TURMEL: Judge Horne punishes Covid false alarm warners JCT: Note that everyone's actions were stayed pending my appeals as Lead Plaintiff and checking with the Supreme Court of Canada registry, you'll see my Application for Leave to Appeal is not yet complete. So Judge Horne jumped the gun: https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=40520 Date: 20230828 Dockets: T-138-21 List in Annex A Toronto, Ontario, August 28, 2023 PRESENT: Associate Judge Trent Horne SEE ANNEX A FOR A LIST OF ALL OTHER DOCKETS TO WHICH THIS ORDER APPLIES BETWEEN: RAYMOND TURMEL Plaintiff and HIS MAJESTY THE KING Defendant ORDER J: <-- Judge Trent Horne J: I. Background [1] These actions were dismissed by my order dated June 19, 2023 ("Order"). [2] The Order did not fix costs. The defendant was directed to serve and file submissions as to costs within 10 days of the date of the Order. Any responding submissions from the plaintiffs as to costs were directed to be served and filed within 20 days of the date of the Order. [3] By order dated July 18, 2023, I granted the defendant an extension of time to July 25, 2023 to serve and file submissions as to costs. The deadline for the plaintiffs to serve and file responding submissions as to costs was extended to August 4, 2023. JCT: It was brought to Judge Horne's attention that the Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was not yet completed. J: [4] The defendant served and filed costs submissions on July 18, 2023. The defendant submits that an award of $500.00 in costs would be appropriate in all matters other than T-333-21. In particular, the defendant relies on two orders I made in other matters involving "kit claims" prepared and promoted by John Turmel. JCT: The Crown relies on Orders from other matters that were after these actions. Keep the timing in mind. J: [5] The defendant submits that $250.00 in costs should be awarded in T-333-21 because the plaintiff apparently attempted to discontinue the proceeding. There is no indication in the Court file that a notice of discontinuance was presented for filing. There are no submissions from the plaintiff in T-333-21. J: [6] Of the 81 plaintiffs, only four filed submissions on costs: Joan Hughes (T-382-21); James Skerritt (T-404-21); Carl Wall (T-469-21); and Steven Beausoleil (T-932-21). J: [7] The genesis of these proceedings is a statement of claim filed by John Turmel in Court file T-130-21 which related to the federal government's COVID-19 mitigation measures. Mr Turmel made a copy of his statement of claim in T-130-21 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". JCT: They did not seek the same relief. They sought their own personal relief based on the same arguments. So they substituted their name and their own relief for damages sought. J: [8] 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. The claims by persons other than Mr Turmel were stayed by order of prothonotary Aylen (as she then was, as that office was then titled) dated April 8, 2021. JCT: Notice he doesn't mention they were stayed pending the results of my action and any appeals that are not yet final. J: Ultimately, the proceedings were dismissed by my Order. JCT: Before my appeals were complete. J: Despite having the opportunity to do so, none of the plaintiffs made submissions that their proceeding was differently situated than T-130-21, or provided any reason why their action should continue. JCT: That would be because my appeals were not yet final. J: II. Court Files Other Than T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and T-932-21 [9] The Court has full discretionary power over the amount and allocation of costs (Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, subrule 400(1) ("Rules")). [10] With the exception of Court files T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and T-932-21 none of the plaintiffs filed submissions on costs. JCT: Again, that would be because my appeals are still not yet final. J: The defendant advises that only the plaintiff in T-333-21 advised that he attempted to discontinue his action. I will therefore determine the amount of costs payable in all Court files other than T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and T-932-21, and then separately consider the cost consequences in T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and T-932-21. [11] There is no material before me to indicate what, if any, consideration any of these 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: Did he presume they didn't read their Statement of Claim?: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19sc.pdf J: [12] As I stated in earlier costs rulings in Turmel "kit claim" matters, JCT: As he stated in later cost rulings... They could not be expected to know what he was going to say later, could they? J: I have difficulty understanding how completing a "kit claim", replacing only the name of the plaintiff and otherwise adopting the pleading of someone else, JCT: Yes, they adopted the facts and arguments but not "replacing only the name of the plaintiff," they also replaced the plaintiff personal damages claim. Looks like he ignored the different damages or didn't notice. J: advances a legitimate legal interest, particularly when the relief sought in T-130-21 challenged the constitutionality of the federal government's Covid mitigation restrictions generally, not just as they applied to Mr Turmel. JCT: Right, we were challenging the Covid mitigation restrictions generally as they applied to and violated the rights of all