal Court on an appeal of a decision of a prothonotary is justified where a prothonotary has made an error of law, has exercised her discretion on wrong principles, or where they have misapprehended the evidence such that there is a palpable and overriding error.25 JCT: And I'm saying not letting those millions die would have been just. And a judge can do anything that is just. And if millions about to die doesn't call for unorthodox remedy, what does? But they had valid reasons to not inform the millions who are about to die. CR: 19. The Motions Judge considered the appellant's argument that the Prothonotary did not accept the facts set out in the claim as true as required on a motion to strike. The Motions Judge disagreed, finding that the Prothonotary "did indeed consider the statistics on which he relies... However, she found that those facts were insufficient to establish that the Plaintiff's personal Charter rights were breached" (emphasis in original).26 JCT: He had great reason to not call the false alarm. CR: 20. After reviewing the claim, as well as the Prothonotary's findings on each of the alleged Charter breaches, the Motions Judge found that "the observations of the Prothonotary regarding the lack of facts necessary to support these claims are accurate" and that "her decision that this claim fails to disclose a cause of action for the Plaintiff is reasonable on the facts and her observations on the law are correct."27 JCT: Great reasons for not declaring the false alarm to save the millions about to now be lost from infrastructure destruction. CR: 21. The Motions Judge considered the appellant's argument that the absence of relevant facts would be overcome if the Court considered the facts alleged by other plaintiffs in the stayed "kit" claims. He rejected this argument, noting that the appellant was not permitted to represent other plaintiffs or rely on facts pleaded by others. JCT: Lucky she stayed those other plaintiffs so I couldn't rely on their facts. CR: 22. Finally, the Motions Judge agreed with the Prothonotary's determination that the claim as drafted constituted an abuse of process. He noted that "While a self-represented litigant may expect to be granted some leniency by a court, he must still draft a claim that discloses a cause of action to which the defendant can respond. This Statement of Claim falls well short of that requirement."28 JCT: They may angry I didn't have a specific restriction to rely on, like I do now, but I bet the world will be angry that they didn't declare the false alarm when they found out. My error doesn't leave my hands covered in blood. CR: PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE 23. The issues in this motion are: (a) What is the appellate standard of review? (b) Did the Motion Judge err in affirming the Prothonotarys decision to strike the claim?; and (c) If the claim should not be struck, should security for costs should be granted? PART III - SUBMISSIONS A. APPELLATE STANDARD OF REVIEW 24. The standard of review applicable on review of a decision of a motions judge reviewing a discretionary order of a Prothonotary is palpable and overriding error with respect to the motion judge's findings of fact and mixed fact and law, and correctness with respect to the motions judge's findings on any extricable questions of law. JCT: It would have been just too unorthodox to declare that any future restriction based on the false alarm would violate my rights. Had to be orthodox and wait for a restriction. CR: B. THE MOTIONS JUDGE DID NOT ERR IN AFFIRMING THE PROTHONOTARY'S DECISION 25. The Motions Judge did not err in concluding that there were no grounds to interfere with the Prothonotary's decision. 1) The Courts below properly determined that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action 26. The claim was properly struck as disclosing no reasonable cause of action. In considering whether the claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action, the Prothonotary correctly identified the relevant legal principles underlying Rule 221(1)(a): (a) It must be plain and obvious that the pleading discloses no reasonable cause of action30; (b) The material facts pleaded must be taken as true, unless the allegations are based on assumption and speculation31; (c) In order to disclose a reasonable cause of action, a statement of claim must plead each constituent element of every cause of action with sufficient particularity and each allegation must be supported by sufficient material facts32; (d) There are no separate rules of pleading for Charter cases, the substantive content of each Charter right has been clearly defined by the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and a plaintiff must plead sufficient material facts to satisfy the criteria applicable to the provisions in question33; and (e) A plaintiff cannot rely on facts applicable to other individuals to support a claim that the plaintiff's Charter rights have been infringed.34 JCT: I can only argue that granting the unorthodox remedy to save millions would have done justice. CR: 27. The Prothonotary also relied on the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence concerning the essential elements of Charter subsections 2(c) and (d), 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12, and found that the claim lacked the material facts necessary to establish an infringement of any of these rights in the appellant's case.35 28. On appeal, the Motions Judge affirmed that the Prothonotary's "observations on the law are correct," "the observations of the Prothonotary regarding the lack of facts necessary to support these claims are accurate," and "her decision that this claim fails to disclose a cause of action for the Plaintiff is reasonable on the facts."36 JCT: They followed the rules to not declare the false alarm, no matter the multitudes about to perish. CR: 29. The appellant continues to allege that, had the Court not stayed the other "kit" claims, he would be able to rely on facts applicable to the other plaintiffs to support his claim. The Motions Judge correctly dismissed this argument, noting 1) that the appellant had chosen a procedure that did not allow him to rely on facts applicable to other plaintiffs, and 2) that the order staying the other "kit" claims had already been unsuccessfully appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal.37 JCT: She had the power to stay the others and we only appealed because she granted the Crown dispensation with emailling them the documentation. Making sure they'll make their decision to quit or not on least information. Emailling them the documentation would have been too "onerous a burden" on the competence of the Crown. CR: 30. The appellant also notes that, in a previous group of claims that were similarly based on "kits" developed by the appellant, Phelan J. allowed the claims to proceed in parallel rather than identifying a lead claim and staying the remaining claims.38 While the appellant referred to this group of cases in the Court below, he notes that the Motion Judge did not address it, and wrongly assumed that the appellant was referring to another case, John Doe v Canada, 2015 FC 916. 