From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   In my last report titled "Justice Webb wants 500-page printed   
   appeal books, not PDF" on my appeal of Justice Phelan's   
   refusal to strike the $250 cap on reimbursement for the   
   compulsory auditor's letter for a null return as   
   unconstitutional, (he told me to save up to pay the excess)   
   the Crown insisted on a transcript of the whole hearing, with   
   their 300 page affidavit in the appeal book. But Jacob Pollice   
   consented to my filing it as a PDF. So I made a PDF of my 500   
   pages of documents and served my Appeal Book to the Crown on a   
   thumbdrive but the Court balked. Said I needed to make a   
   motion to use PDF.   
      
   Filing of Documents   
   Sending documents for filing   
   71 (1) A document may be sent to the Registry for the purpose   
   of filing by delivery, mail, fax or electronic transmission.   
   (4) A document that is sent by electronic transmission shall   
   be in PDF (Portable Document Format) or any other format that   
   is approved by the Court.   
   Paper copies - fax or electronic transmission   
   72.2 A person who files a document by fax or electronic   
   transmission shall, if required by the Court, provide the   
   Registry with the same number of paper copies of the document   
   as would have been required had the document been filed in   
   paper copy.   
      
   So it doesn't say I have to make a motion to use PDF, does it?   
   I says I can but (4) says the court may still require the   
   paper copies. So the Court have insisted on paper copies but   
   not on a motion for PDF.   
      
   So I filed a motion to submit the 500-page Appeal Book as a   
   PDF and included how the Crown had consented. And on Justice 8   
   2016, Federal Court of Appeal Justice Wyman W. Webb dismissed   
   it ordering me to serve and file paper copies.   
      
   The Court gets 5, Crown 1 and me 1, over 3,500 pages with   
   binding! I'd guess an almost $500 job. And the Claim is over   
   not being to afford the $400!!   
      
   I knew that if I did nothing, it would be sent to Status   
   Court. They demanded I explain the delay. So I wrote:   
      
                      WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   1. The claim below was based on poverty.   
      
   2. As a Canadian with a minimum pension, being a candidate in   
   federal elections and by-elections now cost me money for an   
   auditor's fee for a zero-expense null Return that the subsidy   
   used to cover. In the claim, I explain:   
      
       When I started running in federal elections in 1979, the   
       auditor's fee reimbursed was $250. It has remained that   
       way since then. My regular auditor contented himself with   
       that fee for the past 35 years but after he retired, I had   
       to use a regular auditor and chose Millard, Rouse and   
       Rosebrugh in Brantford who are paid $875 by the Ontario   
       government to audit my null provincial returns.   
       Their auditor's fee for the Nov 25 2013 Toronto-Centre   
       byelection was $678 of which Elections Canada only covered   
       $250 leaving me stuck with the other $428 plus finance   
       charges. Though their fee is commensurate with other   
       jurisdictions and I will honor it, the reimbursement by   
       Elections Canada has not kept up with the times. The   
       political process has now become prohibitively less   
       affordable for a candidate in forma pauperis, I would   
       therefore ask if the reimbursement limit could be   
       reconsidered to keep up with the times and their overage   
       covered by Elections Canada.   
       Given the number of elections in which I participate, it   
       will be worth my while to ask Federal Court for a   
       declaration that the 35-year-old reimbursement cap is   
       limiting my constitutional right to participate in the   
       electoral process. Please consult with Director General at   
       Justice Canada Alain Prefontaine before dismissing my   
       expected response to no resolution as a bluff.   
      
   3. At issue was $428 which the subsidy did not cover and I   
   could ill afford.   
      
   4. Justice Phelan noted that I could always set aside some of   
   my pension to pay the unsubsidized amount.   
      
   5. The Crown consented to service of the Appeal Book   
   electronically and a thumb-drive with a PDF was served and   
   filed. The appeal is ready to proceed to argument.   
   Unfortunately, the PDF was insufficient with Rules of the   
   Court mandating that 5 paper copies be filed.   
      
   6. Rule 309 says:   
       309 (1.1) The applicant shall file   
       (b) if the application is brought in the Federal Court of   
       Appeal, an electronic copy of or five paper copies of the   
       record..   
      
   7. So I served and filed a PDF and learned I also had to file   
   and serve 5 paper copies.   
      
   8. Counting a copy for the Crown and one for me, that's seven   
   (7) 500-page Appeal Books. With binding, the cost should be   
   more than the amount at issue in the action below.   
      
   9. As I'm still saving to pay for my auditor's bill, the   
   appeal should not be dismissed due to delay in raising the   
   funding for printed copies with the PDF available.   
      
   10. Given the Registry's clerks will convert paper volumes to   
   PDF anyway, Appellant asks the Court to accept Appellant's PDF   
   and dispense with any paper copies and let the appeal proceed   
   normally under the Rules?   
      
   Dated at Brantford on Feb 22 2017.   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
   JCT: Notice I hadn't even mentioned that Justice Webb had   
   ordered the paper copies. Just that I found out. Didn't need   
   to embarrass him if they thought paper copies were silly too.   
      
   But the Crown Response said I had not addressed the delays nor   
   provided some time-table. How could I when I don't know when   
   I'll get a spare $500? It said I'm just re-stating the reasons   
   where I asked Justice Webb due to my impecuniosity but then   
   pointed out how Justice Webb had Ordered the paper copies.   
      
   They said that I'm not able to bear the cost does not address   
   the reason for the delay! Har har har. Sure it does. If I was   
   rich, there would be no reason for delay.   
      
   I haven't explained why I haven't been able to raise the money   
   yet! Har har har. Haven't been playing much poker without a   
   bankroll.   
      
   He points out my response to the status review amounts to a   
   request to reconsider Justice Webb's order that I provide   
   paper copies pursuant to a Feb 12 2015 Practice Direction of   
   Chief Justice Marc Noel.   
      
   JCT: Gee, I and I thought it was Justice Webb being a donkey   
   when it was a new rule!! Maybe time to get rid of that   
   practice direction. These three judges can do it.   
      
   Crown asks for the Appeal to be dismissed.   
      
   For impecuniosity! For not being able to afford the print job   
   that wasn't even necessary until 2015.   
      
   On March 21 2017, The Court ruled:   
      
   Whereas the only reason offered for failure to obey Order;   
      
   One final chance to pursue his appeal. File papers copies   
   within 30 days.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)