TURMEL: Crown Memorandum to Turmel Vexatious Litigant Appeal
Court File No.: A-265-22
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
B E T W E E N :
JOHN TURMEL
Appellant
and
HIS MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Respondent
MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE RESPONDENT,
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
(INCORRECTLY NAMED AS HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN)
March 29, 2023
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Department of Justice
120 Adelaide Street West, Suite #400
Toronto, Ontario M5H 1T1
Per: Jon Bricker
Tel: (647) 256-7473
Email: jon.bricker@justice.gc.ca
Fax: (416) 973-0809
TO: ADMINISTRATOR
Federal Court of Appeal
180 Queen Street West
Toronto, ON
M5V 1Z4
AND TO: JOHN TURMEL
68 Brant Avenue
Brantford, Ontario
N3T 3H1
Tel: (519) 753-5122 / (519) 209-1848
Email : johnturmel@yahoo.com
Appellant
CR: Crown
OVERVIEW...................................................1
PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS................................1
A) MR. TURMEL'S LITIGATION HISTORY.........................1
1) Proceedings instituted by Mr. Turmel ...................1
2) The Turmel "kit" proceedings............................4
3) Mr. Turmel's proceedings have been dismissed as
meritless, scandalous,frivolous and vexatious..............6
4) Mr. Turmel's attempts to re-litigate issues.............8
5) Mr. Turmel's social media statements....................9
6) Mr. Turmel has not complied with court orders, rules and
timelines................................................ 10
B) THE FEDERAL COURT DECISION UNDER REVIEW................12
PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE.................................13
PART III - SUBMISSIONS....................................14
A) THE PROPER RESPONDENT TO THIS APPEAL IS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA.........................................14
B) THE FEDERAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN DECLARING MR. TURMEL A
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT....................................... 14
1) The Application Judge did not err in finding Mr. Turmel's
proceedings meritless.....................................15
2) The Application Judge did not err in finding that Mr.
Turmel has refused to follow court orders and rules.......17
PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT....................................18
PART V - LIST OF AUTHORITIES..............................19
CR: OVERVIEW
1. By decision dated November 9, 2022, the Federal Court
declared the appellant, John Turmel, a vexatious litigant
pursuant to s. 40 of the Federal Courts Act. In doing so,
the Court observed that Mr. Turmel persistently brings and
recruits others to bring meritless proceedings, brings
proceedings for an improper purpose, attempts to re-litigate
issues, makes scandalous allegations against judges and
other parties, ignores court orders and rules, and refuses
to pay costs awards.
JCT: I pointed out in my Memorandum how none of the
proceedings were meritless, even if low-tech judges couldn't
follow the arguments.
For instance, when the courts ruled that my getting zero
free broadcast debate time was equitable cuantatitiavely and
qualitatively, was I supposed to treat those decision as
sane? Yes, once the judges ruled zero was quantitatively
equitable to a share of the whole show, I should have
accepted that as a just ruling. Har har har har har har.
Sorry, I just couldn't do it.
Was I supposed to accept that putting farmers out of work by
forcing them to try to pay 11 when the banks only printed
10? Sorry, not. http://SmartestMan.Ca/s4008.txt lists them
all. Not one was meritless. Not one was for an improper
purpose, the allegations against judges and other parties
may have been scandalous but true.
So the Crown just repeated the original charges that I
debunked as if my answers went in one ear and out the other.
CR: 2. Mr. Turmel has established no error in these
findings. He asserts that his prior proceedings had merit
that the courts involved failed to see, and have ultimately
assisted others even if the proceedings were dismissed.
However, it was not open to the Federal Court to review the
court decisions in Mr. Turmel's prior cases, and the
assertion that Mr. Turmel has assisted others is not
supported by evidence or authority.
JCT: I thought listing my http://SmartestMan.Ca/wins might
show how I've helped others.
CR: 3. Mr. Turmel also states that he has ignored only one
court order, and denies that he has disregarded court rules
or refused to pay court costs.
JCT: True, I only ignored one court order, true, I denied
disregarding court rules since the courts do not allow
anyone to disregard the rules, and NOT true that I denied
refusing to pay court costs. That I could not afford them
made it easy not to pay.
CR: However, the Federal Court's findings to the contrary
were amply supported by the record, and Mr. Turmel has
established no error in the Federal Court's analysis. This
appeal should accordingly be dismissed.
JCT: So the Court found I did not only once disobey a court
order, found I often disregard the rules? Sadly, yes though
it was NOT supported by the record before the court.
PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS
A) MR. TURMEL'S LITIGATION HISTORY
1) Proceedings instituted by Mr. Turmel
4. Since 1980, Mr. Turmel has personally instituted at least
68 court proceedings. This includes 20 claims and
applications in the Federal Court, 13 appeals to this Court,
18 applications and appeals in the courts of Ontario, and 17
applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada.1
1 Judgment and Reasons of the Federal Court, dated November
9, 2022 (Canada v John C Turmel, 2022 FC 1526), para 8
("Application Decision"), Appeal Book("AB"), Vol 1, Tab B, p
22; Affidavit of Lisa Minarovich, sworn May 31, 2022
("Minarovich Affidavit"), para 6, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 48-52
5. These proceedings have concerned a wide range of legal
issues.2
2 Application Decision, para 8, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 22
In 1981, the Federal Court dismissed an application by Mr.
Turmel for an order that the Bank of Canada "cease and
desist the genocidal practice of interest."
JCT: Was trying to stop genocide meritless?
CR: This Court dismissed an appeal of this decision, and the
Supreme Court of Canada dismissed an application by Mr.
Turmel for leave to appeal.3
3 Application Decision, para 11, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 23;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 10-13, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 53-54
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 an unsuccessful
appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, Mr. Turmel sought
leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada where he
argued that the bank's interest rates violated natural,
biblical or criminal laws. The Court dismissed this leave
application.
4 Application Decision, para 12, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 23;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras
15-18, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 54
7. Mr. Turmel is also a perennial candidate in federal and
provincial elections, and has brought numerous proceedings
concerning election issues. Between 1980 and 2007, he
instituted twelve unsuccessful proceedings against the
Canadian RadioTelevision and Telecommunications Commission
("CRTC") and various broadcasters concerning the allocation
of free political broadcast time or Mr. Turmel's omission or
expulsion from debate broadcasts. Although he appealed the
decisions dismissing several of these proceedings, and
sought leave to appeal two of the appeal decisions to the
Supreme Court of Canada, these appeals and leave
applications were all dismissed or deemed abandoned.5
5 application decision, paras 13-14, ab, vol 1, tab b, p 23-
24; minarovich affidavit, paras 19-50, ab, vol 1, tab d, p
54-57
8. In 2015, Mr. Turmel brought a Federal Court claim for a
declaration that the audit-expense 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. That claim, an appeal by
Mr. Turmel to this Court, and an application for leave to
appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, were all dismissed.6
6 Application Decision, para 15, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 24;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 51-54, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 61-62
9. Mr. Turmel has also brought several proceedings
concerning Canada's gaming laws. For example, in 1981, Mr.
Turmel brought an unsuccessful Federal Court application for
an order that the provincial Crown prosecute retailer
Simpsons-Sears for selling playing cards, which Mr. Turmel
alleged were prohibited gaming devices. In 1993, Mr. Turmel
was personally convicted for keeping a gaming house. His
appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and an
application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada, were both subsequently dismissed.7
7 Application Decision, paras 16-17, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 24-
25; Minarovich Affidavit, paras 56-61, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p
62-63
10. In 2010, Mr. Turmel brought two separate libel claims
against the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ("CBC") in
relation to his appearance on the Dragon's Den television
program. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed
both claims. Mr. Turmel's appeals to the Court of Appeal for
Ontario, and application for leave to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada, were similarly dismissed.8
8 Application Decision, para 18, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 25;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 63-68, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 62-65
11. Mr. Turmel has also brought several constitutional
challenges to Canada's cannabis laws. In 2002 and 2003, he
brought two separate civil applications in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for orders declaring the marihuana
provisions of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act
("CDSA") unconstitutional. In 2003, Mr. Turmel was
personally charged with possession for the purposes of
trafficking, and in the course of his prosecution, brought
three interlocutory applications again challenging the
constitutionality of the CDSA marihuana provisions.9
9 Application Decision, paras 19-21, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 25-
26; Minarovich Affidavit, paras 73, 75-76, 78, AB, Vol 1,
Tab D, p 66-67
12. These applications were all dismissed, and Mr. Turmel
was ultimately convicted of the trafficking charge. Mr.
Turmel appealed each of these decisions (a total of six
appeals), and later filed a motion for an extension of time
to appeal his conviction for a second time. However, the
Court of Appeal for Ontario dismissed these appeals and
motions, and the Supreme Court of Canada denied Mr. Turmel's
leave applications and motions for extensions of time to
seek leave to appeal.10
10 Application Decision, paras 19-21, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p
25-26; Minarovich Affidavit, paras 74-75, 77, 79-82, 84-92,
AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 66-68
2) The Turmel "kit" proceedings
13. Although not licensed to practice law, Mr. Turmel
frequently provides legal assistance to others. Between 2008
and 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed
several interlocutory applications by individuals charged
with marihuana offences. The applications, which were based
on court materials developed by Mr. Turmel, sought
declarations that the CDSA marihuana provisions were
unconstitutional.11
11 Application Decision, paras 4, 22, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p
21, 26; Minarovich Affidavit, paras 94-101, 301, AB, Vol 1,
Tab D, p 70-72, 139
JCT: He now conitradicts what he saids in Para 2:
and the assertion that Mr. Turmel has assisted others is
not supported by evidence or authority.
