TURMEL: Crown Memorandum to bar Turmel from Federal Court JCT: The Crown has made an appplication to bar me from helping people in the courts. My report on their notice: https://groups.google.com/g/can.legal/c/V5Byc8dm4Cg My comments on their Affidavit at https://groups.google.com/g/can.legal/c/V5Byc8dm4Cg The Crown has now served me with 8 documents and their Memorandum of arguments and a Book of Authorities. Not on paper, the affidavit came in 7 binders, just online pdfs. Applicant's Motion Record If you want to read the actual paragraph in the affidavit, here are the online links: http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40r1.pdf Vol 1 http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40r2.pdf Vol 2 http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40r3.pdf Vol 3 http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40r4.pdf Vol 4 http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40r5.pdf Vol 5 http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40r6.pdf Vol 6 http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40r7.pdf Vol 7 http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40r8.pdf Vol 8 http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40rba.pdf Book of Authorities I'll make a few eomments as I go: FEDERAL COURT BETWEEN: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Applicant and JOHN C. TURMEL Respondent MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE APPLICANT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Department of Justice Canada Ontario Regional Office National Litigation Sector 120 Adelaide Street West, Suite 400 Toronto ON M5H 1T1 Fax: (416) 973-0809 Per: Jon Bricker Tel: 647-256-7473 E-mail: Jon.Bricker@justice.gc.ca Counsel for the Applicant CR: PART I - OVERVIEW 1. The respondent, John C. Turmel, epitomizes the vexatious litigant. For more than forty years, Mr. Turmel has been abusing the resources of the Federal Courts with meritless, frivolous and vexatious proceedings and appeals. He often brings these proceedings for improper purposes, frequently attempts to re-litigate previously decided issues, uses pleadings to make scandalous allegations against other parties, and refuses to follow court rules and to pay costs orders. JCT: Okay, let's see what they offer as a) - meritless... b) - frivolous... c) - vexatious... d) - for improper purposes... e) - frequently re-litigating previously decided issues f) - scandalous allegations g) -refuses to follow rules h) - refuses to pay costs orders JCT: e) Yes I would relitigate when the courts were wrong as I kept looking for a court that would be right. h) Yes, as a pauper, I almost never had the money to pay cost orders. And after examining me and my finances, they stopped trying to collect. CR: 2. Not content to abuse court resources alone, Mr. Turmel has also recently branched-out into developing litigation "kits" consisting of template court materials, and recruiting others to flood the courts with these materials. This Court has dismissed nearly 700 of these claims to date, again on the grounds that they were meritless, frivolous or vexatious. JCT: Why would anyone expect low-tech judges to grasp highi- tech concepts? CR: In the course of these claims, Mr. Turmel has attempted to represent others even though he is not licensed to practice law, and has used social media to insult members of the Federal Courts and discourage others from paying costs. i) attempted to represent others... JCT: i) Only with permission of the courts. CR: 3. Mr. Turmel has proven to be an ungovernable litigant and his proceedings and litigation kits have consumed vast court resources. An order pursuant to s. 40 of the Federal Courts Act that he obtain leave before instituting or continuing proceedings, and additional measures regulating his ability to assist others, are warranted, and would prevent Mr. Turmel from continuing to abuse the process of the Federal Courts. JCT: I'll have no problem asking for leave to bring actions. Just one more step that can also be appealed if the judge doesn't get the seriousness of the issue. CR: PART II - STATEMENT OF FACTS 4. Since 1980, Mr. Turmel has instituted at least 67 court proceedings. This includes 20 claims and applications in this Court, 13 appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal, 18 applications and appeals in the Ontario courts, and 27 applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.1 1 Affidavit of Lisa Minarovich, sworn May 31, 2022 (M.Affidavit), para 6, Applicant's Record (AR), Vol 1, Tab C, p 9-13 As further detailed below, these proceedings have concerned a wide range of legal issues. A. Proceedings concerning banking issues 5. In 1981, Mr. Turmel filed an unsuccessful application in this court for an order that "the Bank of Canada cease and desist the genocidal practice of interest" (Court File No. ("CFN") T-896-81). The Federal Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal of this decision (CFN A-136-81), and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application by Mr. Turmel for leave to appeal (CFN 17314).2 2 M.Affidavit, paras 10-14, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 14-15 JCT: I argued that the "mort-gage" contract from the French "mort" meaning "death" and "gage" meaning "gamble" and foreclosing on farmers in a world that had starving people was causing more death. It's why interest has been condemned throughout history. CR: 6. In 1982, the County Court of Ontario granted an action by Toronto Dominion Bank against Mr. Turmel, and awarded judgment in the amount of $2,813.19. After unsuccessfully appealing to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Mr. Turmel sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada where, according to the reported leave decision, he argued that the interest rates charged by the bank were a violation of natural, biblical or criminal laws (CFN 18329). The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed this leave application.3 3 M.Affidavit, paras 15-18, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 15 Natural Law: you can't pay 11 when they only printed 10 without getting some off your fellow borrower, the death- gamble was a competition to the death. Biblical Law: "If you have money, do not lend it out at interest," Jesus Thomas 95, "Let the exacting of interest stop" Nehemiah 5:10 and many more... Criminal Law: Gaming house law makes it illegal to charge a fee to participate in a gamble and interest is as fee to participate in a death-gamble. Giving everuyone an interest- free credit card and restricting bank computers to a pure service charge and abolishing the interest charge would have ended the annual deaths of 40 milion due to poverty. That's over a billion and a half souls that would have been saved had the courts granted my order sought. I published "Stiff-the-bank" kits for others to resist thei evictions in the courts with several prominent caess: Jean Metcalfe, allergic lady in Smiths Falls being evicted from her allergy-proofed home, Bela Devecseri, being evicted after having his restaurant seized to make way for a highway and being short-changed, Woodhouse family being evicted in Toronto but remaining in the homne for 33 months during the fight... and maybe 50 others including 8 to the Supreme Court. CR: B. Proceedings concerning election issues 7. Mr. Turmel is a perennial candidate in federal and provincial elections, and has brought numerous proceedings concerning election issues. Between 1980 and 2007, he instituted twelve proceedings against the Canadian Radio- Television and Telecommunications Commission ("CRTC") and several broadcasters concerning the broadcasters' allocation of free political broadcast time or Mr. Turmel's omission or expulsion from various debate broadcasts.4 4 M.Affidavit, paras 19-50, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 15-22 JCT: Section 9 of the Broadcasting Act said that free-time had to be shared among rival parties and candidates "on an equitable basis, quantitatively and qualitatively." CR: 8. Of these proceedings, eleven were dismissed on their merits (CFN T-5329-80, T-2883-83, T-2884-83, T-1516-84, 300/84, T-798-85, T-799-85, T-1716-87, T-1717-87, A-451-07 and 09-A-19), and the other was stayed for non-payment of court costs (CFN 1827/90). Although Mr. Turmel appealed some of these decisions, his appeals were all dismissed or deemed abandoned (CFN A-912-80, A-13-84, A-955-84), and his subsequent applications for leave to appeal two of the appeal decisions to the Supreme Court of Canada were dismissed (CFN 19099 and 33319).5 5 M.Affidavit, paras 19-50, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 15-22 JCT: So every judge ruled that my getting less or no free- time looked quantitatively and qualitatively equitable to them. Every time I was cheated out of my share of free time, I complained to the CRTC and then did relitigated over and over again to keep looking for a judge who would agree that zero time was not quantitatively and qualitatively equitable. Never found one. CR: 9. In 2015, Mr. Turmel brought an action in this Court for a declaration that that the expense-audit provisions of the Canada Elections Act infringed his right under s. 