From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: First Covid Federal Court Zoom Hearing Report   
      
   EVENT   
   JCT: High Noon on Thursday March 11 was the zoom audio   
   hearing before our Case Management Judge ("CMJ"), Her   
   Worship Prothonotary Aylen. Benjamin Wong for Her Majesty.   
      
   REASONS   
   The hearing was for the First Ten about whether they   
   accepted me as Lead Plaintiff and to have their actions   
   stayed pending resolution of mine and then be bound by it. I   
   had objected to their being bound in case they had later   
   updated amended claims better than mine.   
      
   LEAD PLAINTIFF?   
   Problems arose quickly so the question of me being Lead   
   Plaintiff was raised. Some things we wanted we got and some   
   we didn't.   
      
   JURISDICTION   
   Dealing with my concerns about the jurisdiction of a   
   prothonotary raised to the Chief Justice to deal with some   
   of our issues, she said that if there was an issue she could   
   not deal with, she'd pass it along to the right level.   
      
   INJUNCTIONS   
   I pointed out prothonotaries do not have power to issue   
   injunctions which we are asking for to prohibit Covid   
   restrictions. Is it different that the Crown isn't asking   
   for an injunction but to strike our asking. Yes. She can   
   strike an action for injunction even if she can't grant it.   
   But that can then be appealed to a judge before regular   
   appeals, an extra step to the top.   
      
   DEFAULT   
   Then I wondered why the Crown has delayed filing their   
   motion. I pointed out they were already in default of filing   
   their Statement of Defence. CMJ Aylen pointed out she could   
   grant an extension of time after the strike motion. I   
   pointed out that if it was going to take too long, I could   
   move for Default Judgment! She pointed out once it's in case   
   management, it takes leave! Okay. And a denial can be   
   appealed to a judge.   
      
   STAYS   
   Then whether the other motions should be stayed pending the   
   resolution of mine. I noted that those stayed should not be   
   bound by my decision in case future plaintiffs had filed   
   upgraded and amended claims. CMJ Aylen agreed it would be   
   persuasive but they would not be bound by my decision. Good.   
      
   BEING KEPT APPRISED   
   Then we got into my request that if the Crown was   
   given dispensation from serving the other plaintiffs and   
   only had to serve paperwork on me, could they at least email   
   a copy of the documentation to the others. CMJ Aylen asked   
   if the Crown would consent to email everyone and Wong said   
   he did not want to. He pointed out that in the last group   
   action for damages due to permit processing delays, there   
   was no provision made to keep the others informed while the   
   Lead Plaintiff's case moved on. I responded I didn't want   
   that happening again.   
      
   PHELAN J. HAD NO LEAD   
   But back in 2014, the first group action to get their   
   exemptions back after a judge had cut off half based on the   
   date of their permit, no one was stayed and the Crown's   
   motion to dismiss served on everyone and heard by   
   teleconference at the April 29 2014 Big Event in 10   
   provinces in 12 cities with a registry. We're now at 6   
   provinces in 7 cities. It's kind of sad no one from Eastern   
   Canada have filed despite them being the majority last time.   
      
   Eventually, all actions were dismissed with no costs. Only   
   those who appealed later got hit with Court of Appeal costs   
   ($500) and most could not and did not pay. After all, after   
   having to shut down their grows and start buying on the   
   white and black markets again, what patients had any extra   
   money. And the Crown didn't want to chase a bunch of broken   
   patients.   
      
   CONVENIENCE FOR CONVENIENCE; INCONVENIENCE FOR INCONVENIENCE   
   If the Crown didn't want to be inconvenienced by serving   
   their motion on everyone, the least they should do is email   
   a copy to those who volunteer to have their actions stayed   
   to save the Crown the time and expense. But the CMJ Aylen   
   said no, she could not impose such an unwanted burden on the   
   Crown as unofficially keeping them informed while she   
   considered absolving them of the unwanted burden of serving   
   everyone which would then have kept everyone officially   
   informed. I pointed out it was extremely easy to email out   
   copies given they have the list of emails that I do not.   
      
   PLAINTIFFS SHOULD REFUSE STAY   
   I said that if others were not to be kept apprised of   
   developments in my case, the others should refuse to consent   
   to their stay. We were all there in the first group action   
   with no problem except the Crown had to serve everyone, and   
   I was ready to make it easy on them. It was up to the Crown   
   and if he wanted to inconvenience us, we'd inconvenience him   
   back. She said it wasn't an issue of making it inconvenient   
   and a prothonotary had to power to stay the other cases   
   without their consent anyway. I added we could appeal to a   
   judge. Hope she doesn't. But I advised that if Wong didn't   
   want to send them a copy, I'd have to advise them not to   
   consent to being stayed and remain involved to get their own   
   documentation (with their name on it).   
      
   GIVE LEAD LIST   
   I had asked for the list of emails so I could keep others   
   informed. Crown's regular complaint was he didn't want me   
   representing the others like a lawyer. As if making the   
   arguments that will eventually impact other decisions isn't   
   the same. The judge didn't like providing me with the emails   
   because of "privacy concerns." I pointed out they had   
   included the emails of the original ten in the Direction   
   calling the hearing so why couldn't I get the emails for the   
   others too? Nope. Barb Kelly listened in on the hearing   
   though she wasn't one of the original ten and then sent me   
   an email noting that in the March 4 Direction to the other   
   40 plaintiffs, their emails were in the message header!   
      
   OKAY EMAILS FROM CLAIMS   
   But CMJ Aylen said I could have copies of the filed   
   Statements of Claim with the emails on them so I could build   
   my own list of plaintiffs and keep them informed myself   
   (after her decision cuts them off)! OK. Doable by me and   
   fixed.   
      
   STAY POLL   
   So the judge started asking each plaintiff what they wanted   
   to do. A few said they would accept the stay, a few said   
   they would not, and a few asked for more time to think about   
   it. The judge gave them until Mar 18 to inform the court of   
   their decision on being stayed, until Mar 24 for the Crown   
   response and Mar 29 for a plaintiff Reply. She also noted   
   that anyone could change their mind! That was nice.   
      
   SECURITY FOR COSTS   
   Although the Direction doesn't mention rejecting the Crown   
   motion for security for costs for those who had prior cost   
   judgments (my brother Ray), CMJ Aylen did ask the Crown how   
   many there were. He didn't admit it was only Ray but did   
   admit it was very few. So the judge said she'd take it up   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)