CR: 14. Since 2014, Mr. Turmel has developed "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.12
12 Application Decision, paras 4, 25, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p
21, 27; Minarovich Affidavit, para 9, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 53
15. Individuals have filed or attempted to file hundreds of
substantially identical proceedings based on these kits,
including:
(a) 315 Federal Court claims, including one by Mr. Turmel,
challenging the former Marihuana Medical Access Regulations
("MMAR") and Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations
("MMPR");
(b) 19 motions to this Court for extensions of time to
appeal the December 30, 2014 injunction decision of the
Federal Court in Allard v Canada;
(c) Nine claims, including one by Mr. Turmel, for
declarations that the CDSA failed to provide access to
cannabis juice and oil for medical purposes;
(d) 393 claims challenging the processing time for Health
Canada registration to produce cannabis for personal medical
use;
(e) 36 claims challenging the 150-gram limit on public
possession and shipping of cannabis for medical purposes;
(f) Four claims challenging the requirement for annual
healthcare practitioner authorization to use cannabis for
medical purposes;
(g) Three claims challenging, respectively, Health Canadas
rejection of one plaintiff's application for registration to
produce cannabis, the production-site requirements and the
criminal-record requirements for individuals producing
cannabis for personal medical use.13
13 Application Decision, para 28, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 28-30;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 103-04, 152-54, 157, 164, 166,
175, 211-12, 222-23, 225-26, 241-42, 247-48, AB, Vol 1, Tab
D, p 73, 90-91, 93, 95, 97, 107, 110-11, 116-18
16. Of these 779 proceedings, at least 657 have been struck
or dismissed by the Federal Courts. The remainder were
discontinued, not accepted for filing, or are the subject of
outstanding requests by the Crown for dismissal.14
14 Application Decision, para 29, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 30;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 148, 158-59, 167, 191, 200, 203,
205, 213, 232, 237, 245-46, 250 and Exhibits 60 (para 40),
105, 129 (paras 4-5, 21, 57-58, 96), AB, Vol 1 (Tab D, p 86-
88, 91, 95, 102, 104-08, 113, 115, 117-18), Vol 4 (Tab D60,
p 938), Vol 5 (Tab D105, p 1258-59, and Tab D129, p 1405-06,
1418, 1430, 1444)
17. In the course of these claims, the plaintiffs have also
used materials prepared by Mr. Turmel to bring more than 100
motions for interim relief, 48 appeals to this Court, and 22
applications for leave to appeal. Like the underlying
proceedings, these motions, appeals and applications have
all been dismissed or discontinued, with the exception of
one leave application that is currently under reserve.15
15 Application Decision, para 41, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 34;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 103-04, 108, 110, 117, 119, 121-
22, 127-28, 130, 132, 157-58, 162-63, 184, 186, 191, 203,
207-10, 214, 219, 240 and Exhibit 132 (paras 11, 49-50), AB,
Vol 1 (Tab D, p 73-75, 77-82, 91, 93, 100, 102, 105-07, 108-
09, 116), Vol 5 (Tab D132, p 1474, 1486)
18. Mr. Turmel has also developed and promoted template
claims for declarations that Canada's COVID-19 mitigation
measures are unconstitutional. Since January 2021, 80 self-
represented plaintiffs, including Mr. Turmel, have filed
Federal Court claims based on these templates. On July 12,
2021, the Federal Court struck Mr. Turmel's claim without
leave to amend. Mr. Turmel's appeals to the Federal Court
and this Court have since been dismissed. His application
for leave to appeal this Court's decision to the Federal
Court of Appeal is currently under reserve, and the other 79
claims remain stayed pending the outcome of this leave
application.16
16 Application Decision, para 30, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 30;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 255-58, 260, 277, 281, AB, Vol