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("Charter") to participate as a candidate in federal elections (CFN T-561- 15). The action, an appeal by Mr. Turmel to the Federal Court of Appeal (CFN A-202-16), and an application by Mr. Turmel for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (CFN 37646), were all dismissed.6 6 M.Affidavit, paras 51-55, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 22-23 JCT: My accountant used to take the $250 fee to audit my zero-expense elections but after he retired, I had to switch auditors and the new one charged me over $700. So I asked the court to strike down the $250 cap that had not changed in 35 years because having to pay the remaining $500 would impede my right to participate in elections. Judge Phelan said I could save it up out of my pension and dismissed my claim. I made a presentation to Parliamentary Committee on Election Reform saying I didn't want to have an auditor check my election return for a bus ticket. They changed the Election Act to make auditor reports unnecessary for campaigns that spend under $ 10,000! So no court ruled that the $250 cap was insufficient for poor candidates so Parliament got rid of the need for a report for poor candidates! So Parliament fixed what the courts did not. CR: C. Proceedings concerning gaming issues 10. Mr. Turmel has brought multiple proceedings concerning Canada's gaming laws. In 1981, he brought an unsuccessful application in this Court for an order that the provincial Crown prosecute retailer Simpsons-Sears for selling playing cards, which Mr. Turmel alleged were prohibited gaming devices (CFN T-3-81).7 7 M.Affidavit, paras 56-57, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 23 11. In 1993, Mr. Turmel was charged with keeping a gaming house, and prosecuted in the Ontario Court of Justice (CFN 93-18193). According to the reported decisions in this matter, in the course of his prosecution, he brought multiple interlocutory applications to dismiss criminal charges against him. However, these applications were unsuccessful, and the Court ultimately convicted Mr. Turmel of this charge. Although he appealed his conviction to the Court of Appeal for Ontario (CFN C21516), the Court largely dismissed his appeal, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed his application for leave to appeal (CFN 25610).8 8 M.Affidavit, paras 58-61, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 24 JCT: http://SmartestMan.ca/gambler details the OPP's Project Robin Hood raid on Casino Turmel, the largest gaming house raid on an underground 28-table casino in history. My motion to quash was dismissed but because I had stood mute pursuant to CCC S.606 and made the court enter my not- guilty plea for me, the Manitoba Bingo Enterprises case had ruled that where the Defendant stands must, he has n ot pleaded. So when new information arose making my point, I moved to quash again, and then again. That's why I advised all those I helped in criminal cases to not plead but remain mute in case they needed that advantage. Nice to have it mentioned since I think 3 pre-plea motions made judicial history. CR: D. Proceedings against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation 12. In 2010, Mr. Turmel brought two separate libel actions against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ("CBC") in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (CV-10-48 and CV-699- 2010). The actions, which related to Mr. Turmel's appearance on the Dragon's Den television program, were both dismissed. Although Mr. Turmel appealed the dismissal of both actions to the Court of Appeal for Ontario (CFN 52849 and C53732), his appeals and subsequent application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada (CFN 34882) were dismissed.9 9 M.Affidavit, paras 62-68, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 24-26 JCT: Dragons Den cut my 15 minute presentation down to 1 minute to ridicule me by publishing only those parts where they were laughing at me and not those where I was laughing at them so I sued for defamation and they were forced to give me the whole show which I published online: As if I'd let a bunch of low-techs laughing at me go without laughing back. E. Proceedings concerning cannabis issues 13. Mr. Turmel has personally brought or assisted others to bring numerous constitutional challenges to Canada's cannabis laws. In 2001, Mr. Turmel was charged with contempt for posting material to the Internet in violation of a publication ban issued by the Quibec Superior Court during the trial of Mr. Turmel's brother on marihuana offences. In the course of the contempt prosecution (CFN 550-01003994), Mr. Turmel brought a motion for a declaration that the marihuana provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act ("CDSA") infringed s. 7 of the Charter. However, the court dismissed this motion and ultimately convicted Mr. Turmel of contempt.10 10 M.Affidavit, paras 69-72, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 26-27 JCT: I violated the publication ban arguing it was necessary to end a genocide of medical cannabis users going on after Health Canada cannabis director Cindy Cripps-Prawak's had testified in my brother's case that they had 94 files files which had not been accepted or refused but had been classified as "dormant" which I deduced were the number of people who could no longer finish their correspondence. Probably by reason of death. 94 people waiting for their doctor's prescriptions to be exempted by the Minister croaked while he successfully stalled them. Over the year in question, that's 8 a month. It makes sense. Consider the case of Don Appleby suffering AIDS whose exemption took over 1 year before being refused. How many other AIDS patients waiting a year died before their exemptions could be added to the refused category? Once they died and could no longer correspond with the Ministry, where did they put those files? There had to be some. There is no category "died before process." So the only conclusion I could come to was that 8 people a month were dying without their prescribed medicine. So despite the impropriety, like the man who raises his voice in a cinema to shout "fire" is justified in violating that publication ban, so too, my raising my voice to shout "94 deaths with 8 more a month" is justified in violating that publication ban. Or so I'll argue. Right after I have presented the statistical evidence that the threat to my section 7 right to life caused by living in Canada instead of Australia or Switzerland, etc, that Ray never got to present. Sure I'm facing a fine and 90 days in jail but maybe the chance to raise the genocide argument forcefully makes it worth it. Because, let's face it, the whole population is threatened by the same prohibition which makes a case of causing the statistical death of a group rather than a person, genocide. "Dormant" six feet under! I was convicted and fined $250. CR: 14. In 2002 and 2003, Mr. Turmel personally brought two unsuccessful civil applications in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for orders declaring the marihuana provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act unconstitutional (CFN 573/3003 and 133-2003). In the course of one of these applications, he also brought an unsuccessful interlocutory motion for the same relief. 15. Mr. Turmel appealed the decisions dismissing both of these applications (CFN C39740 and C39653). However, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both appeals, and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application by Mr. Turmel for leave to appeal (CFN 30570).11 11 M.Affidavit, paras 73-77, 79-83, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 27- 29 16. Mr. Turmel was personally charged in 2003 with possession of marihuana for the purposes of trafficking. JCT: This was on the day in 2003 that the new "decriminalization" legislation was being introduced. I knew the law had been dead since they failed to come up with a working exemption for Parker in the MMAR within a year and that this was really "recriminalization." I'd have to start trying to strike the prohibition all over. So I went on Parliament Hill with 7 pounds of marijuana to show that the law was dead and got charged. The Ottawa Citizen headline was: Ottawa holds back marijuana bill! A few weeks later, Parliament was prorogued and we never got another recriminalization until Trudeau in 2018. CR: In the course of his prosecution, he brought three separate applications challenging the constitutionality of the CDSA marihuana provisions. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed all three applications, and the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed Mr. Turmel's appeals (CFN C40127, C44587 and C44588). The Supreme Court of Canada also denied a motion by Mr. Turmel for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal one of these Court of Appeal decisions (CFN 30571), and dismissed his applications for leave to appeal the other two (CFN 32011 and 32012).12 12 M.Affidavit, paras 78-88, AR Vol 1, Tab C, p 28-30 JCT: My appeal did result in the Crown staying 4,000 charges: http://SmartestMan.Ca/stay4k.jpg but that court in Hitzig ruled that its fixing the exemption resurrected the prohiition. The Interpretation Act said only Parliament can bring back a prohibition once struck so all my quash motions on pot charges asked the judges if they were going to obay the Interpretation act that says it has never been reenacted by Parliament or the Hitzig C ourt that said they had resurrected it. No judge obeyed the Interpretation Act. CR: 17. Mr. Turmel was eventually convicted of this offence, after again attempting to challenge the constitutionality of the CDSA at trial. Although he appealed his conviction, the Court of Appeal for Ontario in 2007 dismissed his appeal (CFN C45295), and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed his motion for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal (CFN 32013). In 2016, Mr. Turmel brought a motion for an extension of time to file another appeal of this conviction (CFN M45479). However, the Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed both this motion and a further motion to set aside the first motion decision (CFN M45751), and the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application by Mr. Turmel for leave to appeal (CFN 37064).13 13 M.Affidavit, paras 84-93, AR Vol 1, Tab C, p 29-31 18. Although not licensed to practice law, Mr. Turmel frequently provides legal assistance to others charged with marihuana offences. Between 2008 and 2014, there are at least four reported instances of accused persons relying on court materials or legal strategies pioneered by Mr. Turmel to bring interlocutory applications challenging the constitutionality of the CDSA marihuana provisions. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed each of these applications.14 14 M.Affidavit, paras 94-102, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 31-33 JCT: Actually, my http://SmartestMan.Ca/wins page shows over 80 people who got great results using my defence kits with more still going on. Rather than fight self-defenders with my quash and constitutional kits, Crowns either withdrew the charges or offered sweet deals with discharges that involved no criminal record. CR: 19. Since 2014, Mr. Turmel has developed litigation "kits" consisting of template court materials challenging the constitutionality of various aspects of Canada's medical cannabis regulatory regime, and distributed these via his websites for others to download, complete and file in the Federal Courts.15 15 M.Affidavit, para 9, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 14 JCT: http://SmartestMan.Ca/kits has the index of different court actions. CR: Individuals have filed or attempted to file hundreds of substantially identical proceedings based on these kits, including: (a) 315 actions, including one by Mr. Turmel (CFN T-488- 14), challenging the former Marihuana Medical Access Regulations and Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations (the "Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR claims");16 16 M.Affidavit, paras 103-04, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 34 JCT: This was after Judge Manson cancelled the cannabis permits of half of Canada's medical users based on the date of their permits and the kit asked to give them back the medicine prescribed by their doctors. Almost 400 tried. (b) 19 motions for extensions of time to appeal the December 30, 2014, injunction decision of the Federal Court in Allard v Canada (the "Allard injunction decision");17 17 M.Affidavit, paras 152-54, 157, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 51-52 JCT: Remember, the prohibition becomes invalid without a working exemption and everyone's MMAR permits were being cancelled on April 1 2014 when the MMPR took over and they would then buy their pot from Licensed Producers. Except there weren't enough to satisfy the demand. So the law was going to be invalidated on April 1 2014 when the MMPR exemption failed. So a Judas Goat shyster John Conroy suckered MMAR permit holders into requesting an extension of the MMAR (believing they would no longer be exempt on April 1 when everyone would be) so rather than everyone being legal on April 1, they would remain legal while everyone else remained illegal. And Manson granted the exemption. To half the patients. So while the half whose permits were extended were celebrating in the news, the other half who'd been cut off were not heard. Until their court actions made the news. https://ipolitics.ca/2018/08/17/hundreds-of-court-claims-allege-delays-in-permits-to-grow-medical-pot/ (c) Nine actions, including one by Mr. Turmel (CFN T- 1932-18), for declarations that the CDSA infringed s. 7 of the Charter by failing to provide access to cannabis juice and oil for medical purposes (the "Turmel Kit juice and oil claims");18 18 M.Affidavit, paras 164, 166, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 54-56 (d) 393 actions challenging the processing time for Health Canada registration to produce cannabis for personal medical use (the ""Turmel Kit processing-time claims");19 19 M.Affidavit, para 175, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 58 JCT: Health Canada used to process MMAR permits in under a month and now they were processing them in 5 months to 11 months. So, my template started with a Statement of Claim for damages due to delay, lost rent and pot not grown, with over 80 motions for interim permits while waiting for Health Canada to deliver their prescriptions. In almost all motions, Health Canada hopped to it and adelivered the permit so the Crown could tell Judge Brown that the motion hearing was now mooted and no longer necessary since the permit had been delivered. http://SmartestMan.Ca/insdel.pdf explain http://groups.google.com/g/can.legal has those reports. Because of my kits and the 80 people who filed motions to get interim permits pending the delays, some were people who had filed to renew and whose permits were going to expire while they waited and they would have to take down their grows and destroy their saved up medication. 80 times, Health Health Canada had to hop to it and grant the permits to mooten their hearings, so they changed the rules so that permits remain valid while the renewal is being processed! Two more changes CR: (e) 36 actions challenging the 150-gram public limit on public possession and shipping of cannabis for medical purposes (the "Turmel Kit public possession and shipping limit claims");20 20 M.Affidavit, paras 222-23, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 71 JCT: When judge Manson extended the MMAR, he kept the new MMPR 150 gram cap on possession! So no new legislation imposed the cap, a judge did. In BC, some high-dosers applied to strike the cap and the judge granted them a 10-day supply possession limit. So my template asked to strike the cap and for the 10-day supply pending the hearing of the action. Granted by Federal Court Judge Brown and taken away by the Federal Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of Canada. Quite the story. CR: (f) Four actions challenging the requirement for annual healthcare practitioner authorization to use cannabis for medical purposes;21 21 M.Affidavit, paras 225-26, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 72 JCT: That's also in our constitutional motions, especially in the era when doctors were being punished for participating. CR: (g) One action challenging Health Canada's rejection of one plaintiff's application for registration to produce cannabis for personal medical use;22 and 22 M.Affidavit, paras 211-12, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 68 (h) One action challenging the production-site requirements for individuals producing cannabis for personal medical use, and one action challenging the criminal-record requirements.23 23 M.Affidavit, paras 241-42, 247-48, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 77-79 JCT: This was the challenge no more than 2 paeitns for a Designated Grower and no more than 4 licenses per site as being enacted to make it uneconomic for small dosers to find a grower. The second was Bela Beke challenging the 10-year no criminal record to be a designated grower. Why can't those convicted in the past go straight now that it's legal? CR: 20. Of these 770 proceedings, at least 657 were struck or dismissed by the Federal Courts, while the remainder were discontinued, not accepted for filing, or are the subject of outstanding requests by the Crown for dismissal.24 24 M.Affidavit, paras 148, 158-59, 167, 191, 200, 203, 205, 213, 232, 237, 245-46, 250 and Exhibits 60, 105, 129, AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 47-49, 52, 56, 63, 65-69, 74, 76, 78-79), Vol 4 (Tab C60, p 900), Vol 5 (Tab C105, p 1220, 1229, and Tab C129, p 1406) JCT: Yes, everyone whose exemption was expedited had their motion dismissed. as mooted CR: F. Proceedings concerning federal COVID-19 mitigation measures 21. Since January 2021, 80 self-represented plaintiffs, including Mr. Turmel (CFN T-130-21), have filed substantially identical Federal Court claims. The claims, which are again based on kits developed and distributed by Mr. Turmel, allege that Canada's COVID-19 mitigation measures infringe several Charter provisions (the "Turmel Kit COVID-19 claims").25 25 M.Affidavit, paras 255, 258, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 81, 83 22. On July 21, 2021, Prothonotary Aylen (as she then was) struck Mr. Turmel's claim without leave to amend. This Court has since