TURMEL: Crown Motion to Strike Air Travel Ban Challenge JCT: The Crown has filed their Motion Record to strike my challenge to the Transport Ministry's Vax requirement for air travel. Dr. Joffe in Lytton BC gave D-Diver tests to his vaxed patients and found 63% had clots, 5/8 of the vaxed had new clots. http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19scjct.pdf is my first statement of claim to declare "any" Covid mitigation restrictions based the Apple-Orange hundredfold hyped false alarm declared unconstitutional. Justice Mandy Aylen struck it without trial because you have to have a restriction to strike, not just any coming up. Great procedural reason to let 27 million Canadians take the shot and 16 million get clots. Of course, I've appealed that a judge has the power to do anything that is just but this one wasn't going to do something procedurally unorthodox to save 16 million from clots. But then this year, the Ministry of Transport issued a vax requirement for air travel. On Jan 27 2022, Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford has filed for a declaration by judicial review within 30 days of the decision because of it's of great unconstitutional inconvenience. On Feb 11 2022, Maxime Bernier of the People's Party of Canada has also filed T-247-22 for Judicial Review within 30 days for a declaration. On Feb 16 2022, http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19bscjc.pdf is my Statement of Claim for a declaration that the air travel ban is unconstitutional because the Covid Mortality is in reaction to a hundredfold hyped false alarm. They're objecting to all the different Charter Rights being violated: Life, Liberty, Security, Association, Equality and Mobility. I'm only claiming Mobility because I want the declaration that it's a false alarm no matter which right is violated which should kill all the restrictions and make global news. Going by way of Action rather than Judicial Review is cheaper and there is no 30 day limit so others can always join in the challenge to the air travel ban. But I didn't put up a template until the Crown made their move to strike. Then I uploaded the template and half a dozen others have already filed following instructions on http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19bins.pdf More on the new plaintiffs in my next post. The Crown has moved to strike it like the first even though this one has a restriction to be challenged. It is at http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19bcn.pdf from the http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19docs page http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19111.txt is this report from the http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19reps page. Court File No.: T-277-22 FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL B E T W E E N : JOHN TURMEL Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant CR: Crown MOTION RECORD OF THE DEFENDANT INDEX TAB DOCUMENT PAGE 1 Notice of Motion dated March 17, 2022 2 Affidavit of Duane Crocker dated March 17, 2022 3 Statement of Claim dated February 14, 2022 4 Statement of Claim dated January 19, 2021 in No.: T-130-21 5 Written Submissions of the Defendant NOTICE OF MOTION TAKE NOTICE THAT the defendant will make a motion to the Court in writing under Rule 369 of the Federal Courts Rules. THE MOTION IS FOR: 1. An order striking the claim without leave to amend; or 2. 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; 3. The costs of this motion and of the action; and 4. Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may allow. THE GROUNDS FOR THE MOTION ARE: A. The claim 5. The claim Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 52 (Interim Order) unjustifiably infringe s. 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Charter , and are ultra vires s. 6.41 of the Aeronautics Act, RSC 1985 c A-2; B. The claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action 6. It is plain and obvious that the claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action; JCT: The [A] "We don't see" argument. CR: 7. The claim does not set out sufficient material facts to establish any of the causes of action alleged; JCT: The [B] "Not enough info" argument. CR: C. The claim is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process 8. The claim is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process; JCT: The [C] "Looks foolish" argument. But remember, I've copied the arguments from the Peckford claims. CR: 9. The claim is prolix and repetitive, and fails to set out a concise statement of material facts capable of establishing a deprivation of any of the causes of action alleged; JCT: [A] Not enough facts CR: 10. The claim makes unparticularized allegation of malice and fraud, and is replete with lengthy diatribes and makes scandalous and extreme allegations that are unsubstantiated; 11. The claim attempts to relitigate allegations from a previous claim (Federal Court File No.: T-130-21) that was struck without leave to amend by this Court; JCT: So because the action to declare "any" restrictions unconstitutional was struck, this one to declare the "air travel" restriction unconstitutional must be struck too. CR: D. If the claim is not struck without leave to amend, the plaintiff should be required to provide security for costs 12. Canada has eight orders against the plaintiff for costs in other proceedings, which remain unpaid; 13. The outstanding costs awards total $15,006.16, including post-judgment interest; and 14. The claim is frivolous and vexatious and there is reason to believe the plaintiff will have sufficient assets available to pay Canada's costs. JCT: I guess I won't be the Lead Plaintiff again. Last time, they had no objection to my being Lead and staying everyone pending my outcome, then they informed the courts they were objecting to me because of the past costs. Now they have to object to me up front so someone else will have to be named Lead. CR: 15. Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, Rules 3, 174, 181, 221(1)(a),(c),(f), 369, 416(1)(f), (g), and 418; and 16. Such other grounds as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may accept. THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE will be used at the hearing of the motion: 1. Affidavit of Duane Crocker, affirmed March 17, 2022. March 17, 2022 Attorney General of Canada Department of Justice Ontario Regional Office Per: Benjamin Wong Counsel for the Defendant TO: The Administrator Federal Court of Canada AND TO: John C. Turmel Plaintiff, self represented AFFIDAVIT OF DUANE CROCKER I, Duane Crocker, of the of the Town of Newmarket, in the Regional Municipality of York, in the Province of Ontario AFFIRM THAT: 1. I am a paralegal in the Litigation, Extradition and Advisory Division of the Ontario Regional Office of the Department of Justice. In that capacity, I have reviewed the litigation files associated with the plaintiff, Mr. John C. Turmel (the "Plaintiff"). A. PREVIOUS COSTS AWARDS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF 2. The Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada have previously ordered the Plaintiff to pay Canada's costs in the following matters: Style of Cause Court Court File John C Turmel v HMQ Federal Court T-448-14 Nov 5, 2015 $250 John C Turmel v HMQ Federal Court of Appeal A-342-14 Jan 13, 2016 $3,350 John Turmel v HMQ Supreme Court of Canada 36937 Jun 23, 2016 $807.86 John C Turmel v HMQ Federal Court T-561-15 May 12, 2016 $6,105.03 John Turmel v HMQ Supreme Court 37647 Nov 23, 2017 $877.70 John C Turmel v HMQ Federal Court T-1932-18 Jan 2, 2019 $450 John C Turmel v HMQ Federal Court T-130-21 Jul 12, 2021 $1,000 John C Turmel v HMQ Federal Court T-130-21 October 18, 2021 500 TOTAL $13,340.59 TOTAL with post-judgment interest as of March 17, 2022 $15,006.16 3. These costs remain unpaid. The total amount owed by the plaintiff to Canada as of March 17, 2022, inclusive of post- judgment interest calculated in accordance with section 37(1) of the Federal Courts Act and section 129 of the Courts of Justice Act (Ontario), is $15,006.16. B. THE ANTICIPATED COSTS OF THE CURRENT ACTION 4. In responding to this claim, I anticipate that Canada will incur $11,350 in costs, inclusive of disbursements. These anticipated costs are based on Column III of Tariff B of the Federal Courts Rules. A bill of anticipated costs showing these calculations is attached as Exhibit "I". Affidavit of Duane Crocker this 17th day of March, 2022 JCT: So the Affidavit evidence has to do with past costs. No other facts. WRITTEN REPRESENTATION OF THE DEFENDANT Contents OVERVIEW..................................................... 1 PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS.................................. 1 A. The Previously Struck Claim............................... 1 B. The Current Claim ........................................ 2 C. Legislative Background ................................... 6 D. Outstanding Costs Awards Against The Plaintiff............ 7 PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE ................................... 8 PART III - SUBMISSIONS....................................... 9 A. The Court Should Strike The Claim Without Leave To Amend.. 9 1) The Claim Discloses No Reasonable Cause of Action ........ 9 2) The Claim Is Scandalous, Frivolous, Vexatious, and an Abuse of Process.................................................. 16 3) Leave To Amend Should Be Refused ........................ 19 B. If The Claim Is Not Struck, The Plantiff Should Be Ordered To Provide Security For Costs............................... 20 PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT ..................................... 22 PART V - Authorities Cited.................................. 23 OVERVIEW 1. The plaintiff alleges that a Transport Canada Interim Order implementing a general requirement that air travellers be vaccinated against COVID-19 is ultra vires the Aeronautics Act, is based on errors of fact, and infringes on his rights under section 6 of the Charter. This claim should be struck without leave to amend for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, being an abuse of process, and being scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious. JCT: So, not being able to travel by air because of a false alarm does not disclose a reasonable cause of action. No doubt the judge will agree and prevent anyone finding out about the false alarm. If Justice Aylen can let 16 million Canadians and 63% of the 3 billion vaxed world wide find out it's a false alarm, why would a new judge? They get big money to let people die. CR: 2. The plaintiff has failed to plead the necessary material facts to establish a reasonable cause of action. Instead of pleading material facts, the claim is replete with irrelevant and incomprehensible statements as well as spurious, extreme and scandalous allegations copied from a previously struck claim brought by the plaintiff. JCT: There is only one relevant fact with all the other information in support. From our old claim: WHO COMPARED COVID 3.4% CFR APPLE TO FLU 0.1% IFR ORANGE 32. On Mar 4 2020 WHO Apple-Oranged the metrics: WHO said the latest mortality rate for the virus is 3.4%. This is well above the seasonal flu, which has a mortality rate of under 0.1%. https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2020/03/11/the-novel-coronavirus-outbreak-is-threatening-to-turn-into-a-global-pandemic-heres-everything-we-know-about-covid-19.html The Flu's IFR is a hundredth of its CFR and comparing the Covid mortality to the hundredfold too small IFR makes the Covid mortality a hundredfold too big. A False Alarm. That is the only fact needed to establish the false alarm. Of course, the opponent will argue they don't see. CR: 3. If the claim is not struck without leave to amend, the plaintiff should be required to pay security for costs. Canada has eight 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: So they'll have to appoint someone else Lead if they want to make it easy on themselves. But whom to choose? I can be Lead if they drop the requirement for security. CR: PART I = STATEMENT OF FACTS A. THE PREVIOUSLY STRUCK CLAIM 4. This claim is the plaintiff's second challenge to COVID- 19 mitigation measures. In John Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-130-21), the plaintiff challenged the Government of Canada's COVID-19 mitigation measures generally, alleging that they infringe sections 2(c) and (d), 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12 of the Charter and are not justified under section 1 of the Charter (the "Previously Struck Claim").1 5. The Previously Struck Claim was struck in its entirety without leave to amend for failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action, and for being an abuse of process.2 The Motion Judge's decision was upheld on appeal.3 The plaintiff has appealed this decision to the Federal Court of Appeal, where his appeal is awaiting hearing.4 JCT: I've accepted that Judge Aylen had sound procedural reasons for letting 16 million Canadians get the clot shot but argue her inherent power to do justice was enough to let her declare "any" restrictions due to false