1, Tab D, p 120-23, 130-32; Turmel v Canada, 2022 FCA 166,
paras 1, 3-5
19. Since February 2022, eight plaintiffs, including Mr.
Turmel, have also filed claims for declarations that
Canada's former COVID-19 vaccination requirements for air
travelers are unconstitutional. The claims, which were based
on kits developed and distributed by Mr. Turmel, have all
been struck without leave to amend.17
17 Application Decision, para 31, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 30;
Fudge v Canada, CFN T693-22 and several other proceedings
(Judgment of Horne, Associate Judge, dated July 4, 2022,
unreported)
3) Mr. Turmel's proceedings have been dismissed as
meritless, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious
20. As detailed above, courts have 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 proceedings failed to disclose a reasonable
cause of action, were scandalous, frivolous, vexatious or an
abuse of process, or were supported by little or no
evidence.18
18 Application Decision, paras 8-9, 25, 39-40, AB, Vol 1,
Tab B, p 22, 27, 33-34; Minarovich Affidavit, paras 11, 36,
59, 71, 74, 80, 85, 95, 97, 144, 148, 158, 167, 191, 213,
232-33, 237, 277, 287, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 53, 58, 63, 65-
71, 84, 86-88, 91, 95, 102, 107-08, 113-15, 130-31, 134
21. For example, in striking the constitutional challenges
to the MMAR and MMPR, the Federal Court observed that the
claims were largely "boilerplate" and contained virtually no
detail concerning each plaintiffs personal circumstances or
how the impugned regulatory provisions engaged their
individual Charter rights.19
19 Minarovich Affidavit, paras 115, 117, 148, AB, Vol 1, Tab
D, p 76-78, 86-88
The Federal Courts have echoed this concern in several
subsequent decisions involving Mr. Turmel's kits.20
20 Application Decision, para 40, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 33-34;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 191, 232, 277, 287, AB, Vol 1,
Tab D, p 102, 113, 130-31, 134; Fudge v Canada, CFN T-693-22
and several other proceedings (Order of Horne, Associate
Judge, dated July 27, 2022, unreported), paras 11, 18
("Fudge costs decision")
22. In pleadings and argument, Mr. Turmel has described Bank
of Canada interest policies and various aspects of Canada's
medical cannabis regulatory regime as "genocidal."21
21 Application Decision, para 11, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 23;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 10, 71, 74-75, 117, 233, AB, Vol
1, Tab D, p 53, 65-67, 77-78, 114
He has alleged that the public possession limits for medical
cannabis and federal COVID-19 measures are the result of
statistical fraud, and that COVID-19 itself is an "imaginary
plague," deaths from which have been greatly exaggerated by
an "evil cabal."22
22 Application Decision, para 23, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 26-27;
Minarovich Affidavit, para 233 and Exhibit 147 (Statement of
Claim, paras 37, 39, 46, 71, 89-90, 104, 117, 120), AB, Vol
1 (Tab D, p 133), Vol 6 (Tab D147, p 1577, 1579, 1581-82,
1591, 1595-96, 1600, 1605-06)
Courts have repeatedly struck these allegations as
scandalous,
frivolous and vexatious.23
23 Minarovich 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), AB, Vol 1 (Tab D, p 86-88, 114, 130-31),
Vol 2 (Tab D17, p 305, 328-29)
23. Courts have also dismissed several of Mr. Turmel's and
his kit users' proceedings on the grounds that they were
unsupported by any evidence.24
24 Minarovich Affidavit, paras 36, 52, 59, 71, 74, 80, 117,
158, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 58, 61, 63, 65-68, 77-78, 91
In dismissing appeals and motions for extensions of time to
appeal, this Court has also frequently observed that Mr.
Turmel and his kit users failed to identify any arguable
error in the decision appealed from.25
25 Minarovich Affidavit, paras 151, 219, 266 AB, Vol 1, Tab
D, p 89, 109, 124-25
4) Mr. Turmel's attempts to re-litigate issues
24. Courts in at least 17 different proceedings have
observed that Mr. Turmel or his kit users attempted to raise
previously decided issues.26
26 Application Decision, paras 9, 40, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p
22, 33-34; Minarovich Affidavit, paras 27, 30, 36, 40, 59,
65, 75, 77, 84, 86, 95, 97, 99, 101, 142, 148, 232, 287, AB,
Vol 1, Tab D, p 56-59, 64, 67-72, 84, 86-88, 113, 134
For example, in a 1987 decision dismissing one of his many
applications against the CRTC, Joyal J. noted that Mr.
Turmel's arguments had been previously rejected "in
successive and unsuccessful applications before this court
by the same applicant in the years 1980, 1983 and 1984." In
dismissing a parallel application against the CBC, Joyal J.