dismissed Mr. Turmel's appeal of this decision. A further appeal by Mr. Turmel to the Federal Court of Appeal is outstanding (CFN A-286-21). The other 79 claims remain stayed pending the outcome of this appeal.26 26 M.Affidavit, paras 262, 277, 281-82, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 84, 91, 93 JCT: My case was dismissed on the technicality that I had to specify which restriction I was affected by was unconstitutional rather than get a declaration that any restriction was. She split off any other plaintiffs who did have particular restrictions to cite so I was was alone and could have my action dismissed unlike theirs. I've appealed that she should have let the action go through since a judge can do anything that is just and it would be just to warn the world that the Covid mortality hyped a hundredfold was a false alarm. Since then, whenever I see an article about someone who collapses and dies, I share it with the comment asking if they would have taken the clot shot had Judge Aylen not suppressed that the threat was a false alarm to my http://gab.com/johnturmel page. And articles that are now coming out calling the vax mandate a genocide, a genocide that only a declaration that the threat was a false alarm could have stopped. So every Federal Court judge who read my action and did nothing has the blood of millions on their hands. One in 5,000 suffere myocarditis heart damage and Dr. Francis Christian, former Director of Patient Safety and Quality of surgery in Saskatchewan (fired for warning us) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKbOvsLTbeU noted that that's just those that are reported. It could be one in 1000. So of the 3 billion vaxed on the planet, there could be 3 mllion with new myocarditis we should expect to die in the next 5 to 10 years. All because Judge Aylen found a technicality to not warn the world it was a false alarm. I can't even imagine what heaven's going to be like for those judges with all their victims in attendance. She didn't take smartestman.ca seriously and now has to live with the blood on her hands. CR: 23. On February 16, 2022, Mr. Turmel filed a further claim challenging the constitutionality of Canada's vaccination requirements for air travellers (CFN T-277-22). On May 18, 2022, this Court struck this claim without leave to amend.27 27 M.Affidavit, para 287, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 95 This court has since also struck eight substantially identical claims, which were once again based on kits developed and distributed by Mr. Turmel (the "Turmel Kit vaccination-requirement claims").28 28 Fudge v Canada, CFN T-693-22 and several other proceedings (Judgment of Horne, Proth. dated July 4, 2022), Book of Authorities ("BOA"), Tab 1; Fudge v Canada, CFN T- 693-22 and several other proceedings (Order of Horne, Proth. dated July 27, 2022), paras 11, 18 ["Fudge costs decision"], BOA, Tab 2 JCT: Premier Brian Peckford and People's Party Leader Maxime Bernier also filed actions relying on the Charter right to Mobility and will find out, as we did, that the Charter ensures the right to live in, move to, or work in any province but not to travel domestically. So I didn't appeal. And Judge Horne hit me with $2,000 in costs and hit the other 8 plaintiffs with double the costs requested by the Crown for trying to warn of the false alarm! That's our punishment for trying to save millions from the vax genocide. CR: G. The Attorney General of Canada's consent 24. The Attorney General of Canada has consented to the bringing of this application, in accordance with s. 40(2) of the Federal Courts Act.29 29 RSC 1985, c F-7, s 40(2) ["Federal Courts Act"] PART III - POINTS IN ISSUE 25. The issue on this application is whether this Court should require that Mr. Turmel obtain leave before instituting or continuing proceedings in the Federal Courts, JCT: I can live with having to request leave to file actions, just another level of court to fight in and it's appealable too. CR: and impose additional measures to prevent him from continuing to prepare materials for or assist others with their litigation. JCT: I don't think this applies to my helping people defend against charges in criminal courts but I can't live with it in Federal court and would appeal since I can show the many times people benefited of my help. CR: PART IV - SUBMISSIONS A. GENERAL PRINCIPLES 26. If the Federal Court or Federal Court of Appeal is satisfied on an application that a person has persistently instituted vexatious proceedings or conducted proceedings in a vexatious manner, s. 40 provides that the Court may order that no proceedings be instituted or continued by that person in that Court except with leave.30 30 Federal Courts Act, s 40(1) The Federal Court of Appeal recently confirmed that this Court may also impose leave requirements under s. 40 that extend to proceedings in the Federal Court of Appeal.31 31 Coote v Canada, 2021 FCA 150, paras 3, 6, 13; see also Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company v Coote, CFN T-312 (Order of Hughes J, dated June 13, 2013), paras (b) and 1, BOA, Tab 4; Lawyers Professional Indemnity Company v Coote, 2013 FC 643 ["Coote FC 2013 reasons"], aff'd 2014 FCA 98 27. The purpose of s. 40 is well known. The resources of the Federal Courts are finite, and every moment devoted to a vexatious litigant is a moment unavailable to deserving litigants. While access to the courts is fundamental in our society, regulation is sometimes necessary to ensure that vexatious litigants cannot consume court resources in a manner that effectively limits access for everyone else, or repeatedly target innocent parties or the Crown with unmeritorious proceedings.32 32 Canada v Olumide, 2017 FCA 42, paras 18-21 ["Olumide"]; Hughes v Canada, CFN T-1315-18 (Order of Barnes J., dated October 6, 2021), para 9, BOA, Tab 3 28. The central question in each s. 40 application is whether the litigant's ungovernability or harmfulness to the court system is so great as to justify a leave-granting process.33 33 Bernard v Canada, 2019 FCA 144, para 16, leave to appeal refused [2019] SCCA No 432; see also Olumide, para 27 While no single factor is determinative, the Federal Courts have identified several common indicia of vexatiousness, including persistently bringing meritless proceedings and appeals; bringing proceedings for an improper purpose; attempting to re-litigate previously decided issues; making unsubstantiated or intemperate remarks regarding the court or other parties; disregard for court orders, rules or timelines; and the failure to pay costs of prior proceedings.34 34 Olumide, paras 22, 32, 33, Canada v Fabrikant, 2019 FCA 198, para 26 ["Fabrikant"]; Potvin v Rooke, 2019 FCA 285, para 5 ["Potvin"]; Coote FC 2013 reasons, paras 23-25; Tonner v Lowry, 2016 FC 230, para 20; Mazhero v Fox, 2011 FC 392, para 40 ["Mazhero"] 29. In weighing these factors, the Court should have regard to the whole history of the litigant's proceedings, and not only whether the proceedings originally disclosed a good cause of action.35 35 Coote FC 2013 reasons, para 25 It may also consider the litigant's proceedings in other courts, their conduct out of court, and any role played by the litigant in proceedings brought by others.36 36 Mazhero, para 13; Canada Post Corp v Varma, [2000] FCJ No 851, para 23; Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd, 2019 FC 504, para 22 [Badawy]; Canada v Ubah, 2021 FC 1466, para 30 ["Ubah"] B. MR. TURMEL IS A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT 30. Mr. Turmel bears several hallmarks of a vexatious litigant. He and his kit users have brought numerous meritless proceedings, motions and appeals, and frequently bring them for an improper purpose. He routinely tries to re-litigate previously decided issues, and uses pleadings and social media to make scandalous and intemperate statements about the Crown and the Courts. He often refuses to follow court orders, rules and timelines, and has numerous costs awards that remain unpaid. 31. Taken together, these factors reveal a wholly ungovernable litigant for whom a leave requirement is warranted to ensure that he cannot continue to abuse the process of the Federal Courts. 