From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: This is great news. Because of a unique situation, Igor   
   Mozajko's appeal of his Brown decision contained the same   
   arguments as the Harris appeal against his Brown decision.   
   When the Court of Appeal overturned Harris' win for some   
   pretty lousy reasons, Igor filed for Supplementary arguments   
   against those lousy reasons and the Court of Appeal just let   
   it in! A challenge to their previous decision.   
      
   I wonder if we have to ask for 5 judges to have more than   
   the 3 who knocked out Jeff's case. That's how it works in   
   Ontario if you are challenging a previous Court of Appeal   
   decision, you ask for a panel of 5 judges. I did it once and   
   it got refused and my challenge was dismissed because my 3-   
   judge panel couldn't overrule the previous 3-judge panel.   
      
   I'll have to check if there is provision to request a 5-   
   judge panel to overturn a 3-judge panel like in Ontario.   
      
   Date: 20200129   
   Docket: A-339-18   
   Ottawa, Ontario, January 29, 2020   
      
   Present: RIVOALEN J.A.   
      
   BETWEEN:   
   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
   Appellant   
   (Respondent by cross-appeal)   
   and   
   IGOR MOZAJKO   
   Respondent   
   (Appellant by cross-appeal)   
      
                              ORDER   
      
   WHEREAS the respondent (appellant by cross-appeal) moves   
   under Rule 8 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106 for   
   an order extending the time to file his memorandum of fact   
   and law;   
      
   WHEREAS the appellant served and filed its memorandum of   
   fact and law in this appeal on February 4, 2019;   
      
   WHEREAS this appeal appears to be largely identical to   
   several hundred claims filed in the Federal Court being case   
   managed by Justice Brown, who designated Allan J. Harris v.   
   HMQ, T-1379-17 (the Harris claim) as lead claim and stayed   
   the others pending determination of the Harris claim;   
      
   WHEREAS the respondent had requested by letter dated March   
   11, 2019, that his appeal be heard together with the appeal   
   on the Harris claim appeal before this Court as the appeal   
   raises identical issues. By direction dated April 1, 2019,   
   Stratas, J.A. denied his request and directed that any party   
   desiring procedural relief to file a formal motion in   
   writing;   
      
   WHEREAS the respondent moved on April 8, 2019, to have his   
   appeal expedited and heard together with the Harris claim   
   appeal on the grounds that the appeals raised the same   
   issues. By Order dated May 13, 2019, Gauthier J.A. dismissed   
   the motion noting that the respondent had not filed a   
   memorandum of fact and law and that he should file a proper   
   motion to obtain an extension to do so, even if he wanted to   
   adopt the memorandum filed by Mr. Harris;   
      
   WHEREAS on September 18, 2019, this Court dismissed the   
   Harris claim appeal, granted the respondent's cross-appeal,   
   and struck the Harris claim in its entirety without leave to   
   amend (Allan J. Harris v. HMQ (2019 FCA 232);   
      
   WHEREAS the respondent has filed a reply on January 20,   
   2020, providing an explanation for the delay in filing his   
   memorandum of fact and law and pointing to arguments that he   
   says are new;   
      
   WHEREAS the respondent will be granted one extension of time   
   to file his memorandum of fact of law;   
      
   THEREFORE THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:   
      
   1. The respondent's motion for an extension of time to file   
   his memorandum of fact and law is granted;   
      
   2. The respondent shall serve and file his memorandum of   
   fact and law, along with his memorandum of fact and law as   
   appellant by cross-appeal, as part of his memorandum of fact   
   and law, within 30 days of the date of this order, in   
   accordance with Rule 346(3)(a);   
      
   3. The appellant shall serve and file its memorandum of fact   
   and law as respondent to cross-appeal, within 30 days after   
   service of the respondent's memorandum of fact and law;   
      
   4. A fresh requisition for hearing shall be filed within 20   
   days after service of the memorandum of fact and law of the   
   appellant (respondent to cross-appeal);   
      
   5. Costs shall be in the cause.   
   "Marianne Rivoalen" J.A.   
      
   JCT: Great news. One of the most unusual pair of appeals in   
   their history.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)