TURMEL: Judge Trent Horne hits anti-vax plaintiffs with 2x requested costs JCT: https://groups.google.com/g/can.legal/c/Dqm0KaiDKx8 is my last post on the: Party submissions on air travel ban challenge costs. This is Judge Trent Horne's decision: Date: 20220727 Toronto, Ontario, July 27, 2022 PRESENT: Case Management Judge Trent Horne Docket: T-693-22 BETWEEN: JOSHUA FUDGE 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 Docket: T-929-22 and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Defendant ORDER J: I. Overview [1] These actions were dismissed by my judgment dated July 2, 2022 ("Judgment"). [2] The Judgment did not fix costs. The defendant was directed to serve and file submissions as to costs within 10 days of the date of the Judgment. Any responding submissions from the plaintiffs as to costs were directed to be served and filed within 20 days of the date of the judgment. [3] The defendant's costs submissions were received on July 14, 2022. [4] Alim Manji (T-694-22) filed costs submissions dated July 13, 2022; nothing was filed in response to the defendant's submissions. [5] The other plaintiffs did not file any costs submissions. [6] For the reasons that follow, the defendant will be awarded costs of each proceeding in the amount of $500.00, payable forthwith. JCT: The Crown asked for $250 and Judge Horne decided to punish the plaintiffs with double the costs. J: II. Background [7] The genesis of these proceedings are statements of claim filed by John Turmel. [8] Mr Turmel commenced a first action related to the federal Government's COVID-19 mitigation measures, which was assigned Court file no T-130-21. A number of substantially identical claims were filed by other plaintiffs, which were stayed by order of prothonotary Aylen (as she then was) dated April 8, 2021. [9] The statement of claim in T-130-21 was struck, with costs, by order of Prothonotary Aylen dated July 12, 2021. That order was upheld on appeal by justice Zinn (Turmel v. Canada, 2021 FC 1095). Mr Turmel further appealed justice Zinn's decision; that appeal is pending. [10] While the appeal of justice Zinn's decision was underway, Mr Turmel commenced a second action, which was assigned Court file no T-277-22. The material difference between Mr Turmel's first claim and second claim is that the latter specifically challenges a January 15, 2022 decision of the Minister of Transport to make an interim order in the form of an Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for Civil Aviation Due to Covid-19, No. 52 ("Interim Order No. 52"). The second claim sought a declaration that certain sections of this decision violate the plaintiff's section 6 Charter rights, and that these violations are not demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter. JCT: So it's pretty clear that the second challenge was against a real restriction while the first one did not name a specific restriction, only "any," which was deemed not specific enough. J: [11] As with the first action in T-130-21, Mr Turmel made a copy of his statement of claim in T-277-22 available on the internet so that others could substitute their name as the plaintiff, and then commence an identical action seeking the same relief. Such actions have been referred to as "kit claims". [12] The statements of claim in each of these actions are almost identical, and are based on the materials made available on the internet by Mr Turmel. [13] By order dated May 18, 2022, I stayed these proceedings. The order noted that 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, and that none of the plaintiffs have submitted that they are differently situated than Mr Turmel. I also concluded that 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. JCT: So, to minimize efforts, only my claim needs be dealt with while the other claims do not need to to be. J: [14] Mr Turmel's action in T-277-22 was dismissed by my judgment dated May 18, 2022. This judgment was not appealed, and is final. [15] Despite having the opportunity to do so, none of the plaintiffs made submissions that their proceeding was differently situated than T-277-22. These actions were dismissed by the Judgment. The only remaining matter to be determined is costs. III. Analysis [16] The Court has full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs (Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, subrule 400(1)). [17] With the exception of Alim Manji, none of the plaintiffs filed submissions on costs. There is no material before me to indicate what, if any, consideration any of the plaintiffs gave to the merits of their claim before filing it, considered whether the claim advanced a credible cause of action, or complied with the rules of pleading. JCT: It's the same credible cause of action as filed by Brian Peckford and Maxime Bernier challenging the unconstitutional air-travel ban. Except that unlike Peckford and Bernier who accepted the danger of the threat, the material before Judge Horne argued that the threat was a false alarm because: 1) WHO's comparing the Covid 3.4% "Apple" CFR "Case Fatality Rate" not to Flu's known 10% CFR "Apple" but to the 100-times smaller Flu 0.1% "Orange" IFR "Infection Fatality Rate" exaggerated the threat by a hundredfold; 2) CDC said masked social distanced lockdowns were needed when "most coronavirus cases spread from people with no symptoms." An asymptomatic spreader would unknowningly infect clusters of family and friends. But no such clusters have been found. On April 2 WHO found "no documented asymptomatic transmission." On June 3, Wuhan tested 10 million to find zero transmission by asymptomatics and the restriction was therefore an unconstitutional limitation of our rights. A better case than Peckford and Bernier who could only argue the restriction hurt too much. So Judge Horne knew the threat prompting the air travel restriction was a false alarm due to an Apple-Orange comparison. So there was