From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Issues to Covid Restrictions Case Management Judge   
      
   JCT: I've reported on the order of Case Management Judge   
   Aylen to 10 plaintiffs. We are today 57. I've responded:   
      
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
   Tuesday Mar 2 2021   
   VIA EMAIl   
      
   Chief Administrator   
   Courts Administration Service   
   fc_reception_cf@cas-satj.gc.ca   
      
   Dear Sir or Madam:   
      
        re: John Turmel v. HMTQ T-130-21   
      
   Could you please place this letter before Case Management   
   Judge Aylen:   
      
       "The parties shall, by no later than March 5, 2021,   
       provide their availability for a case management   
       conference (by Zoom - audio only) during the week of   
       March 8, 2021.   
       The purpose of the case management conference will be to   
       address the following:   
       (a) Whether the parties consent to T-130-21 being the   
       lead file, with the balance of the files held in   
       abeyance and bound by the outcome of any determinations   
       in T-130-21.   
      
   I cannot advise the other plaintiffs to be bound by the   
   outcome of any determination of the Lead Plaintiff's   
   original T-130-21 file.   
      
   In the ongoing "delsc" claims for damages due to grow permit   
   processing delays before Justice Brown, any time any   
   additional facts or arguments appeared, they was   
   incorporated into later Statement of Claim templates.   
      
   Later "delsc2" Statements claimed not just the cannabis that   
   was not produced during the delay but also added the lost   
   site rent.   
      
   Later Statements claimed for the restitution of the   
   processing time subtracted off the permit which was   
   adjudicated when Judge Brown permitted the Lead Plaintiff's   
   claim be amended to the updated version.   
      
   The latest "delsc8" claim included an affirmation that the   
   Court of Appeal found lacking. Both an original delsc and an   
   updated delsc8 edition are still before Judge Brown.   
      
   So I cannot advise anyone to be bound by a persuasive   
   decision on an original claim when there is a good chance   
   later claims will be improved.   
      
   I will advise any plaintiffs who can't attend the zoom call   
   to email their consent to a stay pending a decision on the   
   Lead Plaintiff but not to be bound by it.   
      
   (b) The timetable for the Crown's motion to strike.   
   (c) The timetable for the Crown's motion for security for   
   costs (if necessary)."   
      
   I have no comment on timetables other than to follow the   
   timetables in the rules.   
      
   Other issues not yet addressed are:   
      
   a) Canada's request for leave to seek relief by way of a   
   single motion to one plaintiff and not the others that would   
   be applicable to all of the proceedings has been consented   
   to as long as the other plaintiffs receive all documentation   
   by email before ceding right to be served personally with   
   relevant documents. I would further ask that the Court order   
   that Defendant provide Lead Plaintiff with the list of   
   plaintiff emails, say once a week.   
      
   b) The Defendant notes the parties may also require other   
   procedural directions as the parties may also require other   
   procedural directions as these claims unfold, that case-   
   management would also be consistent with the Court's   
   approach to past claims downloaded from the same website as   
   the current claims.   
      
   The past approach was to email the document to the   
   Defendant, Efile it, and under service, submit a pdf of the   
   metadata from "sent" email, and thirdly upload a letter   
   requesting Judge Brown okay the email metadata rather than   
   an affidavit of service. He always granted use of the   
   metadata. I would ask the Court keep Steps 1 and 2 but skip   
   Step 3, a letter to the judge asking to allow the metadata.   
      
   c) The Defendant notes some plaintiffs have previous unpaid   
   judgments and ask that security be posted. Considering the   
   no-cash cost of emailling out a copy of the documentation,   
   those plaintiffs could then decide if it is worth putting up   
   security after the first case is decided.   
      
   Dated at Brantford on Tuesday Mar 2 2021.   
   _________________________   
   John C. Turmel   
      
   JCT: For the response about the zoom meeting:   
      
   If you can't be bothered, just send an email back to the   
   court, it's in the heading of my previous letter, saying any   
   day is fine with you but that you shall not attend but do   
   consent to Lead Plaintiff being appointed and having your   
   action stayed but not bound by it if you get a copy of the   
   documentation emailled to you.   
      
   You also consent to other procedural matters.   
      
   Of course, if you want to hear the call, just email that   
   you're ready.   
      
   I don't know what they're going to do with the other 47   
   plaintiffs not involved at this point. In the past, new   
   plaintiffs got the Order of the court staying cases until   
   the Lead is done added to everyone's file. Probably again.   
      
   So funny we're to discuss the motion timetable when it's in   
   the rules? Lots of our requests she didn't look at yet.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)