From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Response to Pot Grow Delayeds motion to upgrade   
      
   JCT: Jeff Harris sought an order allowing him and the   
   original applications who only filed for Cause of Action A   
   (damages from long processing time) to have their claims   
   deemed amended to that of later Plaintiffs who also claimed   
   for Cause of Action B (back-dated time restituted for full   
   terms) rather than everyone abandon and refile new ones.   
      
   The judge agreed that all newbies would be deemed amended   
   but the Lead Plaintiff Jeff Harris should file an actual   
   Amended Statement of Claim showing the amendments.   
      
   I had cited the Cause B text but had not cited the Cause B   
   facts in the request. But then I included it all in the   
   Amended SoC to conform congruently (every point exactly the   
   same) with the updated SoCs.   
      
   The Crown has until Monday to respond to the claims,   
   including the Cause B claims of the newbies. But it seems   
   they don't want Jeff's SoC to be the same as theirs!!   
      
   Department of Justice   
   March 07 2018   
   Colinne Martin   
   Courts Administration Service   
   Ottawa, Ontario K1A OH9   
      
   Dear Registrar:   
      
   Re: HARRIS, Allan v. Her Majesty the Queen (Turmel Kit)   
   Court File No.: T-1379-17   
      
   WW: On behalf of Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada   
   ("Canada"), I am writing to request that the Plaintiff's   
   recently served amended Statement of Claim not be accepted   
   for filing.   
      
   By Order dated March 1, 2018, the case-management judge, Mr.   
   Justice Brown granted the Plaintiff's motion for leave to   
   amend and ordered that "[t]he Plaintiff's amendments are   
   limited to those expressly set out in his Notice of Motion   
   dated February 13, 2018, without leave to further amend."   
   The Order also notes that Canada consented to the motion.   
      
   The Plaintiff has now served his amended claim. In addition   
   to adding the two paragraphs referenced in the Plaintiff's   
   motion, the amended claim includes several substantive   
   amendments which were not authorized by the Court's March 1   
   order, and to which Canada has not consented.   
      
   JCT: But which are in the claims of the latest Plaintiffs   
   and with which they have to deal anyway! Har har har.   
      
   WW: More particularly, paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and   
   11 (please note that there is no paragraph 10) differ   
   significantly from the original Statement of Claim and were   
   not included as proposed amendments in the Plaintiffs   
   motion.   
      
   JCT: But "paragraphs 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11 have to be   
   dealt with in later cases like Donald Cote T-377-18 anyway.   
      
   WW: Paragraph 4 in the amended claim states that the   
   Plaintiff mailed his application on June 11, 2017, however   
   the original claim outlined that the Plaintiff mailed his   
   application on June 17. 2017. Furthermore, Paragraphs 5-7 in   
   the amended claim are substantially different from   
   paragraphs 5-7 in the original claim. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 11   
   in the amended claim are completely new and were not   
   proposed as amendments in the Motion for Leave to Amend.   
      
   Finally, paragraph 8 from the original claim claimed relief   
   in the form of Charter damages under s. 24. This paragraph   
   is entirely absent from the amended claim, however, one of   
   the approved amendments does include a claim for Charter   
   damages.   
      
   JCT: May I'll have to add that to the Statement of Claim   
   filed new newbies? Probably not.   
      
   WW: In addition to being non-compliant with this Court's   
   order of March 1, 2018, the significant alterations to the   
   Plaintiff's amended Statement of Claim create confusion and   
   uncertainty with respect to what the Canada is now   
   responsible for addressing in its Motion to Strike and   
   potential future Statements of Defence.   
      
   JCT: But which they must address in the latest claims   
   regardless! Jeff's amendment has left them so confused about   
   what the final remedy sought is though newbies aren't   
   confusing them at all.   
      
   WW: As a consequence, Canada therefore requests a direction   
   that the Amended Statement of Claim not be accepted for   
   filing.   
   Yours truly,   
   Wendy Wright, Counsel   
   National Litigation Sector   
   Cc: A. Jeff Harris - Plaintiff- by email   
      
   JCT: If she won't allow older claims to be upgraded to the   
   newer model, does she want Jeff to abandon and file anew?   
   Because he can. Har har har. If she wants to nit-pick about   
   the way the first claim was planned to be amended to conform   
   with the second, Jeff can just file the second! Har har har.   
      
   Which is why the motion originally asked to simply deem his   
   Statement of Claim amended to the same as the latest   
   version. To avoid the nit-picking now going on.   
      
   But we understand the need for the Lead Plaintiff's   
   Statement of Claim to be amended, not just deemed amended.   
   And now it is amended to the same as the others, and the   
   Crown wants to unamend it. Har har har har har har.   
      
   How brainless. They have to deal with those paragraphs in   
   all the latest claims anyway but don't want to deal with   
   them in the early ones? Har har har har har har. The whole   
   purpose of the motion to amend was so we'd be working from   
   one document. So why do they want us to be working from two?   
   Since they have to deal with those paragraphs in the latest   
   ones, why are they carping about having them in Jeff's?   
      
   Though we did move to upgrade to the old SoC of the new, we   
   didn't explicitly mention the later connected paragraphs and   
   now, though they have to deal with these paragraphs anyway,   
   want to fight over the fact we didn't precisely define the   
   upgrade to congruence.   
      
   Shouldn't they just try to strike them like they have to   
   strike them for the newbies rather than prevent them because   
   I wasn't precise enough in the planning?   
      
   It's  nit-pick. This is really too too funny! Don't they   
   realize they can't duck the paragraphs, so why nit-pick? Are   
   they that distraught? After 20 hop-to-its, Wendy must be   
   getting frazzled.   
      
   Jeff could file another response repeating how he wants to   
   bring his claim into congruence with the new format. But he   
   already did that in the original motion. And now they're   
   nit-picking when he could just refile a new later one!   
      
   So we'll let Judge Brown decide whether he accepts Jeff's   
   Statement of Claim as amended to conform with the later   
   versions or whether he makes Jeff file a new later one.   
      
   In the meantime, their due date to move to strike the claims   
   of the group, including newbies, must be filed by Monday.   
   Because the newbies didn't need any amendment and the judge   
   ordered Wendy to file a response by Monday for the group led   
   by Jeff. So she can always respond to theirs while arguing   
   about whether to file something different for Jeff.   
      
   If the Judge doesn't make a decision before Monday, I wonder   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)