From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Ethier Notice of Appeal of Favel Stay judgment   
      
   JCT: Michel Ethier appealed the April 8 2021 Order of   
   Prothonotary Mandy Aylen, Case Management Judge, staying the   
   actions pending the resolution of the Lead Plaintiff's   
   action. Justice Favel dismissed it. This is his appeal:   
      
                     FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL   
      
   Between:   
                       Michel Denis Ethier   
                                                     Appellant   
                                                     Plaintiff   
                               AND   
      
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
                                                     Defendant   
      
                         NOTICE OF APPEAL   
                       Pursuant to Rule 337   
      
   TO THE RESPONDENT:   
   A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the   
   appellant. The relief claimed by the appellant appears on   
   the following page.   
      
   THIS APPEAL will be heard by the Court at a time and place   
   to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. Unless the Court   
   directs otherwise, the place of hearing will be as requested   
   by the appellant. The appellant requests that this appeal be   
   heard at Toronto.   
      
   IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, to receive notice of any   
   step in the appeal or to be served with any documents in the   
   appeal, you or a solicitor acting for you must prepare a   
   notice of appearance in Form 341 prescribed by the Federal   
   Courts Rules and serve it on the appellants solicitor, or   
   where the appellant is self-represented, on the appellant,   
   WITHIN 10 DAYS of being served with this notice of appeal.   
   IF YOU INTEND TO SEEK A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION of the order   
   appealed from, you must serve and file a notice of cross-   
   appeal in Form 341 prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules   
   instead of serving and filing a notice of appearance.   
      
   Copies of the Federal Courts Rules information concerning   
   the local offices of the Court and other necessary   
   information may be obtained on request to the Administrator   
   of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any   
   local office.   
      
   IF YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN   
   YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.   
      
   Date: June 7 2021   
   Issued by:________________________________   
   (Registry Officer)   
      
   TO: Attorney General for Canada   
   Attn: Benjamin Wong   
      
                              APPEAL   
      
   1. THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Federal Court of Appeal from   
   the May 7 2021 decision of Favel J. of Federal Court   
   dismissing the appeal against the April 8 2021 Order of   
   Prothonotary Mandy Aylen, Case Management Judge, staying my   
   action T-171-21 pending the resolution of the Lead   
   Plaintiff's action and ordering I state my course of action   
   should Lead Plaintiff's action be dismissed without obliging   
   Defendant to email me a copy of the documentation leading to   
   that dismissal.   
      
   2. The grounds of the appeal are that staying the   
   plaintiff's claim pending the Turmel claim while declining   
   to require that Canada serve the plaintiff with its   
   materials challenging the substantially similar Turmel Claim   
   is a palpable and over-riding error required by the   
   appellate standard of review that prejudices Plaintiff's   
   action.   
      
   3. In her Apr 8 2021 Order, Prothonotary and Case Management   
   Judge Mandy Aylen noted the Defendant intends to bring a   
   motion to strike the Statements of Claim and was therefore   
   not bound to file a Statement of Defence within 30 days   
   pursuant to the Rules.   
      
   4. This claim is one of more than 70 actions in which the   
   self-represented plaintiffs seek various forms of relief   
   related to the federal Government's COVID-19 mitigation   
   measures. The statements of claim in each action are almost   
   identical and are based on a "kit" made available on the   
   internet by John Turmel, the plaintiff in John Turmel v HMQ,   
   T-130-21 (the "John Turmel Claim").   
      
   5. The COVID-19 Kit Claims are being case managed by   
   Prothonotary Aylen. During a case management conference with   
   the plaintiffs in the first ten COVID-19 Kit Claims, the   
   Court proposed that the John Turmel Claim move forward as   
   the lead claim, and that the balance of the actions   
   (hereinafter referred to as the "Subsequent COVID-19 Kit   
   Claims") be held in abeyance, pursuant to section 50(1)(b)   
   of the Federal Courts Act, pending a final determination in   
   the John Turmel Claim.   
      
   6. At the Mar 11 2021 case management conference, Canada   
   agreed with the Court's proposal. The plaintiffs in the   
   Subsequent COVID-19 Kit Claims were also largely prepared to   
   agree to a stay provided that they were served with all of   
   the materials filed in the John Turmel Claim. However, after   
   Canada indicated that it would not provide this information,   
   and the Court noted that Canada did not have an obligation   
   to do so under the Federal Courts Rules, leaving the   
   impression the court didn't have the power to require the   
   Defendant to undertake the lesser burden as it lifted the   
   greater burden, some plaintiffs agreed to be stayed, some   
   did not, and some got more time to decide. Plaintiff in the   
   present claim, expressed disagreement with having his claim   
   stayed if not kept informed regarding the status of the John   
   Turmel Claim while their claims were stayed.   
      
   7. 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".   
      
   8. After considering the parties' submissions and reviewing   
   the principles underlying the interests of justice test that   
   governed its discretion under paragraph 50(1)(b) of the   
   Federal Courts Act, the Court concluded that the interests   
   of justice favoured its proposal. The Court noted that in   
   such circumstances, "considerations of judicial resources,   
   efficiency, and the orderly conduct of multiple proceedings   
   all support the Court's proposal."   
      
   9. The Court noted that the Subsequent COVID-19 Kit Claims   
   significantly overlapped with the John Turmel Claim and that   
   none of the plaintiffs disputed the John Turmel Claim's   
   suitability as a lead claim. As the judge canvassed   
   objections to Turmel as Lead Plaintiff, Canada supported the   
   appointment while not telling the Court they were going to   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)