From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Appealing Court financial hurdles to SCC   
      
   JCT: I filed an action in Federal Court against the Election   
   Officer's cap on auditor expenses after my old accountant of   
   35 years retired and I used the firm for my provincial   
   returns. Except they charged more than the $250 the Feds cover   
   for me to file a null return. So I'd have to raise funds not   
   for the election but to pay for the auditor.   
      
   >$300k/year Justice Phelan to <$20k/year me to save from my   
   pension to pay the auditor if I wanted to participate in the   
   election process. I appealed.   
      
   I asked the Court of Appeal to dispense with the transcript   
   since everything relevant was contained in his decision. But   
   the Court insisted so I paid for that.   
      
   Then, with consent of the Crown, I submitted an electronic PDF   
   copy of the Appeal Book which is allowed. But there's a   
   section which says that a judge may insist on paper copies. So   
   my thumb-drive was sent to a judge for approval but he   
   insisted I pay to file paper.   
      
   Figuring these 300-grant-a-year judges were showing their   
   colors, I decided not to run around looking for cash but to   
   see what they do. Now that it's dismissed for not coming up   
   with the money, I get to bring my beef to the top where   
   they've never seen national importance before. But it's on   
   record at the top what these judges did to me. Har har har.   
      
                                          File Number: 37647   
      
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA   
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)   
      
   BETWEEN:   
      
   John Turmel   
                                                      Applicant   
                                            Appellant in appeal   
                               And   
      
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
      
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS   
                      John Turmel, APPLICANT   
      
   1. Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal..............(3)   
   2. 2016 May 12 Order of Phelan J..........................(6)   
   3. 2016 Sep 2 Order of Nadon J.A.........................(13)   
   4. 2016 Dec 08 Order of Webb J.A.........................(14)   
   5. 2017 Mar 21 Order of Gleason J.A......................(17)   
   6. 2017 May 1 Order Federal Court of Appeal..............(19)   
   7. Applicant's Memorandum................................(21)   
   8. Applicant's Certificate...............................(29)   
      
      
        NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
                      John Turmel, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to S.40(1) of the Supreme Court Act)   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that Applicant seeks leave to appeal the May 1   
   2017  decision of Federal Court of Appeal Justices Stratas,   
   Webb, Near A-202-16 dismissing Applicant's appeal against the   
   May 7 2016 decision of Federal Court Justice Phelan that   
   dismissed the motion 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 2017.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging any time for service or amending   
   any error or omission which this Honourable Court may allow.   
   Dated at Brantford on June 29 2017.   
   For the Applicant:   
      
                      APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM   
                      John Turmel, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
      
   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. 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 explained:   
       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   
       by-election 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 for my regular   
   elections.   
      
   5. A Notice of Appeal was filed and a motion for an Order   
   permitting the substitution in the Appeal Book of the audio CD   
   for the paper transcript of the hearing below on the grounds   
   all the contents of the Appeal Book have been agreed upon but   
   inclusion of the paper transcript. Any quotations cited in our   
   memoranda are just as fully backed-up with a cheap   
   immediately-available Audio CD as with an expensive yet-to-be-   
   transcribed paper document. Given this Appeal deals with the   
   penury of a pauper during elections, the penury of the pauper   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)