alarm as just and she should have prevented 16 million Canadians from heart damage. Every time I read of a myocarditis death, I ask: Would they have taken jab if Justice Aylen had them told: "Covid Mortality was over-hyped a hundredfold?" Lots of blood on her hands for procedural reasons. CR: B. THE CURRENT CLAIM 6. The claim challenges the now-repealed Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 52 (the "Interim Order")5, seeking declarations that: (a) the Interim Order is ultra vires section 6.41 of the Aeronautics Act and is therefore of no force and effect6; (b) the Interim Order is "invalid" due to errors in fact; and (c) provisions of the Interim Order requiring most persons boarding an aircraft be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 (the "impugned Provisions") infringes section 6 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") and are not justified under section 1 of the Charter.7 JCT: I didn't know it was now-repealed. Let's see when. CR: 7. The plaintiff has not received a COVID-19 vaccine.8 8. The factual allegations that form the basis of the current claim are substantially similar to, and in many cases, identical to the Previously Struck Claim. JCT: And to the Brian Peckford case. CR: 9. Both claims allege that the World Health Organization is exaggerating COVID19 fatality rates, and that only 1 in 230,000 Canadians have died of COVID-19.9 Both claims allege that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is rare, occurs mostly in long-term care homes, and provide several paragraphs of statistics comparing COVID19 mortality rates to those associated with the flu.10 JCT: And "exaggerating COVID19 fatality rates" means false alarm. CR: 10. Both claims allege a "cover up" to "fudge the statistical Cases and Fatalities data."11 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."12 JCT: Didier Raould lost 0.8% in France using 1 gram and Bill Gates lost 25.7% using 9.6 grams. But overdosing by a factor of 10 wasn't "deliberate malevolence," it was just a well- intentioned mistake. Har har har har har har har. CR: 11. Both claims allege that social media platforms, such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and Disqus, have "instituted draconian censorship policies," and that doctors protesting COVID-19 measures are being "defamed by Big Brother at [the Associated Press] and Facebook."13 JCT: What's not true about that? CR: 12. Both claims allege that "Covid-Mitigation restrictions include lockdowns & curfews, quarantines, mandatory masks, mandatory social distancing, mandatory vaccine, mandatory immunity card for public services."14 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". JCT: "lockdown gain does not justify lockdown pain" for a false alarm, does it? CR: 13. Both claims 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," and that: Such restrictions on civil liberties to mitigate a false alarm 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]ability, 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.17 JCT: Seems pretty clear that restrictions based on a false alarm are such. CR: 14. Both claims specifically refer 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 allege that Ontario has closed schools despite only one COVID-19 death among children under 20 between January 15 and July 13, 2020. JCT: For a false alarm where kids are immune and only 1 probably obese and diabetic kid died. CR: 15. Both claims refer to a statement by the Prime Minister describing the requirements for international travellers arriving by air to produce a negative COVID19 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.19 It alleges that "The Prime Minister and his Government have been dumb" and that "Restrictions on civil liberties are not warranted for a Covid threat if they are not warranted for the tenfold deadlier Flu threat." JCT: They fell for the false alarm. Is that bright? CR: 16. Both 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.21 JCT: Who benefited from the false alarm? CR: 17. The current claim alleges that the vaccine promotion is a "scam", and alleges that the COVID-19 "clot shots" cause "micro-clots" and a number of side effects.22 JCT: Only an allegation that all the heart problems are due to the spikes from the vaccine. CR: 18. The current claim alleges that "The pharma-cabal set off the false alarm and this court refusing to call it a false alarm is thusly as responsible for the deadly repercussions as the preacher who did not call the false alarm for the fire."23 It reproduces a poem referring to various members of the Court who adjudicated the Previously Struck Claim.24 Would you have taken jab if Crown Ben Wong had Trudeau told, Covid Mortality was over hyped by hundredfold? Would you have taken jab if Justice Crampton had us told, That Apple Orange were compared to hype by hundredfold Would you have taken clot shot if Judge Aylen said: Behold The CFR to IFR's too small by hundredfold Would you have taken jab if Justice Zinn had us all told, Comparing Apple Orange hyped the threat by hundredfold. Would you have taken jab if Randy Hillier had you told... Would you have taken clot shot if Max Bernier had you told.. Would you have taken jab if Julie Ponesse had told... Would you have taken jab if MPPs had us all told... Yes, I allege that everyone who found out about the hundredfold hyped Covid Mortality and didn't warn family, friends, everyone about it, now have blood on their hands. Neat eh? They were told it was a false alarm and kept it to themselves and made sure it didn't get out. CR: C. REGULATORY BACKGROUND 19. The Interim Order was made on January 15, 2022, pursuant to subsection 6.41(1) of the Aeronautics Act. The Interim Order was repealed and replaced with a new Ministerial Order on January 28, 2022.25 The most recent Ministerial Order contains provisions that are similar to those in the Interim Order.26 For example, paragraph 17.3(1) sets out the same vaccination requirements for flights departing from an aerodrome in Canada as those in the Interim Order: 17.3(1) A person is prohibited from boarding an aircraft for a flight or entering a restricted area unless they are a fully vaccinated person.27 JCT: Good. They repealed the old Interim Order on Jan 28 and replaced it with a new one with the same numbered restriction. CR: 20. While the Impugned Provisions do impose a general requirement to be vaccinated to board an aircraft, paragraph 17.3(2) sets out several exceptions from this requirement, including where the individual: (a) has a medical inability to be vaccinated; (b) has a sincere religious belief opposing vaccination; (c) is travelling for essential medical services and treatment; (d) is accompanying a minor attending an appointment for essential medical services or treatment, a person with a disability, or a person requiring assistance to communicate; or (e) is travelling for a purpose other than an optional or discretionary purpose. 