From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Yesterday, I posted the Crown's letters opposing Art   
   Jackes "ready to go" appeal and Kent Truman's less ready to   
   go appeal. These are their responses sent to the Registry   
   earlier today:   
      
   Arthur Jackes   
      
   March 16 2019   
      
   VIA FACSIMILE   
      
   Court Administrator:   
   Federal Court of Appeal   
   180 Queen St. W. #200   
   Toronto, ON, M5V 3L6   
   Fax: 416-973-2154   
      
   Re: JACKES, Arthur, v. HMTQ No: A-294-18   
      
   The Respondent Canada wrote in a March 15 2019 letter:   
      
       CR: I am writing to respond to the appellant's letter   
       and Requisition for Hearing dated March 12 2019. The   
       deadline to file a Requisition for Hearing has passed   
       and the appellant has not brought a motion for an   
       extension of time.   
      
   The Clerk refused to file the Requisition late. An extension   
   of time may be sought. The point is that both appeals are at   
   the Requisition for Hearing stage. It would seem a waste of   
   resources to have a second panel deal with the same issue   
   again.   
      
       CR: The Requisition provided by the Appellant also   
       purports to provide a list of dates when the parties are   
       available to participate in a hearing of this matter.   
       The appellant did not consult me with respect to this   
       and I can advise that it does not accurately reflect my   
       availability.   
      
   It is the same list of available dates submitted by the   
   Crown in their own Harris hearing Requisition. Since I seek   
   to be beard with Harris, I submitted the very same dates.   
   May the Crown explain why the available dates for Harris   
   would not be available for me.   
      
       CR: Canada requests that the appellant's Requisition not   
       be accepted for filing in these circumstances.   
      
   If the Court does not expedite the hearing of my appeal to   
   the Harris appeal, I will ask for an extension of time to   
   requisition a hearing with another list of available dates.   
   Since both our appeals are at the stage of requisitioning a   
   date for hearing, it makes even more sense they be heard by   
   one panel and not two.   
      
       CR: Canada also requests that this appeal not be heard   
       together with Allan J. Harris v. HMTQ No: A-258-218   
       ("Harris appeal"), as proposed by the appellant in  his   
       letter. While the appellant's claim is being   
       collectively case-managed with the Harris claim in   
       Federal Court, the appeals are from distinct decisions   
       of the case-management judge and concern different   
       issues.   
      
   There are no different issues. My case concerns only one   
   issue in common with some of the plaintiffs led by Harris.   
   As Donald Cote seeks damages for delay from wrong rejections   
   of original signatures 4 times over 8 months, I seek damages   
   for delay for the same reason over 3 months. So they are   
   different decisions concerning the same issue.   
      
       CR: The appellants have also requested hearings in   
       different cities (Toronto and Vancouver, respectively).   
      
   Or attend by teleconference. There is no need to open a   
   courtroom unless the hundreds of plaintiffs below can   
   attend.   
      
       CR: Canada submits that the appropriate course in these   
       circumstances is for the appeals to continue separately.   
       However, if the appellant feels that a decision in the   
       Harris appeal would assist the parties or the Court in   
       the present appeal, Canada would consent to an   
       adjournment of the present appeal pending the outcome of   
       the Harris appeal.   
      
   If the Crown does not succeed in striking Cote's claim for 8   
   months damages due to false rejection, my claim for 3 months   
   damages should be allowed to proceed too.   
   ____________________________   
   Arthur Jackes   
   For the Appellant   
      
   CC: Jon Bricker Fax: 416-973-0809   
   For the Respondent   
      
   JCT: Similarly, Kent Truman responded:   
      
   Wilfred Kent Truman   
      
   March 16 2019   
      
   VIA FACSIMILE   
      
   Court Administrator:   
      
   Re: Kent Truman v. HMTQ A-176-18   
      
   The Respondent Canada wrote in a March 15 2019 letter:   
       CR: The appellant's letter request that this appeal be   
       heard together with Allan J. Harris v. HMTQ No: A-258-   
       218 ("Harris appeal"). This request is inappropriate.   
      
   It is appropriate because the issue of whether the March 2   
   2018 Class Exemptions mooted our remedy sought or not will   
   be raised by Harris. Same issue is to be decided.   
      
       CR: The appellant has taken no steps to advance the   
       present appeal since filing a Notice of Appeal. On Feb 6   
       2018,(?) the Court accordingly issued a Notice of Status   
       Review. The appellant has not responded to this Notice   
       and the deadline to do so has now passed. In the   
       circumstances, Canada requests that the Court proceed to   
       determine that status review and that the present appeal   
       not be scheduled for hearing at this time.   
       If the Court determines on status review that the   
       present appeal should proceed, Canada also requests that   
       it not be heard with the Harris appeal.   
      
   I am trying to end the matter with the trial of the same   
   issue in Harris and the Respondent wants the paperwork   
   duplicated in another proceeding? Rather than another   
   procedural status hearing to get my appeal back on track,   
   this is the chance to get it on the final track with Harris.   
      
       CR: While the appellant's claim is being collectively   
       case-managed with the Harris claim in Federal Court, the   
       appeals are from distinct decisions of the case-   
       management judge and concern different issues   
      
   There are no different issues. I have only one issue in   
   common with the Harris appeal, whether the Class Exemptions   
   mooted our remedies, mine interim. Different decisions   
   concerning the same issue.   
      
       CR: and the appellants have requested hearings in   
       different cities (Toronto and Vancouver, respectively).   
      
   Or attend by teleconference. There is no need to open a   
   courtroom unless the hundreds of plaintiffs below can   
   attend.   
      
       CR: The Harris appeal is also much further advanced and   
       would be unduly delayed if not scheduled until all steps   
       in the present appeal are complete.   
      
   I'm not asking that Harris be delayed until I catch up on   
   all steps to document the same issue. I'm asking that I   
   piggy-back forward to have my say on my issue at Harris's   
   hearing of the same issue.   
      
       CR: Canada submits that the appropriate course in these   
       circumstances is for the appeals to continue separately.   
       However, if the appellant feels that a decision in the   
       Harris appeal would assist the parties or the Court in   
       the present appeal, Canada would consent to an   
       adjournment of the present appeal pending the outcome of   
       the Harris appeal.   
      
   That doesn't give the opportunity to influence the outcome   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)