TURMEL: Crown Reply: No Domestic Air Travel Mobility Right JCT: Because the Covid Mortality was hyped a hundredfold into a deliberate false alarm, my first Federal Court Statement asked for: B) an Order pursuant to S.24(1) of the Charter for an Injunction prohibiting any federal Covid-mitigation restrictions that are not imposed on the deadlier Flu; or C) a permanent constitutional exemption from any Covid- mitigation restrictions; D) damages JCT: Crown moved to strike without a defence or hearing and Judge Mandy Aylen ruled that she could not declare "any" restriction based on the false alarm unconstitutional but had to have an actual restriction. So over 30 million Canadians took the jab and Dr. Joffe says to expect 5/8, about 20 million to now have micro-blood-clots; and Ottawa U says to expect 60,000 cases of Myocarditis (to be dead in 5 years). I'm appealing that stopping all that death and destruction by declaring any restriction for a false alarm to be unconstitutional was unorthodox but just. Then in Jan 2022, Ministry of Transport issued an air travel vax requirement, a restriction I could challenge. Brian Peckford and Maxime Bernier challenged it on the grounds it's too inconvenient and violated the Charter including S.6 Mobility Right, then I challenged that it was unjustified because the threat was a false alarm only on Mobility right. I wanted the false alarm to be know and didn't much care which right was violated so I went with the one easy one. http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19bcm.pdf is the Crown motion to strike pointing out that S.6 of the Charter did not guarantee domestic travel, only (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, but not to travel domestically. Looks like there is no right to travel domestically!!! http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19bcr.pdf is my Motion Record in response where I told the Court that it should be a Charter Right but we'll see if he lets us ask the Court to read it into our Charter of Rights. Alim Manji found a few decisions that presumed it was: Search for "right to travel": https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1997/1997canlii17020/1997canlii17020.html And you'll find this: "Section 6 of the Charter is designed to promote economic union among the provinces and to ensure to all Canadians the right to travel throughout the country, to choose a place of residence anywhere within its borders..." JCT: The right to travel is not what it says, it says the right to move to, live in, and work in any province, it does not say right to travel... But of course, who wouldn't interpret "move" as travel but that's not what it means. "Section 6 enshrines the right of Canadian citizens and permanent residents to pursue a living wherever in the country they choose without undue government interference. It has two purposes, one collective, one individual: (1) to promote economic union among the provinces; and (2) to ensure to all Canadians one of the fundamental incidents of citizenship: the right to travel throughout the country, to choose a place of residence anywhere within its borders, and to pursue a livelihood, all without regard to provincial boundaries." JCT: Again, though presumed, right to travel throughout the country isn't there. The right to move to, live in, and work in any province but not travel within. " The second purpose of s. 6 is the obverse of the first, collective purpose: to accord to citizens and permanent residents the right to travel throughout the country, to choose a place of residence anywhere within its borders, and to pursue a livelihood, all without regard to provincial boundaries. JCT: Another who concluded it said "right to travel throughout the country" even when it doesn't say so. It only says move to, live in, and work in any province, not travel throughout Canada. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fca/doc/2008/2008fc338/2008fc338.html Paragraph 98: [98] The purpose of subsection 6(1) of the Charter as a whole is to guarantee Canadian citizens mobility rights within Canada while living here and the right to leave and enter Canada, to go outside the country or return here. It is worded in general language. It guarantees the right to travel both within Canada and outside Canada, with the right to enter and leave. It clearly states that a citizen has the right to mobility within Canada, but also that a citizen may go to another country and has a guaranteed right to return. The purpose is to ensure and guarantee the mobility rights of every Canadian citizen within Canada and the right of every citizen to enter and leave Canada, where it applies. JCT: Again, it is interpreted as "the right to travel both within Canada and outside Canada," but that's not what it says. But should. https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/2019/2019fc553/2019fc553.html Paragraph 87: "the public interest favours Harris' Charter-protected right to travel more than a day and a half from his home: every Canadian has or should have that right unless justifiably limited by state action which does not appear to be established in this case." JCT: This just happens to be one of my template cases challenging the 150-gram cap. Harris had a prescription for 100 grams/day and couldn't leave home with more than 1.5 days supply. Judge Brown found that unreasonable, citing the B.C. Garber case where the court granted patients with 36-, 60-, 100-, 167-gram/day prescriptions a 10-day carry but Judge Brown was overturned by the Federal Court of Appeal and sustained by the Supreme Court. Harris can't leave home with more than a day-and-a-half supply. I think Judge Brown didn't meant the "right to travel" but moreso the "right not to be home-bound under a kind of house arrest." So here's the Crown's final Reply. File No.: T-227-22 FEDERAL COURT B E T W E E N : JOHN TURMEL Plaintiff (Responding Party) and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant (Moving Party) WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS IN REPLY OF THE DEFENDANT (Motion to Strike or for Security For Costs) Contents A. Overview............................................... 1 B. The Charter section 6 claim cannot succeed............. 1 C. The other requested declarations are unavailable ...... 2 D. The plaintiff still has not shown that he is impecunious 3 Authorities Cited.......................................... 