21. In such cases, a passenger who is recognized as being entitled to an exception will have to present a valid COVID- 19 test in order to be permitted to board an aircraft.29 JCT: And I object to having to present a valid test. CR: D. OUTSTANDING COSTS AWARDS AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF 22. The Federal Court, Federal Court of Appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada have previously ordered the plaintiff to pay Canada's costs on numerous occasions. Of these, eight costs awards, totalling $13,340.59 remain unpaid: (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; (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; (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; (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; (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; (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 $450.36 (g) FC File No.: T-130-21: the Federal Court struck the Previously Struck Claim in its entirety, with costs of $1,000, and upheld its decision on appeal, with costs of $500.37 JCT: Got that? $13,340.59 for 8 Cost awards for an average of $1,667 including Supreme Court of Canada costs. CR: 23. These cost awards remain unpaid, and the total outstanding, including postjudgment interest is currently $15,006.16.38 PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE 24. 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? PART III - SUBMISSIONS A. THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE THE CLAIM WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND 25. The plaintiff's claim should be struck pursuant to Rule 221(1)(a) for disclosing no reasonable cause of action, Rule 221(1)(c) for being an abuse of process, and Rule 221(1)(b) for being scandalous, frivolous, and vexatious. 1) The Claim Discloses No Reasonable Cause of Action JCT: Remember, it's the same cause of action as claimed by Brian Peckford and Maxime Bernier. CR: a) Rule 221(1)(a) 26. It is fundamental to the trial process that a plaintiff plead material facts in sufficient detail to support the claim and relief sought.39 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.40 A claim that fails to plead the necessary material facts will be struck for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.41 JCT: And the fact WHO exaggerated the mortality threat a hundredfold isn't enough to prove a false alarm? CR: 27. As noted by the Federal Court of Appeal in Mancuso v Canada ("Mancuso"), courts and opposing parties cannot be left to speculate as to how facts might be arranged to support a cause of action.42 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.43 JCT: It's just so hard to see how a hundredfold exaggeration could be arranged to support a false alarm cause of action. CR: 28. 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.44 It is "essential to the proper presentation of Charter issue" 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.45 JCT: That WHO exaggerated the threat is insufficient material fact to show a false alarm! Har har har. CR: 29. Courts have also emphasized the importance of the individual plaintiff's circumstances in Charter cases. 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.46 JCT: I'm not relying on the fact others can't fly due to vax requirement but the fact I can't fly. This is a holdover from the first case where there was no federal infringement on me but there may have been on others but Judge Aylen had stayed their cases so I couldn't refer to them. Had she not stayed them, they'd have been with me and the Crown could not say their rights weren't infringed. CR: 30. 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.47 Rule 181 requires particularization of every allegation, especially for allegations of malice or fraudulent intention.48 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.49 JCT: The only important fact is the hundredfold WHO exaggeration of Covid Mortality threat. CR: b) Section 6 of the Charter 31. Section 6 protects two sets of mobility rights: (a) the right of every Canadian citizen to enter, remain in, and leave Canada; and (b) the right to move to, live in, and work in any province subject to certain limitations.50 Section 6 does not establish a free-standing right to travel in Canada. JCT: Brian Peckford and Maxime Bernier think so. CR: 32. In Zbarsky, Justice Norris of this Court struck a challenge to the same vaccination requirements relating to air travel that are the subject of this claim for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.51 JCT: But Zbarsky didn't argue the vaccine requirements were based on a false alarm. CR: The plaintiff in Zbarsky claimed that the vaccination requirements, in particular paragraph 17 of the Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 54, infringed his rights under sections 2, 6, and 7 of the Charter and were not justified under section 1 of the Charter. The Zbarsky claim also requested that the Court declare that the vaccination requirements be of no force and effect. 33. The only personal facts plead by the plaintiff in Zbarsky were that: (a) he was a Canadian citizen; (b) he was required to travel internationally; and (c) he refused to receive the COVID-19 vaccine for "various health, religious, spiritual, and moral reasons."52 34. The Court in Zbarsky first noted that the Impugned Provisions did not prevent the plaintiff from boarding a flight simply because he refused to get vaccinated, noting that "at most it imposes a conditional obligation on him: if he wishes to board an international flight departing Canada and he does not qualify for an exemption, only then must he be fully vaccinated. (emphasis in original)"53 The Court noted that the claim "failed to plead any material facts capable of establishing that his Charter rights are even engaged in these circumstances.54 35. The Court then noted that even if his Charter rights were engaged, the plaintiff had "not pled any material facts capable of establishing that he would not be entitled to an exemption, that having to seek an exemption on specified grounds infringes his Charter rights, or that the existing exemptions are unconstitutionally vague or narrow. The alleged Charter breaches [the plaintiff] asserts are entirely hypothetical."55 