also observed that Mr. Turmel "admits to having had many
runs at the cat on this point."27
27 Minarovich Affidavit, para 40, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 59
25. In the cannabis context, criminal courts have noted the
tendency of Mr. Turmel and his kit users to bring numerous
applications for interlocutory relief, and to continue doing
so long after identical applications have been dismissed.28
28 Minarovich Affidavit, paras 59, 84, 86, 95, 97, 99, 101,
AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 63, 68-72
Mr. Turmel has also repeatedly and unsuccessfully sought
judicial recognition of a constitutional right for healthy
individuals to use cannabis for preventive medical purposes,
and has continued to promote his litigation kits long after
identical claims were struck.29
29 Minarovich Affidavit, paras 74, 80, 204, 254, AB, Vol 1,
Tab D, p 66-68, 105-06, 119-20
26. In striking Mr. Turmel's constitutional challenge to
Canada's vaccination requirements for air travelers,
Associate Judge Horne observed that the claim challenged
some of the same measures as Mr. Turmel's previous challenge
to federal COVID-19 mitigation measures, and contained many
of "the same lengthy diatribes, and unsubstantiated
allegations of cover-ups and conspiracies," which the Court
concluded was an abuse of process.30
30 Application Decision, paras 31, 40, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p
30, 33-34; Minarovich Affidavit, para 287, AB, Vol 1, Tab D,
p 134
5) Mr. Turmel's social media statements
27. In social media posts, Mr. Turmel has invited his kit
users to "clog up," "flood," "swamp," "semi-paralyze" or
"ream out" the Federal Courts and Supreme Court of Canada
registries with a "tidal wave or "avalanche" of claims or
requests for documents.31
31 APPLICATION DECISION, PARAS 4, 27, 42, AB, VOL 1, TAB B,
P 21, 28, 34; MINAROVICH AFFIDAVIT, PARAS 118, 146, 160-61,
165, 173, 257, 270, 285-86, 288, AB, VOL 1, TAB D, P 78, 85-
86, 92-97, 120-22, 126-28, 133-35; SEE ALSO FUDGE COSTS
DECISION, PARA 19
In a July 2016 post promoting one of his kits, Mr. Turmel
explained that "The real winning power is once again what
freaked out both the Crown and the Registry last time, the
volume."32
32 application decision, para 27, ab, vol 1, tab b, p 28;
minarovich affidavit, para 165, ab, vol 1, tab d, p 94
28. In a 2014 post, Mr. Turmel explained that he was
proceeding with his challenge to the MMAR despite the repeal
of those regulations in order "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." In a
post concerning the challenges to the cannabis possession
limits, he 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."33
33 Application Decision, para 26, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 27-28;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 111, 236, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p
111, 114
29. Mr. Turmel also frequently uses social media to make
intemperate remarks about judges. After the Federal Court
struck several of his cannabis kit claims for lack of
material facts, Mr. Turmel explained that one plaintiff had
cancer, 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.34
34 Application Decision, para 33, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 31;
Minarovich Affidavit, para 149, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 88
He has suggested that Supreme Court of Canada judges
"deserve death row for what they have done," and that the
judges who dismissed his challenges to federal COVID-19
mitigation measures have the "blood of millions on [their]
hands."35
35 Application Decision, para 32, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 30-31;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 131, 149, 208, 264, 275, 279,
AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 81-82, 88-89, 106-07, 124, 130-32
6) Mr. Turmel has not complied with court orders, rules and
timelines
30. Courts have often noted Mr. Turmel's failure to follow
court orders, rules and timelines. For example, in 2002, Mr.
Turmel 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 trial for marihuana
offences.36
36 Application Decision, paras 19, 43, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p
25, 34; Minarovich Affidavit, paras 69-71, AB, Vol 1, Tab D,
p 65-66
31. Mr. Turmel often attempts to make legal submissions on
behalf of others, despite Rule 119 of the Federal Courts
Rules and multiple reminders from the Federal Court that, as
a non-solicitor, he is not permitted to do so.37
37 Application Decision, para 44, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 34;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 114, 123, 145, 147-48, 202, 262,
301, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 76, 80, 85-88, 105, 123-24, 139;
Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106, s 119(1) ("Federal Courts
Rules")
He and his kit users have also attempted to file
impermissible materials such as summary-judgment motions in
stayed or simplified actions, multiple appeals from the same
decision, appeals from directions, and appeals from
decisions to which they were not parties.38
38 Minarovich Affidavit, paras 90, 113, 138-40, 158-59, AB,
Vol 1, Tab D, p 69-70, 76, 83-84, 91
32. Mr. Turmel and his kit users frequently miss court
filing deadlines.39
39 Application Decision, para 43, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 34;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 53, 81, 108, 126, 150, 158, 181,
190, 218, 266, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 61, 68, 74, 80, 89, 91,