Canadians. J: Absent any separate or unique claim to advance, JCT: Their unique claim to damages was not absent. Judge Horne just didn't notice. J: the plaintiffs should have known or expected that their duplicative actions would be stayed. JCT: I had informed them that we could expect and consent to their personal damages actions being stayed pending the determination for Lead Plaintiff whether the restrictions were unconstitutional and if yes, then their damages claims could be adjudicated. Sure, I might have gotten the restrictions declared unconstitutional for all Canadians but not gotten them the damages for their personal lockdown injuries. They had to file an action for their own damages. J: 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: Every plaintiff's Statement of Claim demonstrated a distinct and practical result in damages that could flow from filing their own action. He just ignored or didn't notice the distinct damages they could not have received without filing their own actions. J: [13] In the absence of any submissions from the plaintiffs in these Court files, I can only conclude that the actions were improper, vexatious and unnecessary. JCT: As long as he ignores their personal damages claims. J: There is no indication that any of those plaintiffs had an intention or interest to independently prosecute the actions they commenced. JCT: Of course, the original Statement of Claim for their own personal damages inherently shows intent to prosecute the actions they commenced for personal damages if I proved the restrictions unconstitutional. He just didn't notice or ignored them. J: In the absence of evidence or submissions from these plaintiffs, it appears that the plaintiffs' objectives in filing statements of claim was to clog the registry with redundant actions, and vex the defendant with needless filings. JCT: Or to obtain personal damages that could not be obtained in any other way without needing to pay for legal counsel. J: Even if I am incorrect in this respect, I have no difficulty concluding that the actions in all proceedings other than T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and T- 932-21 were filed and maintained for a collateral purpose, and not to advance a reasonable cause of action. JCT: He is incorrect in concluding their claims were filed for a collateral purpose and not for personal relief for distinct damages suffered. J: [14] Litigation is a serious business which consumes public resources. The plaintiffs' conduct has abused these resources. JCT: Filing a claim for personal damages then waiting to see if I could get the restrictions declared unconstitutional did not abuse the resources. How else could they get their claims for damages filed? And how many Crown resources were abused by them waiting too? J: [15] Deterrence is a factor that can be considered in the assessment of costs (Hutton v Sayat, 2020 FC 1183 at paras 64 and 66). JCT: Deter people from seeking remedy for distinct damages suffered? J: [16] The Court is not restricted to Tariff B in an assessment of costs, and may award a lump sum (subrule 400(4)). [17] I will accept the defendant's submissions, but acknowledge that the amount requested may not be fully 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. JCT: He can only say that if he ignores their relief for personal damages was sought in good faith? J: A lump sum award of costs of $500.00 in each action, excepting T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and T-932- 21, will be awarded. JCT: Must punish them for daring to join in trying to warn the world that the killer clot shot was for a hundredfold- hyped false alarm and be compensated for damages suffered? III. Court Files T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and T-932-21 [18] I accept the defendant's submissions that the costs to be awarded in T-333-21 should be $250.00. [19] Ms Hughes (T-382-21) submits that it was not her intention to abuse the resources of the Court. While she had concerns that assurances as to the safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines were not accurate, JCT: Even kiddie killer Prime Minister Trudeau knew he was lying when he banned the unvaccinated from travelling with the vaccinated because he knew they were not protected by their vaccination: When Trudeau deemed the clot shots Safe, Effective, not to fret, But "unVaxed can't ride with the Vax Protected: Danger yet." If Vaxed are not protected, then it's sure Effective NOT. Our fool Prime Minister, in contradiction has been caught. J: she now realizes that any trust in Mr Turmel was misplaced. She states that she attempted to withdraw from the proceedings, but was unfamiliar with the proper way to close the Court file. I accept that Ms Hughes was effectively duped by Mr Turmel, and that her intention was not to abuse the resources of the Court. No award of costs will be made in T-382-21. [20] Mr Skerritt (T-404-21) is Ms Hughes' partner. His submissions express regret in attaching his name to Mr Turmel's actions. He states that if he had known at the time that Mr Turmel had been declared to be a vexatious litigant, he would not have filed this claim. Like Ms Hughes, I accept that Mr Skerritt was effectively duped by Mr Turmel, and that his intention was not to abuse the resources of the Court. No award of costs will be made in T-404-21. JCT: All they had to do was say I duped them into seeking damages for their sufferings to save $500. J: [21] Mr Wall (T-469-21) submits that an all-inclusive sum of $500.00 should be