36. Finally, the Court found that the plaintiff "failed to plead the constituent elements of the legal tests for determining whether his rights under any of sections 2, 6(1) or 7 of the Charter have been infringed, and, if so, the legal remedy to which he is entitled." All of these deficiencies leave the defendant unable to know how to answer the claim."56 JCT: But it being a false alarm makes any restrictions wrong. CR: c) The allegations in the claim do not give rise to a Section 6 infringement 37. This Court's decision in Zbarsky provides extensive and binding reasons why this claim, which is substantially similar to the Zbarsky claim, is "fatally deficient."57 JCT: Zbarsky didn't argue the restriction was wrong because it was in reaction to a false alarm. But as long as Respondent chooses to ignore that important distinction, let him point out all the reasons the lesser claims lost. CR: 38. First, the plaintiff has failed to plead any material facts capable of establishing that his Charter rights are engaged where the Impugned Provisions only require him to be fully vaccinated "if he wishes to board an international flight departing Canada and he does not qualify for an exemption."58 The plaintiff has not even pleaded that he does intend to board a flight departing in Canada. JCT: I did plead that I intended to take a flight to Ottawa to visit my brother. CR: 39. Secondly, while the plaintiff has plead a conclusion that he "does not qualify for any of the exemptions in s. 17(3)," this conclusion is unsupported by any material facts capable of establishing that he "would not be entitled to an exemption, that having to seek an exemption on specified grounds infringes his Charter rights, or that the existing exemptions are unconstitutionally vague or narrow."59 As Justice Norris noted in Zbarsky, this makes an alleged Charter breach "hypothetical."60 JCT: I shouldn't even need an exemption if the restriction based on a false alarm violates my right to air travel. CR: 40. Finally, the claim also does not contain material facts to satisfy the essential elements of the section 6 Charter infringement alleged. 41. The claim does not allege that the plaintiff has been personally prevented from entering, remaining in, or leaving Canada. The plaintiff does not allege that he has had any intention to travel internationally during this time, or that he plans to do so anytime in the near future. While the plaintiff alleges in an affidavit recently filed in support of a different motion that he wishes to travel to Ottawa to visit family, this is not alleged in the claim, and in any event, section 6 on its face clearly does not encompass a right to domestic travel for purposes other than work. JCT: So the government can ban people from air travel in Canada. Neat eh? 42. Nor does the claim allege that the plaintiff has been personally prevented from moving to, living in, or working in another Canadian province. The plaintiff does not allege that he intends to move, live, or work in another province, or that he plans to do so anytime in the near future. JCT: I want to travel to Ottawa to visit my brother on the other side of the river in Quebec, even if I don't want to move there, live there, work there. I just don't want to be denied air travel and they want to get into where and why. CR: Even if section 6 encompassed a right to travel domestically, the claim does not explain why the plaintiff must travel by air and cannot travel by other methods to which the Interim Order does not apply.61 JCT: So there is no right to travel by air domestically, says the Justice Ministry. CR: d) The remaining allegations in the claim do not give rise to reasonable causes of action 43. It is plain and obvious that the plaintiff's allegations that the Interim Order should be quashed for being ultra vires the Aeronautics Act and based on errors of fact cannot succeed, because neither are causes of action known to law. JCT: Wonder if they're going to say the same about Brian Peckford's case. An interim order based on errors is not a reasonable cause of action. CR: The Supreme Court has held that "if a claimant seeks to set aside the order of a federal decision maker, it will have to proceed by judicial review" pursuant to section 18.1 of the Federal Courts Act.62 Other applicants have already initiated challenges to the vires and reasonableness of the Interim Order and Impugned Provisions through the proper procedure, a judicial review application.63 JCT: Notice there's no case where the Supreme Court says we can't challenge a federal decision maker by way of action. CR: 44. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not plead any material facts capable of rebutting the presumption of validity accorded to regulations.64 A successful challenge to the vires of regulations requires that they be shown to be inconsistent with the objective of the enabling statute or the scope of the statutory mandate.65 The plaintiff's allegations against the Interim Order centre on the "motives for their promulgation" and whether "they will actually succeed in achieving the statutory objectives," arguments that the Supreme Court has held are irrelevant in an inquiry into the vires of legislation.66 JCT: No, the allegations centre not on the motives for their promulgation but on the false facts. CR: 45. Finally, the plaintiff also appears to allege in the claim that various other federal COVID-19 mitigation measures infringe Charter 2(c) and (d), 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12.67 However, as the plaintiff does not seek relief in respect of these measures, it is unnecessary for the Court to address these allegations. In any event, as with his allegation that the impugned travel measures infringe s. 7 of the Charter, the plaintiff has not pleaded materials facts to establish that any other federal COVID-19 mitigation measure infringes any provision of the Charter.68 JCT: Sure, I'm not arguing restrictions based on the false alarm infringe any other Charter Rights than Mobility. CR: 46. 