From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Our Case Management Judge, Prothonotary Mandy Aylen,   
   stayed the initial 9 plaintiffs pending the decision in the   
   Lead Plaintiff case but without obliging the Crown to give   
   them a copy of the documentation. Then she expects them to   
   argue the difference between their case and the Lead that   
   they did not get to watch.   
      
   So he served and filed his Notice of Appeal Motion to a   
   Judge today:   
      
                                            File No: T-171-21   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   Between:   
                       Michel Denis Ethier   
                                                     Appellant   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                               AND   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
                                                     Defendant   
                     NOTICE OF APPEAL MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT Michel Denis Ethier moves in writing   
   pursuant to Rule 369 to appeal for an Order overturning the   
   April 8 2021 Order of Prothonotary Mandy Aylen, Case   
   Management Judge, staying my action pending the resolution   
   of the Lead Plaintiff's action without obliging Defendant   
   to email me a copy of the documentation.   
      
   The grounds of the appeal are that:   
   - Plaintiff must decide whether to have my action move   
   forward with insufficient information;   
   - checking the registry file is like checking an index   
   without getting the book;   
   - getting the final decision with the arguments that were   
   made limits my ability to decide whether I want to pursue my   
   action if Turmel's is dismissed when I don't know the   
   arguments he made that did not win;   
   - vigilant watching for updates is not as infallible as   
   getting it in the email and not watching at all;   
   - objecting to less is not demanding more;   
   - an email copy CC: is no burden to any clerk;   
   - I must put in more effort to get what I am due;   
   - the Court had jurisdiction to oblige Defendant to send an   
   email copy if they did not want to serve everyone.   
      
   AND FOR ANY ORDER abridging the time for service, filing,   
   or hearing of the motion, or amending any defect of the   
   motion as to form or content, or for any Order deemed just.   
   Dated at Cache Bay Ontario on April 19 2021   
   ____________________________   
   Michel Denis Ethier   
   Cc: Registrar,   
   Benjamin.Wong   
      
                     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   1. In her Apr 8 Order, Prothonotary and Case Management   
   Judge Mandy Aylen wrote:   
       [3] The Defendant has indicated that the Defendant   
       intends to bring a motion to strike the Statements of   
       Claim...   
      
       [4] A case management conference was held on March 11,   
       2021... During that case management conference, the   
       Court proposed that Mr. Turmel's claim in T-130-21 move   
       forward as the lead claim and that the balance of the   
       actions be held in abeyance, pursuant to section   
       50(1)(b) of the Federal Courts Act [Act], pending a   
       final determination in T-130-21 and any appeal   
       therefrom. Following that final determination, it would   
       then be open to the Plaintiffs in the stayed actions to   
       seek to have their actions move forward upon   
       establishing that they are differently situated than T-   
       130-21 and thus should not be bound by the outcome of   
       that action.   
      
       [5] A number of the Plaintiffs expressed a willingness   
       to proceed in this manner. However, they took issue with   
       the information that would be provided to them by the   
       Defendant regarding T-130-21 and requested that if their   
       action was stayed, that they still be provided with all   
       filings made in relation to T-130-21, including, for   
       example, the Defendant's motion to strike.   
       The Defendant indicated that they would not agree to   
       voluntarily serve all Plaintiffs with the materials in   
       T-130-21, as there was no obligation to do so under the   
       Federal Courts Rules.   
       Moreover, the Defendant indicated that they would not   
       agree to periodically provide Mr. Turmel with a list of   
       the email addresses of all Plaintiffs who commenced   
       actions using the kit claim.   
      
   1. In moving to be granted dispensation from serving each of   
   us personally, Defendant refused to do the easy email CC: of   
   the Lead Plaintiff's documentation and doesn't want the Lead   
   Plaintiff doing the easy CC: to us either.   
      
       [8] At the case management conference, the Plaintiffs in   
       T-171-21... had indicated that they opposed the stay,   
      
       [9] Mr. Turmel filed submissions in which he drew to the   
       Court's attention the approach taken by Justice Phelan   
       in his case management of over 300 proceedings involving   
       Canada's medical marijuana regulations, noting that   
       Justice Phelan's determination applied to all plaintiffs   
       and applicants without designating a lead   
       plaintiff/applicant. He suggested that the Court could   
       proceed in a similar manner and designate the style of   
       cause as "In the matter of numerous APPLE ORANGE   
       RESISTANCE filings seeking a declaration pursuant to   
       s.52(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms".   
      
       [10] Mr. Turmel noted that in a different group of case   
       managed proceedings involving claims for damages due to   
       long delays in processing medicinal marijuana grow   
       applications, Justice Brown designated a lead claim and   
       did not require that the other plaintiffs be kept   
       informed, which Mr. Turmel felt was an error that should   
       not be repeated in this case.   
      
   2. The error was by Turmel in not asking Justice Brown to   
   keep the other plaintiffs informed, not by Justice Brown in   
   not being asked.   
      
       [12]... The Defendant submits that interests of justice   
       favour a stay of proceedings as the actions raise   
       similar issues, a stay will conserve judicial and party   
       resources and the stay will not result in any injustice   
       to the parties.   
      
       [13] By way of reply, Mr. Turmel confirmed that the   
       Court's proposal "would have been fine had Canada agreed   
       to cc the other plaintiffs but no longer now that it has   
       refused".   
      
       [18] It is evident to the Court, from the comments made   
       at the case management conference and the minimal   
       submissions made in response to the Court's proposal,   
       that the Plaintiffs were largely prepared to agree to a   
       stay of the proceedings provided that they were served   
       with all of the materials filed in T-130-21. It was only   
       when I noted at the case management conference that,   
       under the Rules, there would be no obligation on the   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)