5 CR: A. OVERVIEW 1. In response to Canada's motion to strike, the plaintiff now acknowledges that he wishes to travel only domestically to visit family, and that while he is free to travel by other methods, he prefers to do so by aviation. JCT: I said: 65. Yes, the "plaintiff could travel by mule, horse, bicycle, automobile, train and so must not necessarily travel by air. Even if air travel "must" not be used, it is desired to be used. CR: These are not rights protected by s. 6 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter"), and if it was not already plain and obvious that the claim does not disclose a reasonable cause of action, these acknowledgments make it clear that the plaintiff's Charter claim cannot succeed. JCT: I presume Peckford and Bernier's S.6 claim will face the same argument. But they've cited other rights that could still prevail. CR: 2. The plaintiff's response also fails to identify any pleaded facts capable of establishing that the Interim Order is ultra vires or based on errors of fact. Even if these types of declarations were generally available in an action, the plaintiff has not identified any facts that suggest the Minister exceeded his legislative authority, nor has he identified the erroneous facts allegedly relied on by the Minister. This portion of the claim should also accordingly be struck. JCT: A mini-flu exaggerated to a plague is the erroneous fact the Crown has not noticed after having heard about the Apple Orange trick for over a year. CR: B. THE CHARTER SECTION 6 CLAIM CANNOT SUCCEED 3. In his response to Canada's motion to strike, the plaintiff acknowledges that the present claim relies on many of the same facts as his previously struck claim, but notes that the previous claim sought declarations that all federal COVID-19 mitigation measures were unconstitutional, whereas the present claim seeks declarations concerning only the Minister of Transport's Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to COVID-19, No. 52 (the "Interim Order"). JCT: Don't think the Crown has no purpose in mislabelling my motion challenging "any restriction" to "all restrictions" though in many cases they do mean the same. CR: 4. This remedial distinction does not assist the plaintiff. In striking the previous claim, this Court observed that the plaintiff had not pleaded facts to explain how any federal measure satisfied any of the constituent elements of the Charter provisions relied on.1 JCT: It was the same erroneous fact causing the deliberate false alarm. CR: While the present claim is more narrowly focused on the Interim Order and alleges only a violation of s. 6 of the Charter, JCT: compared to the larger focused action challenging "all!" See why he misrepresented "any" as "all." "Any" is as focused as only air travel. CR: it suffers from the same fundamental defect as the previously struck claim in that it contains no facts to explain how the impugned measure infringes this Charter provision in the plaintiff's case. JCT: And comparing the wrong metrics isn't a fact! CR: 5. Indeed, the plaintiff now acknowledges that he only wishes to fly within Ontario to visit family, and that he does not wish to leave and re-enter Canada or travel domestically to work or take up residence in another province.2 JCT: No right to travel domestically if government says no. CR: He also acknowledges that he is free to travel by other methods, but states that he "desires" to do so by air.3 JCT: Not interested in travelling to Vancouver by mule, horse, bicycle, automobile, train where there are planes. CR: These are not rights protected by s. 6,4 and if it was not already plain and obvious that the claim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action, these acknowledgments make it clear that the claim cannot succeed. JCT: No right to domestic air travel. CR: 6. The plaintiff also notes that the applicants in at least two ongoing applications for judicial review have similarly alleged that the Interim Order infringes Charter s. 6. Once again, this does not assist the plaintiff who is not entitled to rely on facts - let alone unproven allegations - applicable to others to support his own claim.5 JCT: Peckford and Bernier don't have any right either. CR: C. THE OTHER REQUESTED DECLARATIONS ARE UNAVAILABLE 7. The plaintiff also continues to seek declarations that the Interim Order is ultra vires the Aeronautics Act and is based on errors of fact. However, even if these declarations were generally available in an action (which they are not),6 the plaintiff still has identified no facts in the claim capable of supporting either request. JCT: Remember, comparing the wrong metrics isn't an error of fact! Har har har. CR: 8. With respect to the vires allegation, while the plaintiff clearly disagrees with the policy merits of the Interim Order, his claim and response to Canada's motion do not address the scope of the Minister's authority under s. 6.41 or identify any facts to suggest that the Minister exceeded this authority in issuing the Interim Order. JCT: He has authority in case of emergency, not false alarm. CR: 9. Moreover, with respect to alleged factual errors, while he alleges that foreign and international organizations have made statements exaggerating the risks of COVID-19, the plaintiff does not assert that the Minister relied on any of these statements in making the Interim Order, identify the facts actually relied on by the Minister, or allege that the facts actually relied on were in error. The claim should be struck in these circumstances. JCT: Of course, the emergency is based on wrong facts that have been identified if they were compared. CR: D. THE PLAINTIFF STILL HAS NOT SHOWN THAT HE IS IMPECUNIOUS 10. The plaintiff notes Canada's allegation that he has insufficient assets to pay Canada's costs, and suggests that this is evidence that he is impecunious. JCT: I also pointed out they did an examination of discovery before making that conclusion. Wonder why he skipped that? CR: However, this allegation - which was included in Canada's notice of motion in anticipation of an argument under rule 416(1)(g)7 - has not been proven, and in any event, even if proven it would not be sufficient to establish impecuniosity.8 JCT: Again, they determined I didn't have enough to sue for the costs I owed them. I didn't determine I wasn't right enough, they did. CR: There is accordingly no reason why, if this claim is allowed to proceed, the plaintiff should not be ordered to provide security for costs.9 JCT: What Judge Mandy Aylen did was strike the claim without dealing with the security for costs but say that she would have granted it if she had not struck the claim. This judge will probably do the same. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Dated at Toronto this April 22, 2022. Attorney General of Canada Per: Benjamin Wong / Jon Bricker JCT: So if the judge strikes my claim, the others should not oppose having their actions struck too. As long as the judge states for the record that there is no right to domestic travel in Canada, that should be a neat enough win. But I'll then file another challenge this time using S.7 Right to Security. How much security can I have without right to travel domestically?