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. Absent these material facts, and given the claim's various flaws, 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: Remember, the fact WHO compared different metrics to exaggerate the mortality isn't a fact to the Crown. CR: 2) The Claim Is Scandalous, Frivolous, Vexatious, and an Abuse of Process a) Deficient and improper pleadings 47. A claim will be struck for being scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process if it: (a) is so deficient in relevant material facts that the defendant cannot know how to answer;69 (b) includes statements that are irrelevant, incomprehensible, and inserted for colour;70 (c) is replete with extreme and scandalous allegations that are unsubstantiated;71 or (d) is overly-long, unwieldy and repetitive.72 JCT: Notice he can't provide even one example. CR:48. The Previously Struck Claim was struck as an abuse of process for "pleading bare assertions but not the necessary material facts on which to base those assertions," and for being "replete with lengthy diatribes and mak[ing] scandalous and extreme allegations that are unsubstantiated, such as alleged cover-ups and conspiracies."73 Justice Zinn upheld this finding on appeal.74 JCT: Both Justice Aylen and Justice Zinn have allowed millions of Canadians to take a shot and get clots in panic over a false alarm! They had sound procedural reasons even though they have power to do anything that is just. Warning Canadians that it's a false alarm was too unorthodox. Wonder if they own any shares in funeral homes. CR: 49. This claim also contains bare assertions without material facts, and copies the same lengthy diatribes and allegations from the Previously Struck Claim. JCT: Yes, struck without reason. CR: For example, both claims include: (a) lengthy allegations against third parties such as the World Health Organization, Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, Facebook and Youtube;75 CR: (b) references to COVID-19 as a "sham-virus," "Shamdemic," "exaggerated plague" and "scamdemic;"76 (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;"77 and (d) lengthy diatribes, such as "On Apr 1 2020, John Turmel on the Youtube SmartestManSays channel published the first daily video on the only way to save the planet, the Mr. Spock Upgrade of the central bank software to provide all citizens with access to interest-free credits to tide them over the pandemic with a lifetime to pay it back was banking on Earth as in Heaven. The videos posited obtaining antibodies from the urine of survivors and pointed out delay in cancelling Fauci's false alarm was costing deaths of desperation."78 50. In addition to the scandalous and extreme allegations copied from the Previously Struck Claim, the plaintiff has also made new scandalous and extreme allegations against Crown servants and the Federal Court judiciary.79 For example: Who could have imagined anyone would top Justice Laskin's 1.6 billion souls lost but with almost 3 billion now having suffered the clot shot since this Court knew the threat was a false alarm, this error may well exceed Justice Laskin's equation of responsibility.80 JCT: The Crown may not realise that I'm saying these things for posterity. Someday, when people wonder why the false alarm wasn't declared, they'll be able to read how the Crown and the Courts stopped the declaration of false alarm! I think it's worth the couple of thousands dollars just to get the judges to sign off on letting millions die. CR: 51. 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.81 Although the claim is 59 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.82 JCT: WHO did a deliberate false alarm by comparing different mortality rates and the courts have covered it up. I wonder how posterity will feel after reading about how they let the world be tricked into taking a suicide shot. Remember, my only revenge is to point out how those who die of clots probably wouldn't have take the shots but for not finding out it was as false alarm due to the Federal Court and the Ministry of Justice who knew. They were told it was a false alarm and didn't tell people. That's the indictment no matter now many good reasons they had not to use their power to do justice. Mass murderers at the Bar and on the Bench. CR: 52. 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.83 Accordingly, the Court should also find that the claim is scandalous, vexatious, frivolous, and an abuse of process. JCT: "unwieldy and non-compliant" is a great reason for not stopping 2,000,000,000 people around the world from getting blood clots. CR: b) This claim attempts to re-litigate the Previously Struck Claim 53. This claim should also be struck as an abuse of process as an impermissible attempt to relitigate the Previously Struck Claim. The primary focus of the doctrine of abuse of process is the integrity of the adjudicative functions of courts.84 As the Supreme Court held in Toronto (City), "what is improper is to attempt to impeach a judicial finding by the impermissible route of relitigation in a different forum."85 JCT: No, the other claim didn't have a restriction on me. This one does. But that is the key point they have to get the Court to ignore. CR: 54. This Court struck the Previously Struck Claim without leave to appeal, finding that "the defects in the pleading are such that the Statement of Claim cannot be cured by amendment."86 It is improper for the plaintiff to attempt to circumvent and undermine the integrity of this Court's refusal to grant leave to amend by filing a new claim with a few amendments, but many of the same allegations from the Previously Struck Claim. JCT: Except with a restriction on me this time after the lack of restriction on me last time was the reason it was struck. CR: 55. Furthermore, the Previously Struck Claim is currently before the Federal Court of Appeal. It is equally improper for the plaintiff to initiate a new, substantially similar claim in an attempt to obtain a different result. As the Supreme Court has held, "if the result in the subsequent proceeding is different from the conclusion reached in the first on the very same issue, the inconsistency, in and of itself, will undermine the credibility of the entire judicial process, thereby diminishing its authority, its credibility and its aim of finality."87 JCT: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19a3m3.pdf is my Memorandum arguing Aylen and Zinn did not use their power to do justice by letting 16 million Canadians get blood clots. CR: 3) Leave To Amend Should Be Refused 56. This claim should be struck without leave to amend. In addition to the Previously Struck Claim, 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, were an abuse of process, or were scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.88 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.89 JCT: Always beware of the world "reasonable" in legislation. Who gets to say it's reasonable, those in charge. CR: B. IF THE CLAIM IS NOT STRUCK, THE PLANTIFF SHOULD BE ORDERED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR COSTS 57. 