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.