From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: This is the letter sent to the court about the Crown's   
   insistence on not using Jeff Harris' Amended Statement of   
   Claim:   
      
   Jeff Harris   
      
   May 14,2018   
      
   The Honourable Justice Brown   
   via Colinne Martin, Registry Officer   
      
   Dear Justice Brown:   
      
   Re: HARRIS, Allan v. Her Majesty the Queen (Turmel Kit)   
   Court File No.: T-1379-17   
      
   In its May 11 2018 letter, the Defendant Canada writes:   
       Mr. Harris alleges that Canada included the wrong   
       Statement of Claim in its motion record.   
       As per the Canada's Amended Notice of Motion dated April   
       25, 2018, found in its Motion Record, Canada is bringing   
       its motion to strike the March 5, 2018 Amended Statement   
       of Claim of Mr. A. Jeffery Harris. Canada's motion   
       record did not include a copy of Mr. Harris' Amended   
       Statement of Claim because it is part of the Court   
       record. However, Canada's motion record did include a   
       copy of the Statement of Claim filed by the plaintiff   
       Jason Allman T-1582-17 because this claim contained a   
       pleading that renewals could be obtained in 6-8 weeks.   
      
   The Allman Statement of Claim does not contain a pleading   
   that "renewals could be obtained in 6-8 weeks" but just the   
   opposite. It actually pleads registrations are renewed "6-8   
   weeks after expiry" which can never mean renewals could be   
   done "on time" in 6-8 weeks. The Court is already aware of   
   the recommended but insufficient 6-8 weeks and shouldn't   
   need reminding.   
      
   Not all documents in the Court Record need be in the Motion   
   Record. But all the documents needed at the hearing should   
   be. The Court shouldn't have to search through other   
   material in the Court Record for documents not in the Motion   
   Record. The Amended Statement of Claim sought to be struck   
   should be. An unamended no-longer-valid Statement of Claim   
   should not.   
      
       Canada included this Statement of Claim in the record   
       specifically because it was not the Statement of Claim   
       of the lead plaintiff and was thus not in the Court   
       file. I apologize for any confusion that this may have   
       caused.   
      
   The Allman Statement of Claim included in the Record was not   
   his latest amended Statement of Claim! it was the outdated   
   version that did not include the amended Cause asking for a   
   declaration to strike the requirement in S.8.2b that the   
   period start when the doctor signed causing "Too short permit"   
   with damages by "Restitution."   
      
   NOT ALL OTHERS   
       Mr. Harris also alleges that:   
            The Statements of Claim of all the 140 Plaintiffs   
            are deemed amended to that of the Lead Plaintiff   
            which was updated to include both Causes of Action:   
            A: too long process time, B: too short permit.   
       To the extent that Mr. Harris alleges that his Amended   
       Statement of Claim replaces the Statements of Claim   
       filed by all other plaintiffs, it is Canada's position   
       that this is not the case.   
       Mr. Harris has been selected to be the lead plaintiff   
       from among the claims. According to the Order of this   
       Court dated December 11, 2017, Mr. Harris' claim is to   
       proceed as the lead claim, and this Court's findings in   
       his claim will be used to determine the other claims. It   
       is Canada's position that the Court's December 11, 2017   
       Order cannot be taken to mean that Mr. Harris' claim   
       replaces the statements of claim filed by the other   
       plaintiffs.   
      
   Not all the other plaintiffs. The claims of the last 100   
   plaintiffs have no need to be amended, only the early ones   
   whose claims did not seek Remedy Cause B. So Lead Plaintiff's   
   original motion sought only "to substitute the claim from   
   the latest Turmel-Kit Plaintiffs" which included A and B   
   Remedies for those of the early filers on the grounds   
       A) the Defendant must inevitably respond to the B Cause   
       of Action for "full-term" Registrations for the newest   
       Turmel-Kit Plaintiffs and early Plaintiffs have suffered   
       the same Registration short-changing and amending the   
       Turmel-Kit claims to seek both remedies is better than   
       filing separate claims.   
      
   The Court ordered that Lead Plaintiff's Claim be amended   
   while the remainder of the early claims did not have to be   
   amended but were simply deemed amended to those of the later   
   plaintiffs. Jason Allman's early Statement of Claim must now   
   be deemed updated with other early filers to seek Remedy B.   
   Allman's claim was deemed updated like all the early   
   plaintiffs, but not actually amended. So his claim in the   
   Motion Record does not include Cause of Action B. It is no   
   longer a valid Statement of Claim since it does not contain   
   the amended Cause of Action B and use of an early out-dated   
   unamended version of his claim that does not match the Lead   
   Plaintiff's, as it should, tends to mislead by making the   
   issue of restitution disappear from the Motion Record.   
      
   Agreed, a S.56 Order to not short any more permits may   
   mooten the need for a "Too Short Permit" declaration for   
   those no longer being shorted after March 2 2018 but does   
   not settle the restitution of the time for the plaintiffs   
   shorted before March 2 nor mooten the need for a declaration   
   in order to get restitution.   
      
   Even if the actual Amended Statement of Claim can be   
   excluded from the Motion Record, including a "no-longer-   
   valid" unamended Allman Claim can only mislead.   
      
   Defendant's Representations mention the policy change no   
   longer requiring the period to start on the date the doctor   
   signed pursuant to S.8.2b to moot the claims but omit the   
   Statement of Claim showing the Plaintiffs had sought that   
   relief.   
      
   Using an outdated Allman Claim does not serve to show that   
   renewals could be obtained in 6-8 weeks but serves to make   
   the issue of restitution disappear from the record. The   
   Motion Record has no record of Plaintiffs' asking for a   
   declaration of "Too Short Permit" and "Restitution!" And the   
   Written Representations, without mentioning the restitution,   
   only say the whole Cause of Action B, declaration and   
   damages, is mooted by the S.56 orders changing policy. With   
   no record of plaintiffs asking for the policy change that   
   was granted, no record to show that the plaintiffs won   
   Remedy B, it might be easier for Defendant in seeking costs   
   since the Defendant shouldn't pay costs for not losing.   
      
       It's Canada's position that the motion to strike is   
       proper, the inclusion of the Allman claim is proper and   
       that the motion should be allowed to proceed.   
       However, should the Court want Canada to include a copy   
       of the March 5, 2018 Amended Statement of Claim of Mr.   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)