1. Mr. Turmel persistently brings meritless proceedings and appeals 32. As detailed above, courts have to date dismissed virtually all of the proceedings brought by Mr. Turmel and his kit users. While the reasons for dismissal have varied, common reasons include that the claims lacked sufficient material facts to disclose a reasonable cause of action,37 37 M.Affidavit, paras 144, 167, 191, 213, 232, 237, 277, 287, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 45, 56, 63, 68-69, 74, 76, 91- 92, 95 JCT: And judges can close their eyes any say they fail to see anything. Remember every judge who failed to see that getting zero broadcast time was not equitable quantitatively or qualitatively. Every judge failed to see. CR: were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process,38 38 M.Affidavit, paras 11, 59, 85, 95, 97, 148, 233, 277, 287, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 14, 24, 30-32, 48-49, 75, 91- 92, 95 JCT: And after failing to see, said it was because the actions were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process. But remember, they failed to see. CR: or were supported by little or no evidence.39 39 M.Affidavit, paras 36, 59, 71, 74, 80, 158, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 19, 24, 26-29, 52 JCT: Insufficient evidence is another great judicial cop- out. CR: 33. The Federal Courts have also repeatedly expressed concern about the boilerplate nature of the template statements of claim developed by Mr. Turmel. For example, in striking the Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR claims, Phelan J. noted that the statements of claim contained vague generalizations and hyperbole, but virtually no detail concerning each plaintiffs personal circumstances or how the impugned regulatory provisions engaged their individual Charter rights.40 40 M.Affidavit, paras 101, 115, 117, 148, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 33, 37-39, 47-49 JCT: It wasn't enough that their doctor had prescribed it, Judge Phelan wanted to see their medical files. Many appealed him wanting to stick his nose into where he wasn't qualified. CR: The Federal Court of Appeal and this court have echoed this concern in subsequent cases.41 41 M.Affidavit, paras 191, 232, 277, 287, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 63, 74, 91-92, 95; Fudge costs decision, para 18, BOA, Tab 2 JCT: Yes, other unqualified appellate judges agreed he should have been shown their medical files. We might have known it if only he'd come to the hearing with his stethoscope. CR: 34. In the course of their proceedings, Mr. Turmel and his kit users frequently bring motions for interlocutory relief, often for orders exempting them from the constitutionally impugned legislative provisions pending the underlying proceeding.42 42 M.Affidavit, paras, 58-59, 70, 75, 78, 84, 94- 101, 157-58, 162-63, 284 and Exhibit 132 (para 11), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 24, 26-33, 52, 54, 94), Vol 5 (Tab C132, p 1435) JCT: Notice the distortion. They mainly filed motions to start growing their while they waited for Health Canada to proecss their doctor's prescription. I think that so many motions were mooted by hop-to-it delivery of the permits is an important point. CR: This includes more than 89 motions in the course of the Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR claims, and 11 in the course of the Turmel Kit motions for extensions of time to appeal the Allard injunction decision. Like the underlying proceedings, each of these motions was ultimately dismissed, many of them on grounds that they were unsupported by any evidence concerning each plaintiff's circumstances or why interim relief was required.43 43 M.Affidavit, paras 104, 108, 110, 117, 121-22 and Exhibit 132 (para 49), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 34-36, 38- 40), Vol 5 (Tab C132, p 1447) JCT: No, most were dismissed for being mooted by delivery of the relief requested. Imagine trying to distort their losses into our losses. Lucky for me, I've done reports on all the hop-to-it motions. CR: 35. Mr. Turmel appeals virtually all of his litigation losses, sometimes even bringing multiple appeals from the same decision.44 44 M.Affidavit, paras 12, 17, 23, 28, 31, 33, 53, 60, 66, 85, 90, 108, 119, 126, 139, 150, 272, 280, 282, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 15-18, 22, 24-25, 30-31, 35, 39, 41, 44-45, 50, 90, 93 When these appeals are dismissed, he routinely seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada where, once leave is inevitably denied, he often seeks reconsideration.45 45 M.Affidavit, paras 13, 15, 23, 32, 49, 54, 60, 67, 79, 81, 86-88, 92, 128, 140, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 15-16, 18, 22-24, 26, 28-31, 42, 45 JCT: I want to get as many judges as possible on record refusing righteous requests. CR: He also frequently prepares appeal materials for others to file, and encourages them to appeal.46 46 M.Affidavit, paras 118, 129, 131, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 39, 42-43 Since 2014, kit users have responded with 40 appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal, 19 applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, and five motions for reconsideration by that court.47 47 M.Affidavit, paras 108, 110, 119, 122, 127, 132, 162-63, 184, 186, 207, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 35-36, 39-41, 43, 54, 61, 67 JCT: I'll leave it to posterity to see if lots of judges end up on the Wall of Shame. CR: 36. While Mr. Turmel appears to take pride in his appellate experience - he has noted in recent social media posts that "I appeal all my cases to the Supreme Court" and that "Most of my cases end up at the top"48 48 M.Affidavit, paras 257, 270, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 82, 88 - courts have consistently dismissed his and his kit users' appeals, leave applications and reconsideration motions.49 49 M.Affidavit, paras 13-14, 17-18, 23, 32-33, 49, 53-54, 60, 66-67, 80, 87, 90, 92, 108, 121-22, 124, 127, 130, 140, 151, 163, 191, 203, 219, 237, 265-66, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 15-16, 18, 22-26, 28-30, 35, 40-42, 45, 50, 54, 63, 66, 70, 76, 85-86 JCT: And zero time must be equiable because so many courts have dismissed them. CR: In doing so, courts have often noted that Mr. Turmel or his kit users failed to so much as identify an arguable error in the appealed from, and invited the appellate court instead to simply reweigh evidence and reach a different conclusion from the court below.50 50 M.Affidavit, paras 151, 219, 266 and Exhibit 44 (paras 18, 20), AR, Vol 1, (Tab C, p 50, 70, 85-86), Vol 3 (Tab C44, p 771) JCT: To disagree with a righteous request is to err. 2. Mr. Turmel attempts to re-litigate previously decided issues 37. Courts in at least seventeen proceedings have observed that Mr. Turmel or his kit users attempted to raise previously decided issues.51 51 M.Affidavit, paras 27, 30, 36, 40, 59, 65, 75, 77, 84, 86, 95, 97, 99, 142, 148, 232, 287, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 17-20, 24-25, 27-33, 45, 74, 95 JCT: The more judges who get it wrong in public, the better. Why should I stop putting righteous requests to them just becaue they keep getting them wrong? CR: 38. In the elections context, Mr. Turmel has brought five applications in this court for mandamus to compel the CRTC to address broadcasters' allocation of free political broadcast time or Mr. Turmel's omission from debate broadcasts, and three more for applications restraining the broadcasters themselves from airing election broadcasts without him.52 52 M.Affidavit, paras 21, 25, 29, 35, 39, 45 (see also paras 33, 42, 47), AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 16-22 JCT: And every judge found that my omission from debate was getting a quantitatively and qualitatively equitable share of the free broadcast time. CR: The court has consistently dismissed these applications on the grounds that the CRTC was under no public duty to address these issues, and that the broadcasters were not federal boards, commissions or tribunals subject to the court's jurisdiction.53 53 M.Affidavit, paras 22, 26-27, 30, 36-37, 40, 46 (see also paras 33, 43, 48), AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 16-21 JCT: All the judges failed to see that it is the CRTC's duty enforce its rules on quantitative and qualitative equitableness sharing or broadcast time on the air-waves they regulate and the broadcasters were usually sued with the CRTC, rarely alone. In dismissing two of these applications in 1987, Joyal J. observed that the court had followed these principles "in successive and unsuccessful applications before this court by the same applicant in the years 1980, 1983 and 1984," and that "[t]he applicant admits to having had many runs at the cat on this point."54 54 M.Affidavit, para 40, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 20 JCT: Yes, every time I got cheated, I complained to the CRTC and when they did nothing, dragged them before the court. CR: 39. In the cannabis context, Mr. Turmel brought two separate civil applications in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in 2002 and 2003 for declarations that the CDSA marihuana provisions were unconstitutional, and after the first of these applications was dismissed, he filed a motion in that application for essentially the same relief.55 55 M.Affidavit, paras 73-77, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 27-28 Criminal courts have also noted the tendency of Mr. Turmel and his criminal kit users to bring numerous applications for interlocutory relief, and to continue bringing them long after identical applications have been dismissed.56 56 M.Affidavit, paras 59, 84, 86, 95, 97, 99, 101, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 24, 29-33 JCT: No, criminal kit users only brought motions to quash the charges and constitutional motions to strike. The point is that the arguments were so powerful that many Crowns chose to offer sweet deals or withdrawals so why not keep making the same arguments. CR: 40. Mr. Turmel has repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought judicial recognition of a constitutional right for healthy individuals to use cannabis for preventive medical purposes.57 57 M.Affidavit, para 74, 80 and Exhibit 34 (Reasons for