TURMEL: Crown Motion for Costs v First Group JCT: First, they filed a motion for an extension of time for being 2 days late. No opposition. B) JULY 4 RESPONSE LETTER ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Department of Justice Canada Ontario Regional Office 120 Adelaide Street West Suite #400 Toronto, ON M5H 1T1 VIA EMAIL Our File Number: LEX-500081718 July 4, 2023 Federal Court 180 Queen Street West, Suite 200 Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6 Dear Registry: Re: Raymond Turmel v His Majesty the King, T-138-21 and other files listed in Annex A I am writing on behalf of the defendant in the above-noted matters, Her Majesty the King ("Canada"), in response to the Court's Order of June 19, 2023. I ask that you kindly place this letter before the case-management judge, Associate Justice Horne. Canada requests costs of $500 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 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. Despite these decisions, the plaintiffs filed the present claims which suffered from the same fundamental defects. 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. Canada notes that the "kit claims" on which the Plaintiff relies appears to have been removed from the internet. Nonetheless, an award of costs in these circumstances will still serve as a deterrent to the filing of "kit claims" generally in this or any future matters. As this honourable Case Management Judge noted in his Orders of July 27, 2022 and September 6, 2022, an award of $500 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. It would also be consistent with those two orders, which dealt with substantially similar kit claims. Sincerely, James Schneider c.c. All Plaintiffs, by email Attachments Order of July 27, 2022 (c19b Travel Ban) Order of September 6, 2022 (Ray Turmel costs) Order of July 27, 2022 (c19b Travel Ban) PRESENT: Case Management Judge Trent Horne http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19133.txt is my report on the judgment. Order of September 6, 2022 (Ray Turmel costs) Dockets: T-740-22 (Ray Turmel) T-837-22 T-841-22 PRESENT: Case Management Judge Trent Horne ORDER [1] These actions were dismissed by my judgment dated July 2, 2022 ("Judgment").... 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, T- 827-22, T-828-22, T-929-22 shall each pay costs to the defendant, fixed at $500.00, payable forthwith. JCT: Have you noticed the Crown misplay. Can't mention it now or they might correct it. Since I was declared a Vexatious Litigant, I can't help anyone any more. So they've taken away your McKenzie Friend. In Federal Court. I can still help challenge bad laws in provincial courts. I helped Ray do his motion to Judge Horne which he won't complete and the Crown complained I was helping despite the Vexatious Litigant Order. It is being appealed and I hope it is stayed pending appeal without my having to ask. Used to be how it was sometimes done. Used automatic appeals fighting foreclosures in the 1980s. Upon appeal, the foreclosure was stayed and the family stayed in the home. Then the court changed their rules with no more automatics and having to ask for stay. Really slowed down the Anti- Foreclosure Stiff-the-Bank kits. Of course. any plaintiff can submit a letter.All they have to do is follow the same instructions to efile their letter and Affidavit of Email Service they followed before if they don't remember them. Here's how I do it. I email a copy my document (Letter, Motion, Reply, Etc.) to the Respondent. Then I use the Affidavitof Service template on the http://SmartestMan.Ca/kits intro page. http://SmartestMan.Ca/efiling.pdf instructions to efile at https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/online-access/e-filing Click on already started proceeding, not initiate new one, then follow the instructions at the http://SmartestMan.Ca/efiling.pdf page. Add document "Letter" instead of Statement of Claim Follow their instructions to finish. So if someone wants to say the costs sought aren't warranted. It's doable and won't cost you anything. If they do nothing, then they await his decision.