From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Reply to Stays of Covid Apple Orange Resistance Plaintiffs   
      
   JCT: Canada has moved to designate my file as Lead Plaintiff   
   and to stay everyone else pending my result. After a Mar 11   
   hearing, Case Management Judge Prothonotary Aylen asked for   
   responses on who agreed to being stayed and who did not. I   
   answered saying that since the Crown refused to Carbon Copy   
   the others, no one should agree to be stayed if they wanted   
   to stay informed.   
      
   The Crown answered on Mar 14 and this is the Reply filed   
   today:   
      
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
   Mar 29 2021   
      
   Court Administrator   
      
        re: T-130-21 TURMEL: John Turmel   
      
   Dear Sir/Madam:   
      
   Would you please put this email response to the Defendant's   
   Mar 24 2021 Response before Case Management Judge Aylen.   
      
   1. In the Feb 11 2021 letter, the Defendant Canada wrote:   
       In light of the common issues, Canada will be requesting   
       leave to seek this relief by way of a single  motion   
       that would be applicable to all of the proceedings.   
      
   2. On Feb 22 2021 Prothonotary Aalto ordered:   
       AND UPON reading the Defendant's request and noting the   
       Plaintiff's Consent to the Defendant's request for leave   
       to seek relief by way of a single motion,   
      
   3. I had consented   
       "As long as the other plaintiffs receive all   
       documentation by email before ceding right to be served   
       personally with relevant documents.   
      
   4. I further asked:   
       that the Court order that Defendant provide Lead   
       Plaintiff with the list of plaintiff emails, say once a   
       week.   
      
   5. On Mar 1 2021 Case Management Judge Prothonotary Aylen   
   ordered a Mar 11 hearing to determine:   
       (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.   
      
   6. On Mar 5 2021,   
       Canada also requests that these claims be held in   
       abeyance pending the outcome of the lead file, and that   
       they be bound by any determinations made in the lead   
       file.   
      
   7. I pointed out that in the past group management by   
   Justice Brown, later claims were improved and Lead   
   Plaintiff's claim was ordered amended to match. So I could   
   not advise anyone to accept being bound by a persuasive   
   decision on an original claim when there is a good chance   
   later claims will have been improved.   
      
   8. At the Mar 11 2021 hearing, some plaintiffs agreed to be   
   stayed, some did not, and some got more time to decide.   
      
   9. The Defendant refused to email a Carbon Copy of the   
   documentation to those upon which it wished to not serve   
   documentation and the Court could not impose such an   
   unwanted burden.   
      
   10. In the Mar 18 2021 Turmel submission on stays, I pointed   
   out how Justice Phelan had all the plaintiffs on the style   
   of cause heading, all were served documentation, and all   
   took part in the "unprecedented, extraordinary, remarkable"   
   hearing of the Crown's motion to strike in a teleconference   
   in 10 provinces in 12 courtrooms. Only under case management   
   of Justice Brown was it agreed to have a Lead Plaintiff and   
   failed to make sure all plaintiffs got documentation. I   
   noted that was a mistake I didn't want to make again given   
   Canada seemed to have no problem with serving everyone for   
   Justice Phelan's group.   
      
   11. In Defendant's March 24 2021 Response:   
       Canada agrees with the Court's proposal to designate a   
       lead claim and to stay the remaining claims... pending   
       final determination of the lead claim...   
      
   12. This would have been fine had Canada agreed to CC the   
   other plaintiffs but no longer now that it has refused.   
      
   13. Canada argues a stay is in the interests of justice but   
   does not explain how the interests of justice are served by   
   plaintiffs not being served documentation of arguments that   
   affect them.   
      
   14. Canada argues a stay will conserve judicial and party   
   resources but does not say how resources would be wasted by   
   sending everyone a copy of the documentation? Not filing 70   
   motions for 70 actions in 70 Registry files would conserve   
   judicial resources but not emailing 70 copies of the one   
   motion would conserve virtually none in our day of merge-   
   printing of document with list of recipients that do not   
   expend much resources.   
      
   15. Canada argues that a stay will result in the potential   
   to significantly narrow the issues in dispute in the other   
   files even though the other files are virtually identical   
   and have no other issues in dispute.   
      
   16. Canada argues that adding more new plaintiffs could consume   
   further resources and complicate the proceedings at   
   different stages of progress though there are not different   
   stages of progress. There is only one stage. You have an   
   Action or you don't. On or Off. The only resources being   
   consumed would be the adding names to the style of cause and   
   CC list.   
      
   17. Canada argues that there would be no injustice to the   
   parties because   
       Plaintiffs wishing to monitor the status of the lead   
       claim during any stay would also have the opportunity to   
       do so via the Federal Court's online docket or at   
       https://groups.google.com/g/alt.fan.john-turmel, a   
       public website where Mr. Turmel appears to be providing   
       comprehensive updates on the status of the claims.   
      
   18. Others can keep watching my site every day over the next   
   few years to see if I posted anything rather than get the   
   news themselves in the mail. I don't think all would be so   
   vigilant.   
      
   19. Canada added:   
       Finally, a temporary stay will not result in an   
       injustice to the plaintiffs. Following the final   
       determination of the lead claim, the plaintiffs in the   
       other matters will have the opportunity to provide   
       submissions on the merits of their claims.   
      
   20. Though the other plaintiffs can still present their own   
   submissions, it cannot be as effective as if they had been   
   in on the whole proceeding. They would be denied the   
   information they are due. Not being kept apprised allows the   
   chance they might seek remedies that were already settled   
   while they weren't watching. Getting their own emailled   
   motion does not pose such risk them missing something if   
   they fail to check my blog for developments. To watch is to   
   be able to do it better and make more perfected arguments   
   when comes the time, later, as Crown says.   
      
   21. Finally, Canada says:   
       However, if the Court decides not to stay the claims of   
       those plaintiffs who do not consent to a stay, Canada   
       requests that it be permitted to serve and file a single   
       motion to strike those claims.   
      
   21. That is exactly what was done with the first group with   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)