From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Crown Response Motion to Covid timeline appeal   
      
   JCT: Case Management Judge ("CMJ") Aylen allowed an   
   incomplete motion to be filed without arguments and demanded   
   I file a response to the incomplete motion record. So I   
   appealed. This is the Crown's response. I get to Reply.   
      
   Court File No.: T-130-21   
                          FEDERAL COURT   
   BETWEEN:   
                           JOHN TURMEL   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                                                (Moving Party)   
                               and   
                      HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
                                                     Defendant   
                                            (Responding Party)   
      
                              INDEX   
   Tab Document Page No.   
   1 Written Representations of the Defendant 1   
   2 Direction of the Court dated April 26, 2021, T-130-21 16   
   3 Harris v Canada (Attorney General), 2019 FCA 232 17   
   4 Hospira Healthcare Corp v Kennedy Institute of Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215 22   
   5 Mazhero v Fox, 2014 FCA 219 42   
   6 Mil Davie Inc v Hibernia Management & Development Co, [1998] FCJ No 614 (CA)   
   47   
   7 Order of the Court dated April 8, 2021, in T-130-21, T-138-21, T-171-21,   
   T-208-21, T-219-21, T-212-21, T-220-21, T-221-21, T-230-21, and T-242-21 53   
   8 Order of the Court dated April 26, 2021, in T-263-21 67   
   9 Order of the Court dated May 7, 2021, in T-171-21 73   
      
             WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS OF THE DEFENDANT   
   (Plaintiff's Motion to Appeal May 6, 2021, Timetable Order)   
      
   CR: OVERVIEW   
      
   1. The Court did not err when exercising its discretion set   
   the timetable for Canada's motion to strike or for security   
   for costs. Case management judges have wide latitude to set   
   timetables, and the timetable in this case is reasonable   
   because the timelines set out in Rule 369 do not contemplate   
   cross-examinations on affidavits,   
      
   JCT: Why do you think affidavits aren't contemplated?   
      
   CR: and would have effectively required Canada to file its   
   written representations before being served with the   
   plaintiff's evidence. Canada therefore requests that this   
   appeal be dismissed with costs.   
      
   JCT: As they're asking me to file my affidavits before being   
   served with the plaintiff's arguments of what their   
   affidavits are meant to say. So I'm complaining that she's   
   making me file affidavits in response to theirs without   
   knowing what they represent and now they're complaining that   
   they don't want to file their arguments until they've seen   
   my affidavits in response to their affidavits which were not   
   explained. Isn't that neat? I'm complaining I can't know how   
   to plan my response affidavits until they present their   
   arguments for their affidavits and they're complaining about   
   having to file their arguments before finding out what cards   
   I'm choosing.   
      
   CR: PART I - STATEMENT OF FACTS   
      
   2. This claim seeks various forms of relief related to the   
   federal Government's COVID-19 mitigation measures, including   
   (a) a declaration that the measures violate their Charter   
   rights and are not saved by section 1 of the Charter; (b) an   
   order prohibiting any measures that are not imposed on the   
   flu; (c) a permanent constitutional exemption from any such   
   measures; and (d) damages for pain and losses incurred by   
   the Plaintiffs as a result of such measures.1   
      
   3. This claim is one of more than 60 substantially similar   
   actions being case managed by Prothonotary Aylen. In orders   
   dated April 8, 2021, and April 26, 2021, the Court ordered   
   that this claim move forward as the lead claim and that the   
   balance of the actions be held in abeyance pending a final   
   determination in this claim.2   
      
   JCT: She also ordered them to file written arguments about   
   why their case should continue should the Lead be dismissed   
   after refusing to have a copy of the motion to strike   
   emailed to them.   
      
   CR: 4. On April 26, 2021, the Court directed that the   
   parties confer and provide the Court with a jointly-proposed   
   timetable for next steps in this proceeding.3   
      
   JCT: Get that? The Court ordered us to come up with   
   something different than in the rules without actually   
   ordering that the rules be ignored.   
      
   CR: 5. The parties subsequently conferred. However, they   
   were unable to agree on a timetable for Canada's motion,   
   which will seek an order either striking the claim on the   
   grounds that the claim does not identify the impugned   
   federal measures,   
      
   JCT: Get that. When we ask that "all restrictions" be struck   
   down, they need to know what "all" is.   
      
   CR: disclose a reasonable cause of action,   
      
   JCT: Fudging the numbers to impose lockdown that violate   
   rights "for our own good" is no reasonable cause of action.   
      
   CR: or is frivolous and vexatious,   
      
   JCT: All those suicides are laughing on the other side.   
      
   CR: or for security for costs on the basis that Canada has   
   numerous cost awards against the plaintiff than remain   
   unpaid.4 The parties accordingly made separate submissions   
   to the Court regarding the timeline for Canada's motion.   
      
   JCT: So their only card is that I have past costs I haven't   
   paid and they'd like her to strike me as Lead Plaintiff.   
   What she'll do with all those stayed cases after that is   
   quite the question. But the Crown fought to have me declared   
   Lead so they could object to me being Lead.   
      
   CR: 6. The Court considered the parties' individually-   
   proposed timelines, that it was within its discretion to   
   depart from the timelines for motions in writing prescribed   
   by Rule 369 when warranted, that Canada's motion required   
   affidavit evidence, and might require cross-examination   
   which is not contemplated in the timelines prescribed by   
   Rule 369.5   
      
   JCT: So why do you think cross-examinations of affidavits is   
   not contemplated in the rules?   
      
   CR: 7. The Court concluded that in light of these   
   circumstances, Canada's proposed timetable was reasonable   
   and ordered that:   
       1. The Defendant shall serve their Notice of Motion and   
       supporting 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)