From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Summary Judgment to nix $250 Election Auditor Fee cap   
      
   JCT: I filed a Statement of Claim trying to strike the $250   
   cap on auditor fees paid by Elections Canada. I posted the   
   Crown's response. Issue seems simple so I filed for Summary   
   Judgment and will soon be given a date for the hearing.   
      
                                              File No: T-561-15   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                          JOHN C. TURMEL   
                                                      Plaintiff   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                        IN RIGHT OF CANADA   
                                                     Respondent   
      
              NOTICE OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT on _________________ 2015 will be heard   
   Plaintiff's motion at the Federal Court in Toronto.   
      
   THE MOTION SEEKS summary judgment for   
      
   A) a Declaration pursuant to s.52 (1) of the Canadian   
   Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) that the 35-year-   
   old reimbursement cap of $250 set in S.477.75 of the Canada   
   Elections Act unconstitutionally limits the right to   
   participate in the electoral process; and   
      
   B) a remedy of striking out and replacing the words "THE   
   GREATER OF A) the amount of expenses incurred for audit, up   
   to a maximum of THE LESSER OF 3% OF THE CANDIDATE'S ELECTION   
   EXPENSES AND $1,500 ; AND B) $250." leaving "up to a maximum   
   of $1,500."   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF THE CLAIM ARE a cap on auditor expenses for   
   Nil contribution returns set in 1974 is unconscionably   
   miserly in 2015.   
      
   Dated at Toronto on May 25 2015.   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
                      PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT   
      
   I, John C. Turmel, B. Eng., residing at 50 Brant Ave,   
   Brantford, Ontario, make oath as follows:   
      
   1. As a pauper who receives no income that I don't have to   
   beg, borrow or win at the poker tables, contesting elections   
   without contributions has always been possible as long as   
   there were no other expenses. While any auditor expenses   
   were covered, there were no obstacles.   
      
   2. Upon the retirement of my 35-year auditor whose   
   familiarity with filing elections return made the $250   
   acceptable over the years, I chose a Brantford   
   accounting firm that did my Ontario provincial returns and   
   was then stunned by the overage in the auditor's bill which   
   happened to be commensurate with what they charged the   
   Ontario Government for auditing my nil returns. Though full   
   of zeroes, there are several forms that are transacted.   
      
   3. The cap established in 1974 is an obstacle to my   
   exercising my political rights.   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
   Sworn before me at Toronto on May 25 2015   
   A COMMISSIONER, ETC.   
      
                      PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM   
      
   PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   1. Plaintiff is a persistent political candidate holding the   
   Guinness Record for "most elections contested." My nil   
   contribution campaigns were first audited in 179 for $250   
   which sufficed given familiarity with filing election   
   returns made the fee acceptable over the years.   
      
   2. Upon the retirement of my original auditor, I chose   
   a Brantford accounting firm that does my Ontario provincial   
   returns and was then stunned by the overage in the auditor's   
   bill which happened to be commensurate with what they   
   charged the Ontario Government for auditing my nil returns.   
      
   3. Canada argues that not being able to pay the accountant   
   after the election is no detriment that prevents the   
   candidacy before the election.   
      
   PART II - POINT OF ISSUE   
      
   4. A) Does the 1974 reimbursement cap of $250 in S.477.75 of   
   the Canada Elections Act unconstitutionally limit the   
   Applicant's right to participate in the electoral process?   
      
   5. B) Is striking the cap the right remedy?   
      
   PART III - SUBMISSIONS   
      
   A) Cap unconstitutionally limiting?   
      
   6. Though not being able to pay the auditor's overage is no   
   bar to being nominated, Elections Canada insists upon proof   
   of payment of that auditor's overage before accepting the   
   Return. That failure is the detriment acting to bar the   
   filing of the return and the candidate from running again.   
   Finding another accountant after stiffing the first is   
   another obstacle.   
      
   B) Striking cap is right remedy   
      
   7. If the cap is judged unconstitutional, Canada asks that   
   any such declaration be suspended to give time to enact a   
   new cap. Certainly, even if there's an election before a new   
   cap is imposed, the accounting profession can be trusted not   
   to over-indulge. There is no real need for a suspension if   
   the cap is struck. They'll just hurry imposing the new cap.   
      
   PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT   
      
   8. Plaintiff seeks an Order that:   
      
   A) a Declaration pursuant to s.52 (1) of the Canadian   
   Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter) that the 35-year-   
   old reimbursement cap of $250 set in S.477.75 of the Canada   
   Elections Act unconstitutionally limits the right to   
   participate in the electoral process; and   
      
   B) a remedy of striking out and replacing the words "THE   
   GREATER OF A) the amount of expenses incurred for audit, up   
   to a maximum of THE LESSER OF 3% OF THE CANDIDATE'S ELECTION   
   EXPENSES AND $1,500 ; AND B) $250." leaving "up to a maximum   
   of $1,500."   
      
   Dated at Toronto on May 25 2015.   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
   JCT: This shouldn't take more than 15 minutes but has to be   
   heard in 20 days so the Crown has time to file a Response.   
   Doubt there could be much. I didn't add anything.   
      
   Is the 41-year-old cap unconscionably stingy these days   
   enough to violate my right to democratic opportunity. We'll   
   find out.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)