From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Covid Strike Motion Timetables to CMJ Aylen   
      
   JCT: The Crown sent their letter to the CMJ on timetable for   
   their S.369 Motion to Strike:   
      
   Department of Justice Canada   
   Benjamin Wong   
      
   EMAIL   
      
   May 4, 2021   
      
   Federal Court   
      
   Dear Ms. Craigie:   
      
        Re:  TURMEL, John v Her Majesty the Queen T-130-21   
      
   I am writing on behalf of the defendant in the above-noted   
   matter, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada ("Canada"),   
   in response to the Court's April 27, 2021, direction. I ask   
   that you kindly place this letter before the case-management   
   judge, Madam Prothonotary Aylen.   
      
   Although the parties conferred regarding the timetable for   
   next steps, we were unable to come to an agreement. Canada's   
   proposed timetable for its joint motions to strike and for   
   security for costs (in the alternative) are as follows:   
      
   - Service and filing of Canada's Notice of Motion and   
   Affidavits: 15 days from the date that the Court implements   
   this timetable   
      
   - Service and filing of the Plaintiff's Affidavits: 15 days   
   from the date that Canada serves its Notice of Motion and   
   Affidavits   
      
   - Cross-examinations  on  affidavits:  10  days  from  the   
   date  that  the  Plaintiff  serves  his Affidavits   
      
   - Service and filing of Canada's Motion Record: 15 days from   
   the expiration of the time for cross-examinations,  or,  if   
   the  Plaintiff  does  not  intend  to  serve  an  affidavit   
   or  conduct cross-examinations, 15 days from the date that   
   Canada is advised of this   
      
   - Service and filing of the Plaintiff's Responding Record:   
   15 days from the date that Canada serves its Motion Record   
      
   - Service and filing of Canada's Reply Submissions: 7 days   
   from the date that the Plaintiff serves his Responding   
   Record   
      
   Benjamin Wong Counsel   
   c.c. (via email)  John Turmel, plaintiff   
      
   Canada is available for a case management conference at the   
   following times:   
   - May 10, 11, 14, 17, 18, 19 at any time   
   - May 6 after 12pm   
   - May 7 after 11:30am   
   - May 13 after 11am   
      
   JCT: And I just sent my letter:   
      
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
   Wednesday May 5 2021   
      
   VIA EMAIl   
      
   Chief Administrator   
      
   Dear Sir or Madam:   
      
        re: John Turmel v. HMTQ T-130-21   
      
   Could you please place this letter before Case Management   
   Judge prothonotary Aylen in response to the Court's April   
   26, 2021, Direction on the timetable for the Defendant's   
   Motion to Strike.   
      
   1. Defendant Canada suggested filing their motion to strike   
   in 20 days and then another 67 days for steps not prescribed   
   in the Rules. I pointed out Rule 369 mandates a 2-week   
   timetable after the motion it filed.   
      
   2. Rule 369 says:   
       Motions in writing   
       369 (1) A party may, in a notice of motion, request that   
       the motion be decided on the basis of written   
       representations.   
       (2) A respondent to a motion brought in accordance with   
       subsection (1) shall serve and file a respondent's   
       record within 10 days..   
       (3) A moving party may serve and file written   
       representations in reply within four days after being   
       served with a respondent's record under subsection (2).   
       (4) On the filing of a reply under subsection (3) or on   
       the expiration of the period allowed for a reply, the   
       Court may dispose of a motion in writing or fix a time   
       and place for an oral hearing of the motion.   
   https://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-98-106/FullText.html   
      
   3. Given Canada has already had 15 weeks, 20 days to file   
   seemed excessive and I suggested 3 days. Canada then   
   proposed 15 days to file and 62 days for steps not   
   prescribed in the Rules.   
      
   4. This timetable was also unacceptable. The Defendant is   
   under the impression that your request for steps in a   
   timetable was dispensation from following the rules. This   
   Court has not ordered any dispensation from following the   
   timetable set out in Rule 369.   
      
   5. I ask this Court to follow the timetable in Rule 369.   
      
   Dated at Brantford on Wednesday May 5 2021.   
   _________________________   
   John C. Turmel   
   Cc: benjamin.wong2@justice.gc.ca   
      
   JCT: She started the problem by asking for a timetable when   
   Rule 369 has the timetable. So let's see if we go by the   
   rules or not.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)