From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Our Case Management Judge Prothonotary Aylen has broken   
   with the rules again to put me at a disadvantage turning a   
   2-week process into up to an 11-week process before getting   
   the proof of hoax into court. So I appealed:   
      
                                            File No: T-130-21   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   Between:   
                           John Turmel   
                                                     Appellant   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                               AND   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
                                                     Defendant   
                     NOTICE OF APPEAL MOTION   
      
   TAKE NOTICE THAT John Turmel moves in writing pursuant to   
   Rule 369 to appeal for an Order overturning the May 6 2021   
   Order of Prothonotary Mandy Aylen, Case Management Judge,   
   substituting an 11-week timeline for the 2-week timeline   
   laid out in Rule 369 and compelling Canada to file a   
   complete Motion Record forthwith and then proceed under the   
   timeline laid out in S.369 of the Federal Court Rules.   
      
   The grounds of the appeal are that allowing a motion to be   
   filed upon filing of Notice and Affidavits without Written   
   Representations   
   1) does not explain how the affidavits relate to the cause;   
   2) makes it impossible for the Plaintiff to file affidavits   
   in response without those Written Representations;   
   3) wastes time while Canadians are dying from lockdown.   
      
   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 Brantford Ontario on May 17 2021.   
   ____________________________   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
                     WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS   
      
   1. In her May 6 2021 Order, Prothonotary and Case Management   
   Judge Mandy Aylen wrote:   
       "The parties shall confer regarding the timetable for   
       next steps in this proceeding and shall, by no later   
       than May 5, 2021, provide the Court with a jointly-   
       proposed timetable and the availability of the parties   
       for a case management conference (in the event that the   
       Court determines that one is required)."   
      
   2. Rule 369 has the steps for a 2-week timeline for a motion   
   in writing:   
       +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.   
      
   3. Under Rule 369, a Motion is brought when a Motion Record   
   with Notice, Affidavits and Written Representations initiate   
   the proceeding. Then the Respondent files a Motion Record in   
   10 days, then the Mover files a Reply in 4 says. 14 days,   
   two weeks maximum.   
      
   4. I pointed out that asking for a timeline suggests the   
   timeline deviate from the one in Rule 369. The Court had not   
   ordered any dispensation from following the timetable set   
   out in Rule 369 but Canada dutifully suggested a 13-week   
   timeline which I rejected. Canada then suggested an 11-week   
   timeline I also rejected. I asked the Court to follow the 2-   
   week timetable in Rule 369.   
      
   5. In the May 6 2021 Order is a timeline for Canada's motion   
   to strike for no cause of action:   
                                  ORDER   
       1. The Defendant shall serve their Notice of Motion and   
       affidavit(s) by no later than May 21, 2021.   
       2. The Plaintiff shall serve any responding affidavit(s)   
       by no later than June 7, 2021.   
       3. Cross-examinations, if any, shall be completed by no   
       later than 10 days following the date the Plaintiff   
       serves his responding affidavit(s).   
       4. The Defendant shall serve and file their complete   
       motion record by no later than 15 days from the   
       expiration of the time to conduct cross-examinations,   
       or, if the Plaintiff does not intend to serve an   
       affidavit or conduct cross-examinations, 15 days from   
       the date that the Plaintiff so advises the Defendant.   
       5. The Plaintiff shall serve and file his complete   
       motion record within 15 days of service of the   
       Defendant's motion record.   
       6. The Defendant shall serve and file their reply motion   
       record within seven days of service of the Plaintiff's   
       responding motion record.   
       "Mandy Aylen" Case Management Judge   
      
   6. In Point 1, the Notice and Affidavits are to be filed but   
   without a Motion Record with Written Representations   
   explaining how the facts in the affidavits apply violating:   
       Rule 364 (1) a person bringing a motion shall serve a   
       motion record...   
       (2) containing   
       (b) the notice of motion;   
       (c) all affidavits and other material served by the   
       moving party for use on the motion;   
       (e) subject to rule 366, written representations..   
      
       Rule 367 A notice of motion or any affidavit.. may be   
       served and filed as part of the party's motion record   
       and need not be served and filed separately.   
      
   7. The Notice, Affidavits and Written Representations of how   
   the facts apply must be filed at the same time even if filed   
   separately.   
      
   8. In Point 2, Plaintiff's Affidavits in Response are to be   
   filed without having had the Written Representations   
   explaining how the facts in the Defendant's affidavits   
   apply. Written Representations explain how the facts relate.   
   How can the Court expect Plaintiff to submit affidavits in   
   response to Defendant's Affidavits when there are no Written   
   Representations of how the Defendant's Affidavits apply?   
   9. In Point 3, time is allocated for examinations of the new   
   evidence being adduced without any Written Representations   
   of how they should apply. So we're presented with new facts   
   but not told how they apply and must now produce affidavits   
   with rebuttal facts to the arguments raised whose purpose   
   has not yet been explained. "Here are our cards, we'll   
   explain how we play them later, but pick your cards now."   
      
   10. On July 20 2018, The Honourable Mr. Justice   
   Brown rendered a decision Citation: 2018 FC 765 in ALLAN J.   
   HARRIS and HMTQ explaining that a Motion to Strike for no   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)