material before the judge to indicate that the plaintiffs thought the merits of their claim advanced a credible cause of action that an air travel ban based on a false alarm was uncalled for. The reason the court says the action did not comply with the rules of pleading is because Judge Aylen ruled that WHO comparing CFR to IFR was not a fact! So if that's not a fact, then there were no facts to support the claim to false alarm. Har har har har har har. The CFR to IFR comparison is not a fact! Har har har har har har. Only to a judge. J: [18] I have difficulty understanding how completing a "kit claim", replacing only the name of the plaintiff and otherwise adopting the pleading of someone else, advances a legitimate legal interest, particularly when the relief sought in T-277-22 challenged the constitutionality of Interim Order No. 52 generally, not just as it applied to Mr Turmel. JCT: Doesn't more people making the claim add to its credibility? Judge Aylen ruled that the WHO mis-comparing CFR to IFR was not a material fact. Doesn't more people thinking that comparing CFR to IFR is a material fact help convince the court it is a fact and she was wrong. Without more people, I'd be alone in again stating that the Apple Orange comparison was a material fact in prompting the real restriction on air travel. If all Canadians filed believing that comparing CFR to IFR was a fact, wouldn't that argue it is a fact to a judge? J: Absent any separate or unique claim to advance, the plaintiffs knew, or ought to have known, that their duplicative actions would be stayed (just like the proceedings were stayed in T-130-21), and have the same outcome as the proceedings in T-277-22. None of the plaintiffs have demonstrated a distinct or practical result that could flow from filing or prosecuting their own action, separate and apart from what could have been ordered in Mr Turmel's action. JCT: So rather than complain about it affecting them personally, they should have just waited to see if I struck it down and not added their voices that they too see the fact. J: [19] In the absence of any submissions from the plaintiffs, I can only conclude that these actions were improper, vexatious and unnecessary. There is no indication that any of the plaintiffs had an intention or interest to independently prosecute the actions they commenced. In the absence of evidence or submissions from the plaintiffs, it appears that the plaintiffs' objectives in filing these claims was to clog the registry with redundant actions, and vex the defendant with needless filings. JCT: Or to help convince the court that not only Turmel believed the CFR to IFR comparison was a fact once Judge Aylen had ruled it was not. J: Even if I am incorrect in this respect, I have no difficulty concluding that these actions were filed for a collateral purpose, and not to advance a reasonable cause of action. JCT: They were filed to add to the credibility of the claim that the fact of the mis-comparison to cause the false alarm made the restriction unconstitutional. Even though I have a far superior education than any lawyer or judge who couldn't see the fact claimed, it had to help to have more people agree that the miscomparison was a fact, not only me. J: [20] Litigation is a serious business which consumes public resources. The plaintiffs' conduct has abused these resources. JCT: Maybe if the court had not already ruled that the miscomparison of CFR to IFR was not a fact but once the court had erred, it had to help to have more people claim that the CFR to IFR miscomparison was a fact. J: [21] The submissions by Alim Manji refer to other matters where numerous plaintiffs filed "kit claims", and no costs were awarded when they were ultimately dismissed. Mr Manji submits that the Crown did not have to file documentation to deal with these stayed actions, and has been awarded costs from the lead plaintiff (Mr Turmel). Mr Manji expresses a hope that no costs will be awarded. [22] I do not view the costs awards in earlier proceedings involving multiple "kit claim" plaintiffs as binding on me. There is no default position that copycat claims are immune from adverse cost consequences. JCT: It's not that copycat claims are immune, it's that stayed claims where the Crown doesn't have to do anything are immune from paying the Crown for not having done anything. J: Each case is considered on its own facts. If costs were never awarded in "kit claim" actions, it would only serve to encourage behavior that should be discouraged. JCT: Showing that many disagree that the CFR IFR miscomparison is not a fact should be discouraged? Maybe to wanting to keep the error unchallenged but not to someone looking to correct the error. J: [23] While the defendant has not filed a defense in these actions, it cannot be disputed that the defendant has devoted resources to deal with these proceedings. JCT: Not much resources! He wrote his April 7 and 26 letters asking their actions be stayed pending mine, and for costs that applied to all the stayed actions. Since no one did anything, he wrote one letter for all of them. J: These proceedings added nothing to the substance of the issues, rather only served to create work for the defendant and the Court. JCT: And help indicate that more people disagree with Judge aylen that the CFR IFR miscomparison was not a fact. J: [24] The defendant requests $250.00 in costs for each action. In part, the defendant submits that an award of costs in these circumstances would serve as a deterrent to the continued filing and promotion of these claims. [25] Deterrence is a factor that can be considered in the assessment of costs (Hutton v. Sayat, 2020 FC 1183 at paras 64 and 66). [26] The Court is not restricted to Tariff B in an assessment of costs, and may award a lump sum (subrule 400(4)). [27] I agree with the defendant's submissions, but do not agree that the amount requested would be sufficient to recognize