31. However, the case that the appellant identifies does not stand to the proposition that a plaintiff can rely on facts applicable to the other plaintiffs, JCT: But the fact everybody got to speak of their facts means that their facts did get to the judge unlike here where they did not get to the judge. See the difference? CR: and indeed this Court has more recently and expressly rejected this proposition in yet another proceeding that was also based on a "kit" developed by the appellant.39 JCT: Though Judge Brown did twice appoint a Lead Plaintiff, he did not stay the other claims. In the 150-gram medpot cap challenge, he was going to extend the remedy of a 10-day carry possession permit he had granted the Lead Plaintiff to the others pending the hearing of the Lead Plaintiff action. So they were not stayed even if there was a Lead. CR: It is also noteworthy that the claims on which the appellant relies were, like the present case, ultimately struck on the grounds that they failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and were an abuse of process."40 JCT: Judge Phelan did rule that having a medpot permit number did not sufficiently prove the patient's medical need but Judge Brown did not grant the Crown motions to strike even if those decisions were later overturned on appeal. CR: 2) The Courts below did not err in finding that the claim is an abuse of process 32. In finding that the claim should also be struck as an abuse of process, the Prothonotary identified the correct legal principles governing Rule 221(1)(f), and did not commit a palpable and overriding error in applying them to the claim.41 JCT: She sure had the right legal principles to let millions not find out the threat was a false alarm. CR: 33. The appellant does not allege any error in the Prothonotary's finding, or the Motion Judge's affirmation that the claim was bereft of material facts but "replete with lengthy diatribes and makes scandalous and extreme allegations that are unsubstantiated, such as alleged cover- ups and conspiracies."42 JCT: I allege that it would have been just to warn the world that the panic was a false alarm no matter the good legal reasons for letting them all die. CR: 34. In fact, the appellant's written submissions in support of the present appeal make additional scandalous and extreme allegations - for example, that "the pharma-cabal set off the alarm and this court refused to call it a false alarm and is thusly as responsible for the deadly repercussions as the preacher who did not call the false alarm" and "with such a powerful cabal to contend with, I can only hope for justice and not law."43 These allegations are further evidence that the claim is an abuse of process and that it should not be allowed to proceed. JCT: Telling them they let millions die is an abuse of process... CR: 3) The Courts below not err in declining to grant leave to amend 35. The Prothonotary did not commit a palpable and overriding error in exercising her discretion not to grant the appellant leave to amend his claim.44 36. In declining leave to amend, the Prothonotary observed that the appellant did not suggest that the deficiencies in the claim could be cured by amendment, and indeed acknowledged in written representations that many of his personal Charter rights were not engaged. The appellant has not alleged, let alone established, any error in this portion of the Prothonotarys analysis. The Court should accordingly affirm the decision striking the claim without leave to amend. JCT: I didn't need to amend. I needed the judge to do something unorthodox to save millions. Sad she let them die. CR: C. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, SECURITY FOR COSTS SHOULD BE GRANTED 37. In the alternative, if the decision striking the claim is set aside, this Court should grant the alternative request made by Canada below for security for costs in the amount of $11,350, and order that the appellant take no further steps in the action until security is provided. 38. Although the Motions Judge did not rule on this request, the Prothonotary found that Canada had numerous unpaid costs awards against the appellant and that the appellant had not demonstrated impecuniosity. The Prothonotary found that Canada was therefore entitled to security for costs, and noted she would have ordered security had it been necessary to decide the issue.45 The appellant has not identified any legal error or palpable and overriding error of fact or mixed fact and law in this portion of the Prothonotary's analysis, and effect should be given to the Prothonotary's reasons in these circumstances. JCT: As a professional gambler, I could take on the biggest government ministries and banks and media stations and then stiff them for the costs. I think they gave up chasing me for the $25,000 I owe for suing Dragons Den. Youtube for it. CR: PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT 39. Canada requests an order dismissing the appellant's appeal, with costs. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Dated at Toronto this February 24, 2022. Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Ontario Regional Office 120 Adelaide Street West, Suite #400 Toronto, Ontario M5H 1T1 Per: Benjamin Wong Tel: 647-256-0564 Fax: 416-952-4518 E-mail: benjamin.wong2@justice.gc.ca Counsel for the Respondent JCT: So, lots of valid legal reasons for letting millions die and the justice of an orthodox order declaring the false alarm didn't seem just enough for these justices. The only good news is they have probably been vaxed so 2 out of 3 judges have clots I can warn them about. Later today, I file the Notice of Requisition of Hearing. Stay tuned. I'll find out if you can listen in.