From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   JCT: Jeff Harris filed a motion to amend the Statement of   
   Claim to include the "Back-Dated Time" beef to go along with   
   the "Too-Long Time" claim.  And for an extension of time to   
   file the first response:   
      
   Letter to the Court   
      
   1. This letter is in response to the Defendant's letter   
   dated Feb 16 2018.   
      
   2. The Defendant Canada wrote:   
       I am writing in response to the Plaintiff's motion for   
       leave to amend his pleadings and to extend time to   
       respond to the Defendant's motion to strike.   
       The Defendant will consent to the Plaintiff's motion for   
       leave to amend and extend time   
       a) provided that the Plaintiff's amendments will be   
       limited to those expressly set out in his Notice of   
       Motion dated Feb 13 2018 and   
       b) provided that the Defendant be permitted to file   
       additional submissions on its motion to strike in order   
       to properly address the amendments.   
      
   a) AMENDMENTS TO CLAIM   
      
   3. Yes, Plaintiff's amendments are limited to those   
   inscribed in the motion which were taken from an updated   
   Statement of Claim such as in T-340-18, 341, 342, 343, 345.   
      
   4. The original "Too-Long Time" cause of action was   
   violation of rights due to unconscionable delays from   
   understaffing. The later "Back-Dated Time" cause of action   
   was violation of rights due to short-changing on the full   
   term of the prescription.   
      
   5. Upon the learned suggestions of the Court and the   
   Defendant, the newer Plaintiffs now also engage the   
   violation of the S.7 Charter Right to Liberty for those   
   facing criminal sanctions and Right to Security of the   
   Person for those agonizing with a broken arm awaiting   
   delayed medication, if not Right to Life for those dying   
   from Cancer; with no principle of fundamental justice served   
   by such violations.   
      
   b) AMENDED MOTION TO STRIKE SECOND CLAIM   
      
   5. The Defendant seeks to file additional submissions on its   
   motion to strike in order to properly address the   
   amendments. Since the Defendant must also deal with the   
   newer Plaintiffs' "Back-Dated Time" claim as well as the   
   original Plaintiffs' "Too-Long Time" claim, Applicant would   
   ask that the Claim of original Plaintiffs be deemed amended   
   to adopt the "Back-Dated Time" claim of latter Plaintiffs   
   rather than actually filing Amended Statements of Claim.   
      
   6. The remaining questions are of paperwork and timetable.   
   The Plaintiff's motion stated:   
       B) Plaintiff is prepared to file the Response on the   
       motion to dismiss Cause of Action A [Too-Long Time] by   
       Feb 19 and a Response on the motion to dismiss Cause of   
       Action B [Back-Dated Time] later; but seeks to extend   
       the time to respond to both until after Defendant files   
       any motion to dismiss the B Cause of Action for Full   
       Term.   
      
   7. The timetable suggested by Defendant:   
       - The Plaintiff will serve and file his amended   
       Statement of Claim and his Responding Record to the   
       Defendant's motion to strike by Feb 26 2018;   
       - The Defendant will file any additional submissions on   
       its motion to strike (submissions to be restricted to   
       the amendments to the Claim) by March 2 2018;   
       - The Defendant will serve and file its Reply   
       submissions on its motion to strike including an   
       additional submissions dealing with the amendments by   
       March 2 2018.   
      
   8. Even with the Defendant's consent, Plaintiff may not file   
   the Response without the extension of time yet to be granted   
   by the Court.   
      
   9. The Defendant's proposed timetable omits an important   
   step. Past steps were:   
   Step A) Plaintiff files "Too-Long Time" claim;   
   Step B) Defendant files to strike "Too-Long Time" claim;   
   Step C) Plaintiff adds "Back-Dated Time" claim.   
      
   10. The Defendant's suggested future steps are:   
   Step 1) Plaintiff Responds to "Too-Long Time" strike motion;   
   Step 2) Defendant amends to strike "Back-Dated Time" claim;   
   Step 3) Defendant files Reply to both causes of action.   
      
   11. Plaintiff submits that there should be a step 2b) for a   
   Response to the motion to strike the "Back-Dated Time"   
   claim. After the Plaintiff's Response to striking the "Too-   
   Long Time" claim, Defendant filing additional submissions to   
   strike the "Back-Dated Time" claim and a Reply to both   
   submissions on the same day does not afford the Plaintiff a   
   Response to striking out the second claim.   
      
   12. Applicant asks the Court adopt the suggested timetable   
   in Plaintiff's motion which omits no steps.   
      
   JCT: Imagine, Justice forgetting that the judge has to grant   
   the extension before we can file our response even with   
   their consent. And Justice leaving out a step in the   
   procedure.   
      
   Har har har har har har har har har.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)