99, 102, 109, 124-25
In 2015, Mr. Turmel personally missed a court-ordered
deadline to file an appeal book agreement in a group of
consolidated appeals in which he had undertaken to serve as
the lead appellant. Although this Court granted him an
extension of time, Ryer J.A. noted Mr. Turmel's "seeming
indifference towards compliance with the order of Boivin
J.A.," and awarded Canada costs despite Mr. Turmel's success
on the motion.40
40 Minarovich Affidavit, paras 125-26, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p80
33. Mr. Turmel has also failed to pay numerous costs awards.
There are currently at least 12 unpaid costs awards against
him (totalling $33,793.04), and 22 outstanding costs awards
(totalling $16,362.82) against his kit users.41
41 Application Decision, paras 25, 46, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p
27, 35; Minarovich Affidavit, paras 293-96, AB, Vol 1, Tab
D, p 136-37
In social media posts, Mr. Turmel has advised his kit users
that "It's okay to skip out on costs and encouraged those
ordered to pay $800 in costs to send a cheque for just one
dollar.42
42 Application Decision, paras 25, 46, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, P
27, 35; Minarovich Affidavit, Paras 136, 299, AB, Vol 1,
Tab D, p 83, 138
B) THE FEDERAL COURT DECISION UNDER REVIEW
34. In May 2022, the Attorney General of Canada ("Canada")
brought an application for an order under s. 40 of the
Federal Courts Act declaring Mr. Turmel a vexatious
litigant.43
43 Notice of Application, issued May 10, 2022, AB, Vol 1,
Tab C, p 42-46; FederalCourts Act, RSC 1985, c F-7, s 40
("Federal Courts Act")
35. By decision dated November 9, 2022, the Federal Court
granted Canada's application.44
44 Application Decision, paras 7, 55, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p
22, 38
In detailed reasons that relied on Canada's evidence (which
was uncontested by Mr. Turmel), the Application Judge, the
Honourable Mr. Justice Fothergill, found Mr. Turmel exhibits
several of the recognized indicia of vexatiousness. He found
Mr. Turmel has personally brought, and recruited others to
bring, numerous meritless proceedings in the Federal Court
and other courts, and that Mr. Turmel has brought these
proceedings for improper purposes. He found Mr. Turmel and
his kit users have sought to re-litigate issues previously
decided, and that Mr. Turmel has often made scandalous
allegations against judges and other parties, ignored court
orders and rules, and refused to pay costs awards.45
45 Application Decision, paras 3-5, 38, 40, 42-44, 46, AB,
Vol 1, Tab B, p 21, 33-35
36. The Application Judge considered the s. 40
jurisprudence, and noted that the ultimate test was whether
a "litigant" ungovernability or harmfulness to the court
system and its participants justify a leave-granting
process."46
46 Application Decision, para 47, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 35;
Simon v Canada, 2019 FCA 28, paras 15-16, 18-19
The Application Judge concluded that Mr. Turmel's conduct
was "both ungovernable and harmful," and required the
imposition of restrictions on his access to the Federal
Court.47
47 Application Decision, para 47, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 35
37. In addition to the standard s. 40 leave requirement (to
which he noted Mr. Turmel did not object), the Application
Judge observed that the Federal Court has plenary
jurisdiction to impose other requirements necessary to
prevent abuses of its process, including vexatious
litigation by proxy.48
48 Application Decision, paras 6, 49-50, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p
36-37; Canada v Ubah, 2021 FC 1466, paras 44, 50-51, aff'd
2023 FCA 26 ("Ubah FCA"); Canada v Fabrikant, 2019 FCA 198,
paras 2, 44-45; Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd (Intelliview
Technologies Inc), 2019 FC 504, para 121; Virgo v Canada,
2019 FCA 167, para 33; Potvin v Rooke, 2019 FCA 285, para 8
The Application Judge deemed it appropriate in Mr. Turmel's
case to make leave conditional on Mr. Turmel paying all
outstanding Federal Court costs. He also prohibited Mr.
Turmel from assisting others with their Federal Court
proceedings, including by preparing or distributing Federal
Court documents, and ordered that no Federal Court
proceedings may be instituted by anyone using originating
documents prepared by Mr. Turmel, except with leave.49
49 Application Decision, paras 7, 48, 51, AB, Vol 1, Tab B,
p 22, 35-37
38. However, the Application Judge declined a request by
Canada to apply these measures to Federal Court of Appeal
proceedings. He observed that the jurisprudence concerning
whether the Federal Court could grant this relief was
unsettled, and left him "in some doubt whether this Court's
jurisdiction extends to the regulation of matters before the
FCA." In the event of an appeal however, the Application
Judge observed that this Court may wish to provide further
guidance on this jurisdictional question.50
50 Application Decision, paras 52-54, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p
37-38; Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company v Coote, CFN
T-312 (Order of Hughes J, dated June 13, 2013, unreported),
paras (b) and 1 (for reasons reported at 2013 FC 643), aff'd
2014 FCA 98; Coote v Canada, 2021 FCA 150, paras 3, 6, 13;
Stukanov v Canada, 2022 FC 1421, para 2
PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE
39. The issues on this appeal are
1) whether the style of cause in this matter should be
amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as the
respondent, and
2) whether the Federal Court committed a reviewable error in
declaring Mr. Turmel a vexatious litigant under s. 40 of the
Federal Courts Act.
PART III - SUBMISSIONS
A) THE PROPER RESPONDENT TO THIS APPEAL IS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF CANADA
40. The Federal Court decision under appeal was made on an
application in which the Attorney General of Canada was the
sole applicant. The Attorney General of Canada is therefore
the proper respondent on appeal.51
51 Federal Courts Rules, s 338(1)
Canada requests that the style of cause in this matter be
amended to name the Attorney General of Canada as the sole
respondent, and that the Court direct the Registry to take
any necessary steps to give effect to this amendment.
