TURMEL: Submissions on costs for air travel ban challenge On May 18 2022, Judge Trent Horne offered the self- plaintiffs who filed challenges to the air travel ban under the S.6 Charter Right to Mobility were given 30 days to decide whether they wanted to continue the right on their own after I'd been dismissed. Of course not. http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19cd1.pdf Date: 20220518 Dockets: T-693-22 T-694-22 T-695-22 T-705-22 T-710-22 T-827-22 T-828-22 T-929-22 Toronto, Ontario, May 18, 2022 PRESENT: Prothonotary Trent Horne Docket: T-693-22 BETWEEN: JOSHUA FUDGE et al Plaintiff and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant and Docket: T-694-22 ALIM MANJI Docket: T-695-22 RENE BEAULIEU Docket: T-705-22 ANGELA COLELLA KROEPLIN Docket: T-710-22 ROSA TAMM Docket: T-827-22 ROGER W GERVAIS Docket: T-828-22 SHELLEY R GERVAIS Docket: T-929-22 KATHERINE WRIGHT ORDER I. Overview [1] The Court is case managing a group of nine actions in which the self-represented plaintiffs seek relief related to the federal Government's Covid-19 mitigation measures, including a declaration that the Minister of Transport's January 15, 2022 decision to make an interim order in the form of an Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to Covid-19, No. 52 violates their Charter rights. [2] The statements of claim in each action are almost identical, and are based on a "kit claim" made available on the internet by John Turmel, the plaintiff in T-277-22. [3] Mr. Turmel commenced an earlier proceeding related to the federal Government's Covid-19 mitigation measures, which was assigned Court file no. T-130-21. As in this action, he made a "kit claim" available on the internet, and encouraged others to commence their own identical proceedings. [4] By order dated April 8, 2021, prothonotary Aylen (as she then was) stayed the "kit claim" proceedings pending the final determination (by judgment or order) in T-130-21 and any appeals therefrom. [5] On April 12, 2022, I issued the following direction in T-693-22, T-694-22, T-695-22, T-705-22, and T-710-22: The statements of claim in T-693-22, T-694-22, T-695-22, T-705-22 and T-710-22 appear to be essentially the same as the statement of claim in Court file no. T-277-22. As such, the Court proposes that the proceedings in T-693- 22, T-694-22, T-695-22, T-705-22 and T-710-22 be stayed pursuant to section 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act pending the final determination of the proceedings in T277-22 (Mr. John Turmel's claim). Following the final determination in T-277-22 (which includes any appeals therefrom), a plaintiff would then be entitled to request that the stay of their proceeding be lifted on the basis that they are differentially situated than Mr. Turmel. The Court requires that any plaintiff in T-693-22, T- 694-22, T-695-22, T-705-22 and T-710-22 who does not consent to a stay of their action based on the proposal above so advise the Court by no later than April 20, 2022 and provide, by that date, any submissions as to why their action should not be stayed. The Crown shall serve and file any responding submissions by no later than April 27, 2022. Any plaintiff opposing a stay of their action shall file any reply submissions by no later than May 2, 2022. [6] Identical responses were received from each of the plaintiffs, which included: I do not wish to be stayed pending the result of an action for a Lead Plaintiff that could be dismissed not on the merits. Mr. Turmel has indicated that he does not want to be Lead Plaintiff for these actions and may abandon his action if it is in the way of having our claims adjudicated on the merits. Of course, should the Respondent withdraw the demand for security for costs, then I would be prepared to be stayed pending the result of the Turmel action. [7] The defendant filed a response on April 26, 2022, submitting that concerns relating to security for costs could be easily addressed by staying the other claims now, and designating a new lead claim if and when Mr. Turmel is ordered to provide security for costs and fails to provide this security. The defendant also submitted that this approach would conserve judicial and party resources, would not result in injustice to any party, and would be far preferable to having multiple, substantially identical claims proceed in parallel. [8] Pursuant to paragraph 50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act RSC 1985. C. F-7, the Court may, in its discretion, stay its own proceedings where it is in the interests of justice to do so. In considering a request for a stay under paragraph 50(1)(b), the tri-partite test set out in RJR Macdonald Inc v Canada (Attorney General), [1994] 1 SCR 110 does not apply. Rather, the question is whether it would be in the interests of justice for a stay to be granted (see Clayton v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 1 at para 24 ("Clayton"). [9] The interests of justice test is a wide-ranging test that can embrace many