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.90 58. After striking the Previously Struck Claim, this Court noted that "had I been required to do so, I would have been inclined to grant an order for security for costs in the amount sought by the Defendant in light of the Plaintiff's numerous unpaid cost awards and the absence of any demonstration of impecuniosity by the Plaintiff."91 59. 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.92 60. Canada has eight unpaid costs orders against the plaintiff totalling $15,006.16, including post-judgment interest.93 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.94 61. 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. 62. The Federal Court of Appeal has distinguished impecuniosity from merely having insufficient assets.95 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.96 The impracticality of accessing money from other sources must be supported by material evidence and established by the plaintiff with robust particularity.97 63. 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. 64. With respect to merit, Canada also relies on its submissions in the paragraphs above that that the claim discloses no reasonable cause of action, is an abuse of process, and is scandalous, vexatious, and frivolous. There is accordingly no reason for the Court to refuse security for costs in this case. JCT: There are now half a dozen new self-represented plaintiffs the Crown just found out about and has asked the Court to stay them pending what happens to my case that can't go forward. If I have to, I'll discontinue my action so the others who don't owe costs can proceed. Then the Crown has the problem of finding a Lead Plaintiff when no one will want to do it and everyone will want to be treated by themselves. Without me, no easy way for the Crown to deal with what could turn out to be many many more. The only way is to drop the demand for security so my case is dealt with on the issues for the others without cost awards against them. PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT 65. 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 $15,006.16, 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 $2,000; and (d) such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may allow. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Dated at Toronto this April 8, 2022. Attorney General of Canada Per: Benjamin Wong PART V - AUTHORITIES CITED 1. Aeronautics Act, RSC 1985 c A-2 2. Canada v Harris, 2020 FCA 124 3. Canada v Mozajko, 2021 FCA 25 4. Canada (Attorney General) v Telezone Inc, 2010 SCC 62 5. Divito v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47 6. Harris v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 232 7. Heli Tech Services (Canada) Ltd v Weyerhaeuser Company, 2006 FC 1169 8. Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 52 9. Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 53 10. Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 58 11. John C Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen, 2016 FCA 9 12. John C Turmel v Her Majesty The Queen, 2021 FC 1095 13. John Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen, 2016 FC 532 14. Kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 15. Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 16. Mapara v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 305 17. Merchant Law Group v Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 FCA 184 18. Operation Dismantle Inc v Canada, [1985] 1 SCR 441 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. Order of the Court dated July 12, 2021 in Court File No.: T-130-21 21. Order of the Court dated October 11, 2016, in Macdonald et al v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-1113-16) 22. Order the Court dated October 11, 2016 in Hathaway v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-983-16) 23. R v Mennes, 2004 FC 1731 24. R v Turmel, [2017] SCCA No 262 25. Reference re Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 52(1), 2017 FC 30 26. Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79 27. Shoppers Drug Mart Inc v Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care), 2013 SCC 64 28. Sivak v Canada, 2012 FC 272 29. Spottiswood v Her Majesty the Queen, 2019 FC 553 30. Toronto (City) v CUPE, Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 31. Turmel v Canada, 2020 FC 537 32. Turmel v R, [2016] SCCA No 125 33. Wang v Canada, 2016 FC 1052 34. Zbarsky v Her Majesty the Queen, 2022 FC 195 35. Federal Courts Rules (SOR/98-106) NOTES 1 Claim at paras 103-104, Defendant's Motion Record Tab 3 at 90-91. 2 Order of the Court dated July 12, 2021 in Court File No.: T-130-21 at para 12 [Previously Struck Claim - Prothonotary's Order], Defendant's Book of Authorities Tab 20. 3 John C Turmel v Her Majesty The Queen, 2021 FC 1095 at para 26 [Previously Struck Claim "Federal Court Appeal], DBOA, Tab 12. 4 Federal Court of Appeal Court File No.: A-286-21. 5 Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID19, No. 52, DBOA, Tab 8. 6 Aeronautics Act, RSC 1985 c A-2. 7 Claim at paras 1, 167, DMR, Tab 3 at 53, 109-110. 8 Claim at para 129, DMR, Tab 3 at 100. 9 Claim at paras 7, 69, DMR, Tab 3 at 56-57, 80; Previously Struck Claim at para 2, DMR, Tab 4 at 113-114. 10 Claim at paras 10-70, 73, DMR, Tab 3 at 57-81, 81; Previously Struck Claim at paras 6-70, DMR, Tab 4 at 115- 135. 11 Claim at para 72, DMR, Tab 3 at 81; Previously Struck Claim at paras 71-96, DMR, Tab 4 at 136-142. 12 Claim at paras 74-79, 87-96, DMR, Tab 3 at 81-83, 86-88; Previously Struck Claim at paras 74-79, 87-96, DMR, Tab 4 at 136-138, 140-142. 13 Claim at paras 97-102, DMR, Tab 3 at 89-90; Previously Struck Claim at paras 97-102, DMR, Tab 4 at 143-144. 14 Claim at paras 103-105, DMR, Tab 3 at 90-92; Previously Struck Claim at paras 103-105, DMR, Tab 4 at 144-145. 15 Claim at para 103, DMR, Tab 3 at 90-91; Previously Struck Claim at para 103, DMR, Tab 4 at 103. 16 The Previously Struck Claim used "sham-virus" instead of "false alarm". 17 Claim at para 104, DMR, Tab 3 at 91; Previously Struck Claim at para 104, DMR, Tab 4 at 145. 18 Claim at paras 112-113, DMR, Tab 3 at 95-96; Previously Struck Claim at paras 112-113, DMR, Tab 4 at 148-149. 19 Claim at para 114, DMR, Tab 3 at 96; Previously Struck Claim at para 114, DMR, Tab 4 at 149. 20 Claim at paras 116-118, DMR, Tab 3 at 97; Previously Struck Claim at paras 117-118, DMR, Tab 4 at 150. 21 Claim at paras 119-120, DMR, Tab 3 at 97-98; Previously Struck Claim at paras 119-120, DMR, Tab 4 at 150-151. 22 Claim at para 130, DMR, Tab 3 at 100. 23 Claim at para 154, DMR, Tab 3 at 106. 24 Claim at para 157, DMR, Tab 3 at 106-107. 25 Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID19, No. 53, DBOA, Tab 9. 