Order, para 23), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 27-29), Vol 3 (Tab C34, p 684) JCT: Actually, I only sought the right to use what's good to cure the illness to prevent the illness. And only one court ruled that there was no proof that it could prevent what it could cure. Har har h ar har har har. Judges Doherty, Goudge and Simmons who also say they resurrected the prohibitions by fixing the exemption when the Interpretation Act said only Parliament could to that once it was dead. But all the judgeschose to obey the Ontario Court of Appeal's Hitzig decision rather than Parliament's Interpretation Act. Many many more judges on the wall of shame. CR: In 2017, this court struck the Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR challenges, which alleged that the 150-gram limit on possession of cannabis for purposes, the requirement for annual medical authorization to use cannabis, and the production-site requirements for personal producers, were unconstitutional.58 58 M.Affidavit, para 148 and Exhibit 22 (Statement of Claim, p 3, 5, 7), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 47-49), Vol 2 (Tab C22, p 466, 468, 470) JCT: Actually, Judge Brown dismissed the Crown motion to strike the action against the cap and granted the Lead Plainitff the same 10-day supply granted in the B.C. Garber case. http://johnturmel.com/150cn1j.pdf But the Federal Court of Appeal overruled it. http://johnturmel.com/150fcaj.pdf CR: Despite this decision, Mr. Turmel has continued to develop new template claims concerning these same issues.59 59 M.Affidavit, paras 221-22, 224-25, 241-42, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 70-72, 77 He also personally filed a Turmel Kit juice and oil claim long after several identical claims were struck,60 60 M.Affidavit, paras 167-69, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 56-57 and has continued to distribute and promote the Turmel Kit processing-time claims long after the Federal Court of Appeal and this court struck hundreds of these claims.61 61 M.Affidavit, paras 191, 200, 203-04, 211, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 63, 65-67 JCT: Igor Mozajko had to file an action against the delay in processing his change of address and they hopped to it to mooten his hearing. Gisele Pilon had to fild an action against the delay in processing her permit and they hopped to it to mooten her claim. So Health Canada is still making people wait for their permits and the kits are still useful to those victims. CR: 41. In May 2022, this court struck Mr. Turmel's constitutional challenge to Canada's vaccination requirements for air travellers. In doing so, Prothonotary Horne observed that the claim included "the same lengthy diatribes, and unsubstantiated allegations of cover-ups and conspiracies" as Mr. Turmel's previously struck challenge to federal COVID-19 mitigation measures, and challenged some of the same provisions while his appeal of the decision striking that claim was still outstanding, which the court concluded was an abuse of process.62 62 M.Affidavit, para 287 and Exhibit 173 (paras 9, 11-12), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 95), Vol 7 (Tab C173, p 1866-67) JCT: Go read it to find out that there is not one wrong thing in it. http://smartestman.ca/c19scjct.pdf Just lots the judges faiked to see. Remember, to them, WHO comparing covid CFR to flu IFR is not a fact. They can fail to see anything they want. 3. Mr. Turmel brings proceedings for an improper purpose 42. Mr. Turmel often brings proceedings for an improper purpose. 43. In 1981, Mr. Turmel brought an application in this court for an order compelling the provincial Crown to prosecute retailer Simpsons-Sears for selling decks of playing cards, which Mr. Turmel alleged were gaming devices. In dismissing the application, Walsh J. explained that it followed Mr. Turmel's own conviction for keeping gaming devices, and that Mr. Turmel's stated purpose in bringing the application was "to drag someone really big down with me" who could better defend the charge, which Mr. Turmel hoped would lead to the gaming-devices offence being repealed, amended or no longer enforced.63 63 M.Affidavit, paras 56-57, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 23 JCT: Them charging me with possession of a gambling device because it's still on the books is okay but me charging Simpson Sears with the same thing is improper. CR: 44. In social media posts, Mr. Turmel has described his development and distribution of litigation kits as part of an intentional strategy to overwhelm the courts and the Crown. He invites plaintiffs to "clog up," "flood," "swamp," "semi-paralyze" or "ream out" the Federal Court registry with a "tidal wave" or "avalanche" of claims or requests for documents.64 64 M.Affidavit, paras 118, 146, 160-61, 165, 173, 257, 270, 285-86, 288, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 39, 46-47, 53-58, 82-83, 88, 94-95 JCT: Sure shows the anger without clogging up the streets! CR: 45. In a July 2016 post promoting the Turmel Kit juice and oil claims, Mr. Turmel explained that "The real winning power is once again what freaked out both the Crown and the Registry last time, the volume." In a December 2018 post concerning a proposed challenge to the Criminal Code drug- impaired driving provisions, he similarly explained that "There is only [one] way to fight back and that's through mass action in the courts."65 65 M.Affidavit, para 252, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 80 JCT: Don't tell me 400 people complaining about the same thing doesn't get their attention better than in the streets. CR: 46. In other posts, Mr. Turmel uses militaristic or violent language to characterize his litigation strategy. He describes himself as a "guerrilla lawyer" and invites his kit users (whom he has described as an "army of goldstars," in reference to the gold-coloured seal placed on Federal Court claims) to "sap the defences" of the court and Crown and file claims and "get in on the kill."66 66 M.Affidavit, paras 106, 112, 165, 168, 182, 218, 257, 270, 290, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 35, 37, 54-57, 61, 70, 82, 89, 96 JCT: Get proof you asked for justice even if you don't get it. And usually don't. CR: 47. In still other posts, Mr. Turmel acknowledges that his kit proceedings lack merit, JCT: I have never said that my actions lack merit. CR: but explains why he nevertheless brings them. In a 2014 post, he acknowledged that his challenge to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations had been rendered moot by the repeal of those regulations, but explained that he was proceeding with his challenge "to smear [Health Canada] with their own dirt. These are malevolent government gremlins and I'm about to really light a fire under their asses."67 67 M.Affidavit, para 111, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 36 JCT: Our constitutional motion detailed flaws in the MMAR with many retainied in the MMPR. So the question was whether to continue challenging the MMPR and not mention the same torts in the MMAR. I decided I was going to keep mentioning that the torts complained of were retained from the MMAR to smear the bad guys who kept them in. That's all. CR: 48. In another post concerning the Turmel Kit 150-gram claims, Mr. Turmel explained that "People ask me why I keep fighting so many loser fights. It's because I love ruining the careers of the judges and Crowns who get added to the History Wall of MedPot shame."68 68 M.Affidavit, para 236, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 75 JCT: So I keep presenting righteous arguments and force the judges to "fail to see" and add them to the Wall of Shame. CR: After this court struck the Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR claims, Mr. Turmel similarly used social media to announce that he would appeal, noting that "Sure, the chances are slim but I enjoy exposing judicial failures to their bosses."69 69 M.Affidavit, para 149 (see also paras 131, 264), AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 42, 49-50, 85 JCT: Does exosing the judicial failures to their higher ups sound like I think I'm presenting loser arguments? CR: 49. While Mr. Turmel openly boasts about having brought proceedings for improper purposes, courts have expressed concern with this aspect of his litigation. JCT: No I don't bring proceedings for improper purposes. They always seek righteous justice even if I don't get it. CR: Courts in criminal proceedings have noted Mr. Turmel's use of "legal warfare" language, and described Mr. Turmel's and his kit users' interlocutory applications as obvious tactics to delay and frustrate proceedings.70 70 M.Affidavit, paras 59, 97, 101, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 24, 32-33 JCT: No, they're tactics to win withdrawals or sweet deals. CR: 50. This court has recently expressed similar concerns. In awarding costs against several plaintiffs in the Turmel Kit vaccination-requirement claims, Prothonotary Horne observed that the claims were identical in substance to Mr. Turmel's claim and that the plaintiffs' objective appeared to be to "clog the registry with redundant actions, and vex the defendant with needless filings."71 71 Fudge costs decision, paras 18-19, BOA, Tab 