B) THE FEDERAL COURT DID NOT ERR IN DECLARING MR. TURMEL A
VEXATIOUS LITIGANT
41. This Court may interfere with the Federal Court decision
under s. 40 only if it is based on an error of law, or a
palpable and overriding error of fact or inextricably mixed
fact and law.52
52 Hospira Healthcare Corporation v Kennedy Institute of
Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215, paras 66, 79; Ubah FCA, para 3
42. In declaring Mr. Turmel a vexatious litigant, the
Application Judge carefully reviewed Mr. Turmel's litigation
history, and relied on well-established legal principles
concerning s. 40 and the Federal Court's plenary
jurisdiction. On appeal, Mr. Turmel does not allege any
error in the Application Judges identification of these
legal principles, but asserts that the Application Judge
erred in finding that Mr. Turmel has brought meritless
proceedings, and in finding that he has refused to follow
court orders and rules.
43. However, as detailed below, these findings of fact or
mixed fact and law were amply supported by the record before
the Application Judge, and Mr. Turmel has not established
that they are tainted by error, let alone a palpable and
overriding error. This Court should accordingly dismiss this
appeal.
1) The Application Judge did not err in finding Mr. Turmel's
proceedings meritless
44. In describing Mr. Turmel's proceedings as meritless, the
Application Judge observed that Mr. Turmel has personally
instituted at least 67 court proceedings, and has recruited
others to file more than 800 proceedings, nearly all of
which have been unsuccessful. The Application Judge noted
that common reasons for dismissal have included that the
proceedings failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action,
were frivolous, vexatious or an abuse or process, or were
unsupported by evidence. He also observed that Mr. Turmel
has acknowledged his litigation kits are ineffective.53
53 Application Decision, paras 3-4, 8-9, 25-26, 39-40, 42,
AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 21-22, 27-28, 33-34
45. On appeal, Mr. Turmel does not dispute that he brought
or encouraged others to bring these proceedings, or that the
proceedings were dismissed for the reasons identified by the
Application Judge. However, Mr. Turmel asserts that the
proceedings were not in fact meritless, and that judges who
dismissed them erred in doing so.
46. For example, Mr. Turmel asserts in his Memorandum that
various judges have "failed to the see the logic" in his
proceedings, and erred by disagreeing with "righteous"
requests.54
54 Appellants Memorandum of Fact and Law, paras 61, 63, 64
(see also paras 3, 14) ("Appellants Memorandum")
With respect to the Application Judge's related finding that
he often re-litigates issues, Mr. Turmel similarly asserts
that "I don't refile to show the judges who are wrong, I
refile to find a judge who will be right.55
55 Appellant's Memorandum, para 65
47. This Court should reject these arguments. It was not
open to the Federal Court
on a s. 40 application, and it is not open to this Court on
appeal, to question the court decisions in Mr. Turmel's
prior cases. The proper course instead if Mr. Turmel wished
to challenge these prior decisions was for him to appeal.
Indeed, Mr. Turmel has done so in many cases, although his
appeals have been almost entirely unsuccessful.56
56 Application Decision, paras 8, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, 20-
21, 23, 41, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 22-27, 34
48. Moreover, even if it were open to the Federal Court or
this Court to review them, Mr. Turmel has not established a
reviewable error in any of these prior decisions. He asserts
that his second challenge to federal COVID-19 mitigation
measures was not an an abuse of process because it focused
on different measures than his first challenge. He also
asserts that one court misinterpreted the word "gain" in
order to convict him of gaming offences, and that his
actions in violating a publication ban were justified.
However, the courts in each of these cases expressly
considered and rejected these arguments.57
57 Appellants Memorandum of Fact and Law, paras 14, 20, 77;
Minarovich Affidavit, Exhibit 14 (Ontario Court of Justice
decision, dated May 16, 1994, paras 27-39; Court of Appeal
for Ontario decision, dated August 13, 1996, paras 48-55;
leave refused Supreme Court of Canada decision, dated
October 31, 1996), AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 234-36, 257-61,
Exhibit 16 (Superior Court of Quibec decision, dated July
12, 2002, paras 19, 24-44), AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 286-88;
Turmel v Canada, 2022 FC 732, para 12
Mr. Turmel has identified no error in these analyses.