26 Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID19, No. 59, s 17.1, DBOA, Tab 10. 27 Interim Order, para 17.3(1), DBOA, Tab 10. 164 28 Interim Order, para 17.3(2) , DBOA, Tab 10; Zbarsky v Her Majesty the Queen, 2022 FC 195 at para 34 [Zbarsky] , DBOA, Tab 34. 29 Interim Order, para 17.3(2), DBOA, Tab 10; Zbarsky at para 34, DBOA, Tab 34. 30 Affidavit of Duane Crocker affirmed March 17, 2022 at para 2 [Crocker Affidavit], DMR, Tab 2 at 5-6. 31 Order of the Court dated November 6, 2015, in John C Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-488-14), DBOA, Tab 19. 32 John C Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen, 2016 FCA 9 at paras 5-7, 27, DBOA, Tab 11. 33 Turmel v R, [2016] SCCA No 125, DBOA, Tab 32. 34 John Turmel v Her Majesty the Queen, 2016 FC 532 at paras 1, 13-17, DBOA, Tab 13, appeal dismissed for delay (Order of the Federal Court of Appeal dated May 2, 2017, Court File No. A-202-16), DBOA, Tab 11. 35 R v Turmel, [2017] SCCA No 262, DBOA, Tab 24. 36 Turmel v Canada, 2020 FC 537 at para 1, DBOA, Tab 30. 37 Previously Struck Claim "Prothonotary's Order at para 32, DBOA, Tab 20; Previously Struck Claim "Federal Court Appeal at para 26, DBOA, Tab 12. 38 Crocker Affidavit at paras 2-3, DMR, Tab 2 at 5-7. 39 Mancuso v Canada (National Health and Welfare), 2015 FCA 227 at para 16 [Mancuso], DBOA, Tab 15. 40 Mancuso at paras 16 to 21, DBOA, Tab 15. 41 Mancuso at para 27, DBOA, Tab 15. 42 Mancuso at para 16, DBOA, Tab 15. 43 Mancuso at paras 16 and 17, DBOA, Tab 15. 44 Reference re Same-Sex Marriage, 2004 SCC 79 at para 51, DBOA, Tab 26; Mancuso at para 32, DBOA, Tab 15. 45 Mancuso at para 21, DBOA, Tab 15; MacKay v Manitoba, [1989] 2 SCR 357 at para 9, DBOA, Tab 15. 46 Harris v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 232 at para 22 [Harris 2019], DBOA, Tab 6. 47 Operation Dismantle Inc v Canada, [1985] 1 SCR 441 at paras 27, 29, DBOA, Tab 18; Mancuso at para 17, DBOA, Tab 15; Sivak v Canada, 2012 FC 272 at para 91, DBOA, Tab 28. 48 Merchant Law Group v Canada Revenue Agency, 2010 FCA 184 at para 35 [Merchant], DBOA, Tab 17. 49 Mancuso at para 20, DBOA, Tab 15. 50 Divito v Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), 2013 SCC 47 at para 17, DBOA, Tab 5. 51 Zbarsky v Her Majesty the Queen, 2022 FC 195 at paras 1- 2, 4, 31-33 [Zbarsky], DBOA, Tab 33. 52 Zbarsky at para 6, DBOA, Tab 33. 53 Zbarsky at para 35, DBOA, Tab 33. 54 Zbarsky at para 35, DBOA, Tab 33. 55 Zbarsky at para 36, DBOA, Tab 33. 56 Zbarsky at para 36, DBOA, Tab 33. 57 Zbarsky at para 33, DBOA, Tab 33. 58 Zbarsky at para 35, DBOA, Tab 33. 59 Zbarsky at para 36, DBOA, Tab 33. 60 Zbarsky at para 36, DBOA, Tab 33. 61 Currently, Transport Canada only imposes general vaccine requirements on air and rail travel. 62 Canada (Attorney General) v Telezone Inc, 2010 SCC 62 at para 19, DBOA, Tab 4. 63 See for example, Peckford et al v The Minister of Transport et al, Court File No.: T168-22, Nabil Ben Naoum v Procureur general du Canada, Court File No.: T-145-22; "Honorable Maxime Bernier v Le Ministre Des Transports et al, Court File No.: T247-22; Rickard et al v Attorney General of Canada, Court File No.: T-1991-21. 64 Shoppers Drug Mart Inc v Ontario (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care), 2013 SCC 64 at paras 24-25 [Katz], DBOA, Tab 27. 65 Katz at para 24, DBOA, Tab 27. 66 Katz at paras 27-28, DBOA, Tab 27. 67 Claim at para 104, DMR, Tab 3 at 91. 68 Previously Struck Claim "Prothonotaryb's Decision at para 25, DBOA, Tab 20. 173 69 Mancuso at para 17, DBOA, Tab 15 70 Reference re Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s 52(1), 2017 FC 30 at paras 40-41 [Turmel Kit Reference], DBOA, Tab 25. 71 R v Mennes, 2004 FC 1731 at para 78, DBOA, Tab 23. 72 Wang v Canada, 2016 FC 1052 at para 31 [Wang], DBOA, Tab 33. 73 Previously Struck Claim "Prothonotary's Decision at para 29, DBOA, Tab 20. 74 Previously Struck Claim "Federal Court Appeal Decision at para 24, DBOA, Tab 12. 75 See for example, Claim at paras 7, 37, 90, 97, 98, DMR, Tab 3 at 56, 64-66, 87, 89,89, Previously Struck Claim at paras 6, 37, 56, 96-98, 112-113, DMR, Tab 4 at 115, 122-123, 130, 142-143, 148-149. 76 Claim at paras 71, 106, 111, 120, DMR, Tab 3 at 81, 92- 93, 95, 98; Previously Struck Claim at paras 71, 104, 106, 111, 120, DMR, Tab 4 at 136, 145, 146, 150-151. 77 Claim at paras 71, 85, 116, DMR, Tab 3 at 81, 85, 97; Previously Struck Claim at para 70, DMR, Tab 4 at 135. 78 Claim at para 99, DMR, Tab 3 at 89; Previously Struck Claim at para 99, DMR, Tab 4 at 143. 79 Claim at paras 157-159, DMR, Tab 3 at 106-107. 80 Claim at paras 158-159, DMR, Tab 3 at 107. 81 Wang at para 31, DBOA, Tab 32. 82 Kisikawpimootewin v Canada, 2004 FC 1426 at para 8, DBOA, Tab 14. 83 Mancuso at para 12, DBOA, Tab 15. 84 Toronto (City) v CUPE, Local 79, 2003 SCC 63 at para 43 [CUPE], DBOA, Tab 29. 85 CUPE at para 46, DBOA, Tab 29. 86 Previously Struck Claim "Prothonotary's Decision at para 30, DBOA, Tab 20. 87 CUPE at para 51, DBOA, Tab 29. 88 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), DBOA, Tab 26; Order the Court dated October 11, 2016 in Hathaway v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-983-16), DBOA, Tab 22; Order of the Court dated October 11, 2016, in Macdonald et al v Her Majesty the Queen (Court File No.: T-1113-16), DBOA, Tab 21; Spottiswood v Her Majesty the Queen, 2019 FC 553 at paras 56-57, 96, DBOA, Tab 28; Harris 2019 at paras 3, 4, 19-20, 23-24, DBOA, Tab 6; Canada v Mozajko, 2021 FCA 25 at paras 2, 10, DBOA, Tab 3; Canada v Harris, 2020 FCA 124 at paras, 26-43, 50 [Harris 2020], DBOA, Tab 2. 89 Harris 2020 at para 47, DBOA, Tab 2. 90 Crocker Affidavit, Exhibit "I", DMR, Tab 2 at 49. 91 Previously Struck Claim "Prothonotary's Decision at para 31, DBOA, Tab 20. 92 Rules, Rule 416(f), DBOA, Tab 35. 93 Crocker Affidavit at paras 2-3, Exhibits "A", "B", "C", "D" , "E", "F", "G" and "H", DMR, Tab 2 at 5-7, 94 Mapara v Canada (Attorney General), 2016 FCA 305 at para 5, DBOA, Tab 16. 95 Heli Tech Services (Canada) Ltd v Weyerhaeuser Company, 2006 FC 1169, paras 6-8, DBOA, Tab 7; Mapara, paras 8, 13- 14, DBOA, Tab 16. 96 Mapara at paras 13-14, DBOA, Tab 16. 97 Mapara at paras 13-14, DBOA, Tab 16. JCT: So that's the Crown's motion to strike my statement of claim to declare the air travel ban for a false alarm a violation of my S.6 Mobility Right. I get to file a Motion Record in Response on Friday Apr 15, they fan file a Reply by April 22 and then the judge gets to suppress that the Covid Mortality threat was as false alarm and permit more Canadians to be coerced into taking the clot shots.