TURMEL: Party submissions on air travel ban challenge costs JCT: Judge Horne ordered submissions on costs from the Plaintiffs and then the Crown Respondent. Only alim Manji made submissions: Alim Manji 930 Woodhaven Rd. London, ON, N6H 4N5 519-495-7928 mrmanji@gmail.com July 13 2022 Re: T-694-22 Submission as to costs On July 4 2022, Case Management Judge Trent Horne ordered: "2. The defendant shall serve and file submissions as to costs within 10 days of the date of this order, not to exceed 5 pages. Any responding submissions from the plaintiffs as to costs shall be served and filed within 20 days of the date of this order, not to exceed 5 pages." In previous actions where the Defendant requested a Lead Plaintiff be appointed and the other actions be stayed, no costs were awarded when the stayed actions were dismissed. A) Filed in T-485-14: : In the matter of numerous filings seeking a declaration pursuant to s. 52 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("The Charter"); and In the matter of numerous motions requesting interim or interlocutory relief pursuant to s. 24(1) of The Charter with regards to changes to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations ("MMAR") and the Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations ("MMPR".) On Jan 11 2017, the Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan dismissed with no costs the actions of almost 400 self-represented plaintiffs seeking the return of their cancelled medpot permits. In 2018, in the actions of almost 400 self-represented plaintiffs seeking damages due to delay in processing their permits, Judge Brown offered the stayed actions the option of waiting for the Lead Plaintiff to finish his appeals and face $150 costs or let their actions be dismissed with no costs. Only Steve Vetricek T-1372-18 chose to risk the costs while the other stayed actions were dismissed with no costs. The Mozajko appeal is still pending at the Supreme Court. On Ap4 11 2022, in the actions of 55 self-represented high-dosage plaintiffs challenging the 150-gram cap on public possession, once the Lead Plaintiff's appeals were dismissed, Judge Brown offered the others the chance to face $150 costs to opposed dismissal or have their stayed actions dismissed with no costs. The action of Arthur Jackes T-1784- 18 and all the other stayed actions were dismissed with no costs. In all previous cases where the stayed actions were dismissed, the Crown was awarded no costs for doing nothing. Here again, the Crown has not had to file any documentation to deal with the stayed actions and has already been awarded costs from the Lead Plaintiff. Plaintiff herein would hope that as in previous precedents for dismissing stayed actions, no costs would be awarded. I would further ask for a Direction allowing me to file a "sur-reply" in case the Defendant raises issues in Response that I have not addressed herein. Alim Manji Cc: benjamin.wong2@justice.fc.ca JCT: The Crown then made their submissions: CR: Canada requests costs of $250 in each of these matters. The Plaintiffs' claims are based on a "kit" Statement of Claim accessed from the website of John Turmel. The Federal Courts have consistently dismissed these types of claims - including a group of prior challenges to the very same federal COVID-19 mitigation measures JCT: That's not true. The first challenge was to "any" restriction and dismissed because there was no specific restriction. This one is about the Air Travel restriction, not "the very same measure, is it? CR: - on the grounds that facts pleaded concerning each plaintiff's personal circumstances were insufficient to disclose a reasonable cause of caution.1 1 In the matter of numerous filings, 2017 FC 30, paras 37- 38; Order of Zinn J., dated in August 17, 2018, in Hathaway v HMQ (T-983-16); Order of Aalto, Proth., dated October 11, 2016 in several files including MacDonald v HMQ (T-1113-16); Harris v HMQ, 2019 FCA 232, paras 6, 19-20, 23; Order of Brown J, dated April 27, 2020, in several files including McCluskey v HMQ (T-2126-18); Harris v HMQ, 2020 FCA 124, paras 26, 30-38, 41-42, leave refused [2021] SCCA No 228; Turmel v HMQ, 2021 FC 1095, paras 4-5, 15-23 (appeal pending) Despite these decisions, the plaintiffs filed the present claims which suffered from the same fundamental defects. JCT: No, they did not suffer the same fundamental defect of not citing a specific restriction to complain about. Now we waited for the air travel ban. CR: A cost consequence is reasonable in this circumstance given that the plaintiffs embarked on litigation with Statements of Claim they found online that they either knew, or should have known, were deficient. JCT: There is no reason to think that a challenge to the specific air travel ban is the same challenge deficient of a specific restriction! CR: Canada also notes that the "kit" claim on which the Plaintiffs relied continues to be promoted and is available online on Mr. Turmel's website, and submits that an award of costs in these circumstances would serve as a deterrent to the continued promotion and filing of these claims. For these reasons, costs of $250 would be appropriate. JCT: Maybe if the first challenge were against the air travel ban and then this one too would be an abuse, but this one against the air travel ban and first not against the air travel ban is not an abuse. Sincerely, James Schneider Counsel JCT: So Benjamin Wong is gone and they got a newbie to steer the judge wrong by stating this challenge is an abuse because it is the very same as the first challenge. Aren't we glad Alim asked for the right for a " Sur-Reply" so we can make sure the judge is aware that the errors the Crown is hoping he falls for.