49. At points in his Memorandum, Mr. Turmel suggests that,
even if his proceedings were dismissed, they have ultimately
achieved their goal or assisted others. For example, he
notes that Parliament amended the audit-expense provisions
of the Canada Elections Act after his Federal Court claim
challenging those provisions, and alleges that Health Canada
granted several applications for registration to produce
cannabis after his kit users filed claims or motions
challenging the application processing time. In the criminal
sphere, Mr. Turmel also asserts that his proceedings
resulted in the staying of 4,000 charges or in "sweet deals"
for his kit users.58
58 Appellants Memorandum, paras 10, 23, 25, 37-39, 85
50. However, Mr. Turmel cites no evidence or authority for
these claims, or that his proceedings were responsible for
any of these outcomes. Indeed, far from assisting others,
the Application Judge observed that Mr. Turmels kits have in
fact caused direct harm to their users, many of whom were
ordered to pay costs after their proceedings were
dismissed.59
59 Application Decision, paras 26, 45-46, AB, Vol 1, Tab B,
p 27, 34-35 60 Nelson v Canada, 2003 FCA 127, para 24
51. In any event, even if Mr. Turmels proceedings had merit
or have indirectly assisted others (which is denied), the
Court has affirmed in the s. 40 context that merit alone
cannot justify the use of abusive tactics.60 In this case,
the Application Judge found Mr. Turmels abusive tactics have
included re-litigating issues, intentionally flooding courts
with proceedings, and scandalous allegations against judges
and other parties. Mr. Turmel does not dispute any of these
findings, and they are alone sufficient to support the
Application Judge's ultimate conclusion that Mr. Turmel's
conduct is both ungovernable and harmful.
2) The Application Judge did not err in finding that Mr.
Turmel has refused to follow court orders and rules
52. In declaring him a vexatious litigant, the Application
Judge observed that Mr. Turmel has ignored, disregarded or
refused to comply with court orders and rules.61
61 Application Decision, paras 3, 25, 46, AB, Vol 1, Tab B,
p 21, 27, 35
While Mr. Turmel now asserts that he has ignored only one
court order, and has always followed court rules, the
Application Judge's findings to the contrary were amply
supported by the record.62
62 Appellants Memorandum, paras 21, 81, 89, 91
JCT: There was only one time I ignored a court order but
because the judge said there were more, Crown now says it
was supported in the record even though it was not.
CR: 53. As the Application Judge noted, Mr. Turmel has been
convicted of contempt for violating a publication ban. He
has repeatedly attempted to make submissions on behalf of
other plaintiffs despite Rule 119 and multiple admonitions
from the Federal Court that he is not permitted to do so,
and he and his kit users have often missed legislated and
court-ordered deadlines.63
63 Application Decision, paras 19, 43-44, AB, Vol 1, Tab B,
p 25, 34; Minarovich Affidavit, paras 69-71, 114, 123, 145,
147-48, 202, 262, 301, AB, Vol 1, Tab D, p 65-66, 76, 80,
85-88, 105, 123-24, 139; Federal Courts Rules, s 119(1)
54. The Application Judge also observed that Mr. Turmel has
refused to comply with numerous costs orders.64
64 Application Decision, paras 3, 38, 46, AB, Vol 1, Tab B,
p 21, 33, 35
On appeal, Mr. Turmel now asserts that it is not a matter
of him "refusing to pay" these costs, but of him being
unable to pay. However, he filed no evidence of inability to
pay in the Court below, and any assertion of impecuniosity
is belied by Canada"s evidence that he has paid more than
$4,000 in costs for one of his kit users, and has offered on
social media to pay filing fees for hundreds of others.65
65 Application Decision, paras 5, AB, Vol 1, Tab B, p 21;
Minarovich Affidavit, paras 175, 192, 201, 238, AB, Vol 1,
Tab D, p 97, 102-03, 105, 115
This Court should accordingly reject this argument, and
dismiss Mr. Turmel's appeal.
PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT
55. Canada requests an order dismissing this appeal, with
costs. It also requests that the style of cause in this
matter be amended by removing Her Majesty the Queen and
substituting the Attorney General of Canada as the
respondent, and that this Court direct the Registry to take
any necessary steps to give effect to this amendment.
Signed at Toronto, Ontario, this 29th day of March, 2023
Jon Bricker
Counsel for the Respondent
PART V - LIST OF AUTHORITIES
Badawy v 1038482 Alberta Ltd (Intelliview Technologies Inc),
2019 FC 504
Canada v Fabrikant, 2019 FCA 198
Canada v Ubah, 2021 FC 1466, affd 2023 FCA 26
Coote v Canada, 2021 FCA 150
Fudge v Canada, CFN T-693-22 and several other proceedings
(Judgment of Horne, Associate Judge, dated July 4, 2022,
unreported)
Fudge v Canada, CFN T-693-22 and several other proceedings
(Order of Horne, Associate Judge, dated July 27, 2022,
unreported)
Hospira Healthcare Corporation v Kennedy Institute of
Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215
Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company v Coote, 2013 FC 643
(and Order of Hughes J, dated June 13, 2013, unreported),
affd 2014 FCA 98
Nelson v Canada, 2003 FCA 127
Potvin v Rooke, 2019 FCA 285
Simon v Canada, 2019 FCA 28
Stukanov v Canada, 2022 FC 1421
Turmel v Canada, 2022 FC 732
Turmel v Canada, 2022 FCA 166
Virgo v Canada, 2019 FCA 167