elements, and the Court must consider the totality of the circumstances of a particular case when considering whether to exercise its discretion to stay its proceedings. The Court should be guided by certain principles, including securing the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every proceeding on its merits, as expressly provided in Rule 3 of the Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, and the fact that as long as no party is unfairly prejudiced and it is in the interests of justice, the Court should exercise its discretion against the wasteful use of judicial resources. The Court should also take into consideration the public interest in moving a proceeding forward fairly and with due dispatch (Jensen v Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, 2019 FC 373 at para 10 ("Jensen"); Coote v Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Co, 2013 FCA 143 at para 13; Clayton) [10] As stated by the Court in Jensen at para 14, the case law establishes that the interests of justice test is anchored in three overarching principles: (1) a flexible approach aimed at protecting the interest of a just, fair and efficient resolution of a proceeding; (2) the existence of some form of prejudice, harm or injustice, as opposed to simple inconvenience, to be suffered by he moving party in the absence of a stay; and (3) the determinative place of the particular factual circumstances presented to the Court. [11] I am satisfied that there will be no prejudice or harm to the plaintiffs if their proceedings are stayed pending the determination of the proceeding in T-277-22. None of the plaintiffs took issue with the Court's observation that their claims are essentially the same as the statement of claim in T-277-22. None of the plaintiffs have submitted that they are differently situated than Mr. Turmel. Further, staying the "kit claims" would be consistent with the manner in which the Court managed the multiple proceedings that were based on or copied from the statement of claim in T- 130-21. [12] Considerations of judicial resources, efficiency and the orderly conduct of multiple proceedings all support a stay. I am therefore satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to stay these proceedings pending a final determination of T-277-22 and any appeals therefrom. Proceeding in this manner will ensure the just, most expeditious, and least expensive determination of the issues raised in the statements of claim. [13] To the extent the proceedings in T-277-22 are abandoned or dismissed on procedural grounds, the remaining plaintiffs will be given an opportunity to distinguish their proceedings from T-277-22, and/or to designate a new lead claim. If T-277-22 is determined on the merits, it will remain open to the plaintiffs to request that the Court permit their claims to proceed following the final determination of T-277-22 if they can demonstrate that they are differently situated than T-277-22 such that they should not be bound by any final determination made in that case. [14] After my direction was issued on April 12, 2022, further statements of claim were issued in T-827-22, T-828- 22, and T-929-22. Each of these statements of claim are substantially the same as the one in T-277-22. For the above reasons, these proceedings will also be stayed, as well as any new statement of claim filed subsequent to the date of this order which is substantially identical to those filed in T-277-22, T-693-22, T-694-22, T-695-22, T-705-22, T-710- 22, T-827-22, T-828-22, and T-929-22. THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The actions bearing Court file nos. T-693-22, T-694-22, T-695-22, T-705-22, T-710-22, T-827-22, T-828-22, and T-929- 22 are hereby stayed pending the final determination (by judgment or order) in T-277-22 and any appeals therefrom. 2. The Registry shall provide a copy of any final determination in T-277-22 to each of the plaintiffs in T- 693-22, T-694-22, T-695-22, T-705-22, T-710-22, T-827-22, T- 828-22, and T-929-22. 3. In the event that any party in T-693-22, T-694-22, T-695- 22, T-705-22, T-710-22, T-827-22, T-828-22, and T-929-22 takes the position that their action is differently situated than T-277-22 such that the final determination in T-277-22 (and any appeals therefrom) should not apply to their action, that party shall, within 30 days of the final determination in T-277-22 and any appeals therefrom, requisition a case management conference to establish a schedule for a motion to determine whether their action should move forward. 4. The terms of this order shall apply to any new statement of claim filed subsequent to the ate of this order which is substantially identical to those filed in T-277-22, T-693- 22, -694-22, T-695-22, T-705-22, T-710-22, T-827-22, T-828- 22, and T-929-22. 5. The terms of this order may be varied or amended as the Court determines necessary. 6. There shall be no costs associated with this order. "Trent Horne" blank Prothonotary JCT: So they're all stayed.