TURMEL: Turmel Reply to Reconsider FCA Vexatious Litigant Motion 


http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40rnr.pdf

                                                No: A-265-22 

                  FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL 

Between:
                        John Turmel
                                                  Applicant
                                                  Appellant 
                                                  
                            AND

                    His Majesty The King
                                                  Respondent

            APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
           IN REPLY ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1. This Court must have been surprised to learn in my Motion 
for Reconsideration that Canada had written in the February 
28 2023 letter of Jon Bricker:  

    Canada advised of its intention to bring a motion for an 
    order declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant in 
    the Federal Court of Appeal (the "Motion")..
    Specifically, Canada intends to seek directions or 
    orders:
    4. That the Motion be heard orally, together with the 
    underlying appeal; and

2. The Written Representations in the Motion to declare the 
Appellant a "Vexatious Litigant" are virtually identical to 
its Aug 11 2022 Federal Court Memorandum whose issues are 
being appealed and in my Mar 29 2023 Appeal Memorandum. 


3. In the Motion Written Representations, Canada says: 

    17. Mr. Turmel now explains that he did not respond to 
    Canada's motion because he was under the mistaken belief 
    that it would be heard orally together with his appeal. 
    However, it is unclear on the facts how Mr. Turmel could 
    have arrived at this belief given the March 6 Direction 
    and the clear indicators in Canada's motion record that 
    the motion was brought in writing. In any event, even if 
    Mr. Turmel was under this mistaken belief, Rule 397 is 
    available only to correct errors by the Court, and not 
    errors by a party.

4. My arriving at the belief that the motion would be heard 
orally with the appeal was not unclear given Canada's Feb 28 
2023 letter and para.6 herein which says: 

    6. Canada sent a further letter to this Court on 
    February 28, 2023. This letter... advised of Canada's 
    intention to seek a direction or order in case 
    management that its motion be heard orally, together 
    with the appeal.

5. Canada mentions how the appeal is ready for hearing but 
did not mention that it had told the Court the motion was 
intended to be argued orally before the Court of Appeal 
panel, not in writing before 1 judge. Canada reneged on the 
intent it had indicated to the Court to have its motion 
heard orally by switching to motion in writing under Rule 
369. 

6. Is there any reason the Court of Appeal panel could not 
have dealt with the Motion in writing after the appeal? This 
Court acting on the Motion for a "Vexatious Litigant" 
declaration before the appeal of the Federal Court 
'Vexatious Litigant" Order did not have the benefit of my 
response on the appeal. And since my opposing arguments were 
in the Appeal Memorandum, shouldn't that have been the venue 
with judges apprised of both sides of the issues? 

7. So this Court was faced with a motion in writing without 
being informed we had been told it was going to be argued 
orally before the appeal panel. Omitting to inform that the 
Court expected the motion to be argued orally misled this 
Court into duplicating the work of the panel with only one 
side of the arguments. 

8. Canada says reconsideration should only be entertained if 
some important matter had been overlooked. This Court did 
not have the benefit of both sides of the arguments. The 
opposition arguments from my Appeal Memorandum on the same 
issues were overlooked herein. 

9. Canada says the Court may grant the motion while the 
appeal is pending but this could influence the appeal panel. 
What if the Appeal Court should find that the litigations 
brought had some merit and sets aside the Declaration from 
below. What do do about the premature Declaration herein? 
Would the panel have to say this Court didn't have the 
benefit of my opposing arguments? 

10. Respondent erred in presenting the Motion to extend the 
Federal "Vexatious Litigant" Order now under appeal to 1 
judge before it could be sustained by the Court of Appeal 
because it now prejudices the appeal.

Dated at Brantford on Jul 10 2023 
For the Appellant/Respondent
John C. Turmel, B. Eng., 

JCT: "How Turmel could have come to believe" what he had 
told the Court! Har har har har har har. He did sucker the 
judge into doing the work a second time which the panel was 
already doing once. Hope the judge gets pissed at them.