awarded to the defendant. He asserts that his personal interest in this matter was to have the courts take an impartial look into the science that was being used by federal, provincial and to a lesser extent municipal governments to impose restrictions on him and other Canadians. What I do not understand from Mr Wall's submissions is why he thought it was necessary to bring a separate action when the issues were already being litigated by Mr Turmel. JCT: Judge Horne just does not understand why he had to bring a separate action for his own separate personal damages claim when Turmel's damages were already being litigated by Turmel for Turmel and not Mr. Wall. Just can't understand why he did the only thing he could do to seek relief. So hard to understand. J: Dividing a $500.00 costs award among 81 plaintiffs would only serve to encourage this kind of improper, vexatious and unnecessary litigation. JCT: Everyone seeking their own personal damages was not improper, vexatious and unnecessary litigation since it was the only way it could be sought. And how much work did the Crown have to do for stayed cases? One payment of $6 each to cover the Crown not having to do anything in the stayed cases seemed reasonable. In a previous such multi-plaintiff case, Judge Brown offered no costs if plaintiffs chose not to pursue their claims. So the costs here were not to cover minimal Crown expenses but to punish them for trying to warn the world of the unnecessary kill shot and get their own remedy. J: I do not agree with Mr Wall that there were 81 plaintiffs in a matter condensed down to a single action. Mr Wall refers to Adelberg v Canada, 2023 FC 252, but that was a single proceeding where many plaintiffs were named in one Court file. Here, 81 separate and duplicative statements of claim were filed, JCT: For 81 separate damages claims from duplicative facts and arguments... J: creating a significant burden for the Court and the defendant. $500.00 in costs will be awarded in T-469-21. JCT: Too bad! If the Government imposed restrictions that caused many different damages, it's not our fault that everyone filing claims makes it a burden for the Court to hand the many demands for remedy. J: [22] The submissions from Mr Beausoleil (T-932-21) (which were filed before the defendant's submissions, and nothing further was submitted after the defendant's submissions) focus on things he enjoyed doing, but were negatively impacted by the pandemic and the fact that he was unvaccinated. These submissions do not address the reasonableness or purpose of filing his claim in the first instance. JCT: The judge didn't find it reasonable for him to make a claim for his own unique personal damages when Turmel was making a claim for Turmel's own unique personal damages. J: $500.00 in costs will be awarded in T-932-21. THIS COURT ORDERS that: 1. The plaintiff in T-333-21 shall pay costs to the defendant, fixed at $250.00, payable forthwith. 2. There is no order as to costs in T-382-21 and T-404-21. 3. The plaintiff in T-138-21, and the plaintiffs in each of the Court files listed in Annex A to this order (excepting T-333-21, T-382-21, and T-404-21) shall each pay costs to the defendant, fixed at $500.00, payable forthwith. 4. A copy of this order shall be placed in Court file T-138- 21, and each of the Court files listed in Annex A. Horne" Judge JCT: Grounds should anyone want to appeal: 1) The judge jumped the gun before Turmel's appeals were complete; 2) He punished plaintiffs for not heeding his orders that were made AFTER their actions were stayed; 3) Plaintiffs did give consideration to the Statement of Claim they had read; 4) The judge repeatedly ignored or failed to notice plaintiffs were seeking distinctly unique remedies with no other way to obtain remedy; 5) The actions were improper, vexatious and unnecessary only if he ignored their own unique claims for remedy; 6) Their original Statement of Claim for their own personal damages inherently showed intent to prosecute... 7) Their intent was to seek remedy for damages, not for collateral purpose of clogging the court. That was just a side benefit. 8) Filing a unique claim for distinct remedy is not abuse. Now we're going to have to do a fund-raiser to pay for the costs of trying to save millions from the kill shot. I had set one up at GoFundMe for Federal Court of Canada Covid False Alarm Costs https://www.gofundme.com/f/9cqfvq-federal-court-of-canada-covid-false-alarm-costs https://rumble.com/v1jzi3l-gofundme-for-federal-court-of-canada-covid-false-alarm-costs.html But we've seen that GoFundMe is controlled by the Deep State when they cancelled trucker donations and other resistance pleas. But I've never heard a bad thing about http://GiveSendGo.com so that's where we'll try to raise funds for these costs of trying to warn people of the false alarm. And given it looks like they're going to try to impose lockdowns, masks and social distancing again, we may need funds to hire a lawyer to do a class action again. As a vexatious litigant, I've been barred from helping people any more. My appeal of that decision is coming up in Toronto on Sep 26! Remember, not one lawyer, scientist, doctor, mathematician noticed that WHO tricked the world by comparing the Covid CFR Apple to the Flu IFR Orange. Only me which does reinforce my claim to SmartestManOnEarth.Ca http://SmartestMan.Ca for short. If anyone is going to find the odds-on winningest way to go, it's going to be me. And we'll need to pay a lawyer to do what I tell him or her. So stay tuned. More soon.