2 JCT: Better than clogging the streets. Judge Horne didn't like angry plaintiffs trying to warn people against the suicide shot over a false alarm. CR: 4. Mr. Turmel makes unsubstantiated and intemperate remarks against other parties and the courts JCT: Let's see if he can cite one. CR: 51. Mr. Turmel frequently uses pleadings to make unsubstantiated and intemperate remarks about other parties, and when courts dismiss his proceedings, uses social media to crudely insult the judges involved. JCT: No, I use social media to point out the blood on their hands. CR: 52. In pleadings and argument, he has described Bank of Canada interest policies and various aspects of Canada's medical cannabis regulatory regime as "genocidal."72 72 M.Affidavit, paras 10, 71, 74-75, 117, 233 and Exhibit 17 (Superior Court of Justice decision dated January 9, 2003, para 63; Superior Court of Justice decision dated February 7, 2003, paras 1, 7), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 14, 27-28, 38, 75), Vol 2 (Tab C17, p 263, 282-83) JCT: The judges all failed to see that putting farmers out of work in a world that's starving is genocide. Do you see? CR: He has alleged that the public possession and shipping limits for medical cannabis and federal COVID-19 measures are the result of "statistical fraud," JCT: I caught Health Canada fudging the stats and I happen to be accredited expert in math by Federal Tax Court of Canada. The judges who fail to see are not. CR: and suggested that COVID-19 itself is an "imaginary plague," deaths from which greatly exaggerated by an "evil cabal" that includes the WHO, with the support of global media.73 73 M.Affidavit, para 233 and Exhibit 147 (Statement of Claim, paras 37, 39, 46, 71, 89-90, 104, 117, 120), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 75), Vol 6 (Tab C147, p 1538-39, 1542, 1552, 1556-57, 1561, 1566-67) Courts have repeatedly struck these allegations as scandalous, frivolous and vexatious.74 74 M.Affidavit, paras 148, 233, 277 and Exhibit 17 (Superior Court of Justice decision dated January 9, 2003, para 81; Court of Appeal for Ontario decision dated October 7, 2003, para 6), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 48-49, 75, 91-92), Vol 2 (Tab C17, p 266, 289) JCT: The cabal tricked the world into lockdown and forced vax to escape over a false alarm. Can't get more evil than that. And the deaths statistics are now being revealed. Christine Anderson (German MP) - EU Parliament called the vaccine " The Biggest Crime Ever Committed on Humanity" https://odysee.com/@SolacoMan:c/The-Biggest-Crime-Ever-Committed-on-Humanity-(Covid-Vaccines)-Christine-Anderson-(German-MP)-EU-Parliament-05-July-2022-(3-min-video):0 Many doctors are now calling it a genocide but cannot be taken seriously because they have had their licenses suspended for saying so. CR: 53. In social media posts, Mr. Turmel insults the intelligence or integrity of the judges who dismiss his and his kit users' proceedings, referring to them as "imbeciles" or otherwise suggesting that they lack intelligence.75 75 M.Affidavit, paras 239, 269-70, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 76, 87, 89 JCT: Para270: who will doubt whom posterity will rule to be the imbecile in the matter, (me or the judge?) So I didn't call any judge an imbecile, I said posterity might one of us an imbecile though you know whom I'm betting on. But distortion. CR: He has suggested that the judges who dismissed his cannabis or COVID-19 kit claims have "blood on their hands" or "deserve death row for what they have done."76 76 M.Affidavit, paras 131, 149, 208, 264, 275, 279, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 43, 49-50, 68, 85, 91-93 JCT: Will telling them they deserve death row for what they've done get reconsideration? If they let people die who would not have died if they had been warned, sure, they deserve death row. CR: 54. In January 2017, after Phelan J. struck the Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR claims for lack of material facts, JCT: Remember, he thought the doctor's prescription wasn't fact enough to prove the patient needed the medication. He wanted to see the medical file for himself. CR: Mr. Turmel explained in a social media post that one of the plaintiffs had cancer and was medically authorized to use cannabis, but that "Judge said that's not enough. Wanted to see her X-rays, maybe give her a feel for those tumors before Doubting Thomas would believe."77 77 M.Affidavit, para 149, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 49 JCT: Says it all. It was none of the unqualified judge's business to be looking into their medical files, the doctor had already done that. But magbe the doctor was wrong and the judge could correct the doctor? CR: 55. In a further comment concerning a Federal Court of Appeal stay decision in the Turmel Kit public possession and shipping limit claims, Mr. Turmel observed "I feel sad for what [Near J.A.] has done to punish 7,000 sick people. Because that's the number who will benefit when we strike the cap. God'll get him."78 78 M.Affidavit, para 236, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 75 JCT: I do feel sad for the low-tech judges who now have the agonies and deaths of many on their tab. And acknowledge they'll get away with it in this life but not in the afterlife. I'm a believer that Heaven can be Hell. CR: 56. In yet another social media post after this court struck his Turmel Kit COVID-19 claim, Mr. Turmel suggested to readers that: If you took the jab but wouldn't have if you'd known that Covid was a hoax, maybe you should send Prothonotary Aylen a message telling her that her you wouldn't have taken the experimental vaccine if she hadn't suppressed that the virus was a hoax. And if someone near you dies of a blood clot, let her know she did it to them. Ottawa girl thought she'd shut down that Ottawa eccentric Turmel and now she'll have the blood of millions on her hands. Har har. Looks good on her. Not so good on her victims.79 79 M.Affidavit, para 279, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 93 JCT: All true. Who out of the 3 billion would have taken the experimental gene therapy if she hadn't suppressed that the Covid Mortality was a Hundrefdold Hyped false alarm? Most of the 3 billion. So all the adverse effects are on her tab. CR: 5. Mr. Turmel shows disregard for court orders, rules and timelines 57. Mr. Turmel often disregards court orders, rules and timelines. In 2002, he was convicted of contempt for knowingly posting material to the Internet in violation of a publication ban issued in the course of his brother's criminal trial for marihuana offences.80 80 M.Affidavit, paras 69-71, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 26-27 JCT: That's not often. And I don't disregard non-cost orders, rules and timelines. The 2002 contempt conviction was to let everyone know they were stalling people to death and calling them "dormants." Notice that that once is all they have. CR: 58. In the various Turmel Kit proceedings in this court, Mr. Turmel has attempted to file impermissible materials such as summary-judgment motions in a stayed or simplified action, and an appeal from a direction.81 81 M.Affidavit, paras 113, 115, 117, 138-39, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 37-38, 44-45; Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, s 297 ["Federal Courts Rules"]; Aga Khan v Tajdin, 2012 FCA 238, para 4 JCT: I was improperly advised by the Registry to file my action as "simplified" and when I found out I could not file the motion, I asked the court to change it and it was. CR: In 2015, nineteen of his kit users also filed or attempted to file motions for extensions of time to appeal the Allard injunction decision, although the applicants were not parties in Allard and therefore lacked any standing to appeal.82 82 M.Affidavit, paras 158-59, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 52 JCT: They were affected by the Allard decision that took away their grow-ops but had no standing! 