the improper, vexatious and unnecessary nature of these actions (subrule 400(3)(k)(i)), the need for deterrence, and the absence of a demonstrated good faith basis to file each of these statements of claim. A lump sum award of costs of $500.00 in each action is appropriate in the circumstances. THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The plaintiffs in Court file nos T-693-22, T-694-22, T- 695-22, T-705-22, T-710-22, T827-22, T-828-22, T-929-22 shall each pay costs to the defendant, fixed at $500.00, payable forthwith. blank "Trent Horne" blank Case Management Judge JCT: There was no appealing the decision to strike the action. The Charter does not ensure a S.6 Mobility Right to domestic travel, only to live in, work in, and move to another province. So Brian Peckford and Maxime Bernier will have their S.6 Mobility Right challenges struck too. As for punishing the plaintiffs for filing a copy-cat action, as long as he doesn't accept its purpose was to demonstrate disagreement with Judge Aylen, there is nothing we can do. Remember, he knows that the covid Mortality Hyped Hundredfold is a false alarm and knows he's punishing people who tried to bring the false alarm to the world's attention to save them taking the experimental vaccine. Keep in mind that ours is the only action that has the potential to end the vax nightmare. Only the admission that the Apple Orange exaggeration makes the threat a false alarm can be used to end any arguments for the vax. And we were the only people who tried to warn the world that the world was tricked with a false alarm. As more and more people have their immune system destroyed, as more and more doctors decry the experimental vaccine, Judge Horne will have family and friends who suffer adverse effects and he'll know it was over a false alarm and he punished people who tried to save them. We can't appeal but he'll learn of the results of what he did. My http://gab.com/johnturmel page has lots of links stories detailing the adverse effects, deaths, and doctors decrying the vax. Notice all the "sudden death" reports but never among the unvaccinated. That would be newsworthy. The fact they don't say means they were probably vaxed and it's being suppressed. If you ever hear of any unvaccinated sudden deaths, let me know. Some of the best reports are: Dr. Francis Christian Sidebar with Francis Christian, Director of Patient Safety and Quality of surgery in Saskatchewan (fired) on Viva & Barnes who delivers quite a load of facts about vax dangers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKbOvsLTbeU The number of doctors who have tried to warn us and have been suspended and had their lives destroyed does vouch for the truth of what they're saying. Another video makes the point: More Deaths, Fewer Births https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u77qc2zBwC8 Focusing on the most important statistics of all: Mortality and Natality rates can't be hidden. More people are dying from all causes and less babies are born, just what to expect it the vax destroys the immune system. 44-Year-Old Canadian Doctor Dies 'Unexpectedly' - Sixth Canadian Doctor to Die Within Two Weeks https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/44-year-old-canadian-doctor-dies-unexpectedly-sixth-canadian-doctor-die-within-two-weeks/ At least doctors deserve it. I don't think the plaintiffs should be punished for trying to warn the world that the virus was a false alarm! So I'm going to start a GoFundMe page to raise funds to pay their costs. And our earlier costs: - Michel Ethier appealed Prothonotary Aylen's order staying his case and ordering that he not be provided with any documentation which he can chase down on his own to a Federal Court Judge. Mr. Justice Favel dismissed it with $500 in costs. - He filed a Notice of Appeal and Federal Court of Appeal Justice Gleason dismissed it with $500 costs. - Prothobotary Aylen dismissed my action to declare the false alarm with $1,000 in costs. - Justice Zinn dismissed my appeal of the Aylen decision on the false alarm with $500 in costs. - My appeal of the Zinn decision will probably be hit with costs. No one expects the courts to warn the world of the false alarm even though we tried. - Prothonnotary Horne dismissed my action against the air travel ban with $2,000 in costs. - And now the other 8 plaintiffs for $4,000 for trying to alert the world of the false alarm. So we've been hit with $8,500 plus in costs trying to warn the world the vax mandates were over a false alarm. Given it's the only argument there is to end the vax mandates, I hope the world appreciates the sacrifices of our plaintiffs in trying to alert them to the false alarm and can contribute to the allay the punishing costs. I'm going to include my other court actions - seeking equitable free broadcast time for political candidates in a dozen cases - seeking to strike the gambling prohibitions by getting busted and fighting the charges. Other template actions: - to stall foreclosures in the 1980s; - from the 2000s to strike marijuana from the schedule of illegal drugs that resulted in my getting 4,000 charges stayed in 2003; - for the next 20 years defending those charged with marijuana offences and getting many charges resolved with sweet deals; - in 2014 helping 400 of the 18,000 patients who had their grow permits cancelled by the court get t hem back. - in 2017 helping 400 claim for damages due to the delay in processing their permits and getting 80 permits expedited, - in 2018 helping 55 high-dosers try to strike the 150 gram cap on possession. I hope that the people who benefited from my efforts can contribute to help defray the costs of my good-deeds. Godaddy.com was my web site host but they sabotaged my search results or were too incomptent to do them right so I'm in the process of switching hosts and my site is down for a wwhile. http://SmartestMan.Ca/godadbug explains when it's back up.