59. On at least three occasions, Mr. Turmel has failed to pursue his appeals at all, leading the Federal Court of Appeal to dismiss them for delay or as abandoned.83 83 M.Affidavit, paras 28, 31, 53, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 17-18, 22 JCT: Three times in many dozens where I didn't complete the appeal. Not quite regularly.. CR: On several other occasions, Mr. Turmel and his kit users have missed filing deadlines, sometimes by several months, but brought motions for extensions of time.84 84 M.Affidavit, paras 53, 81, 108, 126, 150, 181, 190, 218, 266, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 22, 29, 35, 41, 50, 60, 63, 70, 85-86 JCT: Usually granted because there were good reasons for the missed deadline. Several times out of dozens more. CR: While the courts have granted extensions in many of these cases, they have denied extensions in others, often on grounds that the applicants failed entirely to explain their delay.85 85 M.Affidavit, paras 82, 151, 158, 219 and Exhibit 155 (p 2), AR, Vol 1 (Tab C, p 29, 50, 52, 70), Vol 6 (Tab C155, p 1662) JCT: How many others? Three? CR: 60. In 2015, Mr. Turmel missed a court-ordered deadline to serve and file an appeal book agreement in several consolidated appeals in which he had been designated lead appellant. Although the Federal Court of Appeal granted his motion for an extension of time, in doing so Ryer J.A. noted Mr. Turmel's "seeming indifference towards compliance with the order of Boivin J.A.," and awarded costs to Canada despite Mr. Turmel's success on the motion.86 86 M.Affidavit, paras 125-26, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 41 JCT: Once. CR: 61. Mr. Turmel often attempts to make legal submissions on behalf of others despite multiple reminders from this court that, as a non-solicitor, he is not permitted to do so.87 87 M.Affidavit, paras 99, 114, 123, 145, 147-48, 202, 262, 301, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 33, 37, 41, 46-47, 66, 84-85, 100; Federal Courts Rules, s 119 JCT: Never without asking. I don't ever remember being granted. So never. CR: He also frequently uses social media to provide his kit users with advice on the conduct of their proceedings, or to suggest that he can obtain relief on their behalf.88 88 M.Affidavit, paras 115-16, 197, 206, 261, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 37-38, 65, 67, 84 He has served and files materials for others, apparently including a deceased person in one case, and has suggested to his kit users that they recruit more plaintiffs and charge money for completing and filing a template claim on their behalf.89 89 M.Affidavit, paras 120, 131-34, 155, 165, 204, 209, 257, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 39-40, 42-43, 51, 55-56, 66-68, 83 JCT: Sharon Misener had her permit cancelled by Judge Manson and filed motions to the top to get it back. But while she was waiting for her Reconsideration of the Supreme Court decision to let it stand, she died. And they found out she had died trying to get her medicine back and cancelled her motion for reconsideration of losing her permit. CR: 6. Mr. Turmel has numerous unpaid costs orders 62. Mr. Turmel has numerous unpaid costs orders. Since 2015, the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court of Canada have ordered him to pay Canadas costs on ten occasions. Of these orders, Mr. Turmel has paid only one (for $100), while the other nine (totaling $15,340) remain unpaid.90 90 M.Affidavit, paras 293-95, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 97-98 Since 2010, the Ontario courts have also ordered him to pay the CBC's costs on three occasions. These orders, which total $18,453.04, also remain unpaid.91 91 M.Affidavit, para 296, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 98 63. In 2016, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed several consolidated appeals from an interlocutory decision of this court, with costs. Noting that Mr. Turmel had undertaken to personally pay any costs award on behalf of all 26 appellants, the court ordered him to do so and fixed costs at $3,350. These costs remain unpaid despite Mr. Turmel's undertaking.92 92 M.Affidavit, paras 124, 127, 293-94, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 41, 97-98 JCT: Yes, I knew I couldn't pay so I accepted responsibility for the costs of all the others. CR: 64. In social media posts, Mr. Turmel has told kit users that "It's okay to skip out on costs" and that "I'd forgotten about all the times I stiffed them on costs."93 93 M.Affidavit, paras 275, 299 (see also para 300), AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 91, 99 JCT: It's just not worth the Crown's while to chase poor people for small amounts, is it? He has suggested that plaintiffs ordered to pay $800 in costs send Canada a cheque for just one dollar.94 94 M.Affidavit, paras 136, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 44 JCT: "while trying to pay the rest" was omitted. CR: 65. Not surprisingly given these statements by Mr. Turmel, several of his kit users have failed to pay costs when ordered by courts to do so. Since 2015, the Federal Courts and Supreme Court of Canada have ordered Mr. Turmel's kit users to pay Canada's costs on at least 35 occasions. Of these costs orders, 22 (totalling $16,362.82) remain unpaid.95 95 M.Affidavit, paras 297, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 98 JCT: Not worth chasing poor people, especially if they're dying. CR: C. ADDITIONAL MEASURES ARE NEEDED TO REGULATE MR. TURMELS ACCESS 66. In addition to a requirement that Mr. Turmel obtain leave before personally instituting or continuing any proceedings, the Attorney General of Canada requests that this court: a) make leave conditional on payment of Mr. Turmel's outstanding costs; b) prohibit Mr. Turmel from preparing court materials or assisting others with their proceedings; and c) order that no proceedings be instituted using materials prepared by Mr. Turmel, except with leave.96 96 Notice of Application, p 3, AR, Vol 1, Tab A, p 3 67. In managing vexatious litigants, the Federal Court of Appeal has held that the Federal Courts are not limited to s. 40, but also have access to other powers, including plenary powers, necessary to prevent abuses of the court's process.97 97 Fabrikant, paras 2, 44; Ubah, para 40 68. The Federal Court of Appeal has also observed that vexatiousness comes in many shapes and sizes. 98 98 Olumide, para 32 Different measures may therefore be required in each case. However, while there is no "one size fits all" approach to vexatious-litigant orders, courts have held that orders should generally include measures to prevent vexatious litigants from litigating through proxies or assisting other litigants, ensure compliance with existing judgments, and prevent the vexatious litigant from otherwise circumventing the terms of the vexatious-litigant order.99 99 Fabrikant, paras 45-46; Virgo v Canada, 2019 FCA 167, para 33; see also Unrau v National Dental Examining Board, 2019 ABQB 283, para 904 ["Unrau"] (cited favourably in Fabrikant, para 48) 69. In past cases, courts have attempted to achieve these goals with terms requiring vexatious litigants to pay outstanding costs as a precondition to obtaining leave.100 100 Potvin, para 8; Unrau, paras 828-31 They have also prohibited vexatious litigants from litigating through others, or assisting others, including by preparing court documents, providing legal advice, or communicating with the court, including as a "McKenzie friend."101 101 Badawy, Order (para 9); Ubah, paras 46, 50, 54; Unrau, paras 904, 1010 (subparas 1(ii), 8) JCT: Imagine preventing me from assisting others. CR: They have required the registry to reject documents prepared on behalf of the vexatious litigant, or prohibited the vexatious litigant from having their interests represented by others, except with leave.102 102 Olumide, para 48; Potvin, para 8 70. Similar terms are appropriate in this case. Mr. Turmel has numerous unpaid costs awards, and appears to take pride in not having paid them.103 103 M.Affidavit, paras 275, 293-96, 299-300, AR, Vol 1, Tab C, p 91, 97-99 If he is to continue to use the resources of the Federal Courts, this court should require that he first comply with these orders so that orders of the Federal Courts are respected and prospective defendants or respondents with outstanding costs awards do not incur further costs in responding to leave applications by Mr. Turmel. JCT: May have to do a GoFundMe to raise funds to pay costs. CR: 71. However, a requirement that Mr. Turmel obtain leave to personally institute or continue proceedings is not sufficient. As detailed above, Mr. Turmel has attempted to overwhelm this court and the Crown by preparing court documents for and assisting others, and has exhibited many other hallmarks of vexatiousness in the course of these proceedings. The requested measures would prevent him from continuing abuse the process of the Federal Courts in this manner. PART V - ORDER SOUGHT 72. The Attorney General of Canada requests an order: a) that no further proceedings other than an appeal from any order in the present application may be instituted, and that any proceeding previously instituted may not be continued, by Mr. Turmel in the Federal Court or the Federal Court of Appeal, except with leave of the Federal Court; b) that any application by Mr. Turmel for leave to institute or continue proceedings must, in addition to satisfying the criteria in s. 40(4) of the Federal Courts Act, demonstrate that all outstanding costs awards against Mr. Turmel in the Federal Courts have been paid in full; c) prohibiting Mr. Turmel from preparing, distributing or in any way disseminating court documents, including template documents, for use by others in proceedings before the Federal Courts; d) prohibiting Mr. Turmel from assisting others with their proceedings in the Federal Courts, including by filing materials or by purporting to represent or communicate with the courts on their behalf; e) that no further proceedings may be instituted in the Federal Courts using originating documents, including template documents, that are in any way prepared, distributed or disseminated by Mr. Turmel, except with leave of the Federal Court; f) for costs. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED Dated at Toronto this 11th day of August, 2022. Jon Bricker Of Counsel for the Applicant JCT: Notice how little specificity about my offences. So I have to prepare a response and the application should be heard in October.