From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
    JCT: https://groups.google.com/g/can.legal/c/Dqm0KaiDKx8 is   
   my last post on the: Party submissions on air travel ban   
   challenge costs. This is Judge Trent Horne's decision:   
      
   Date: 20220727   
      
   Toronto, Ontario, July 27, 2022   
   PRESENT: Case Management Judge Trent Horne   
   Docket: T-693-22   
      
   BETWEEN:   
   JOSHUA FUDGE Docket: T-694-22   
   ALIM MANJI  Docket: T-695-22   
   RENE BEAULIEU Docket: T-705-22   
   ANGELA COLELLA KROEPLIN Docket: T-710-22   
   ROSA TAMM Docket: T-827-22   
   ROGER W GERVAIS Docket: T-828-22   
   SHELLEY R GERVAIS Docket: T-929-22   
   KATHERINE WRIGHT Docket: T-929-22   
      
   and   
   HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN   
   Defendant   
      
                              ORDER   
      
   J: I. Overview   
      
   [1] These actions were dismissed by my judgment dated July   
   2, 2022 ("Judgment").   
      
   [2] The Judgment did not fix costs. The defendant was   
   directed to serve and file submissions as to costs within 10   
   days of the date of the Judgment. Any responding submissions   
   from the plaintiffs as to costs were directed to be served   
   and filed within 20 days of the date of the judgment.   
      
   [3] The defendant's costs submissions were received on July   
   14, 2022.   
      
   [4] Alim Manji (T-694-22) filed costs submissions dated July   
   13, 2022; nothing was filed in response to the defendant's   
   submissions.   
      
   [5] The other plaintiffs did not file any costs submissions.   
      
   [6] For the reasons that follow, the defendant will be   
   awarded costs of each proceeding in the amount of $500.00,   
   payable forthwith.   
      
   JCT: The Crown asked for $250 and Judge Horne decided to   
   punish the plaintiffs with double the costs.   
      
   J: II. Background   
      
   [7] The genesis of these proceedings are statements of claim   
   filed by John Turmel.   
      
   [8] Mr Turmel commenced a first action related to the   
   federal Government's COVID-19 mitigation measures, which was   
   assigned Court file no T-130-21. A number of substantially   
   identical claims were filed by other plaintiffs, which were   
   stayed by order of prothonotary Aylen (as she then was)   
   dated April 8, 2021.   
      
   [9] The statement of claim in T-130-21 was struck, with   
   costs, by order of Prothonotary Aylen dated July 12, 2021.   
   That order was upheld on appeal by justice Zinn (Turmel v.   
   Canada, 2021 FC 1095). Mr Turmel further appealed justice   
   Zinn's decision; that appeal is pending.   
      
   [10] While the appeal of justice Zinn's decision was   
   underway, Mr Turmel commenced a second action, which was   
   assigned Court file no T-277-22. The material difference   
   between Mr Turmel's first claim and second claim is that the   
   latter specifically challenges a January 15, 2022 decision   
   of the Minister of Transport to make an interim order in the   
   form of an Interim Order Respecting Certain Requirements for   
   Civil Aviation Due to Covid-19, No. 52 ("Interim Order No.   
   52"). The second claim sought a declaration that certain   
   sections of this decision violate the plaintiff's section 6   
   Charter rights, and that these violations are not   
   demonstrably justified under section 1 of the Charter.   
      
   JCT: So it's pretty clear that the second challenge was   
   against a real restriction while the first one did not name   
   a specific restriction, only "any,"  which was deemed not   
   specific enough.   
      
   J: [11] As with the first action in T-130-21, Mr Turmel made   
   a copy of his statement of claim in T-277-22 available on   
   the internet so that others could substitute their name as   
   the plaintiff, and then commence an identical action seeking   
   the same relief. Such actions have been referred to as "kit   
   claims".   
      
   [12] The statements of claim in each of these actions are   
   almost identical, and are based on the materials made   
   available on the internet by Mr Turmel.   
      
   [13] By order dated May 18, 2022, I stayed these   
   proceedings. The order noted that none of the plaintiffs   
   took issue with the Court's observation that their claims   
   are essentially the same as the statement of claim in T-277-   
   22, and that none of the plaintiffs have submitted that they   
   are differently situated than Mr Turmel. I also concluded   
   that staying the "kit claims" would be consistent with the   
   manner in which the Court managed the multiple proceedings   
   that were based on or copied from the statement of claim in   
   T-130-21.   
      
   JCT: So, to minimize efforts, only my claim needs be dealt   
   with while the other claims do not need to to be.   
      
   J: [14] Mr Turmel's action in T-277-22 was dismissed by my   
   judgment dated May 18, 2022. This judgment was not appealed,   
   and is final.   
      
   [15] Despite having the opportunity to do so, none of the   
   plaintiffs made submissions that their proceeding was   
   differently situated than T-277-22. These actions were   
   dismissed by the Judgment. The only remaining matter to be   
   determined is costs.   
      
   III. Analysis   
   [16] The Court has full discretionary power over the amount   
   and allocation of costs (Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106,   
   subrule 400(1)).   
      
   [17] With the exception of Alim Manji, none of the   
   plaintiffs filed submissions on costs. There is no material   
   before me to indicate what, if any, consideration any of the   
   plaintiffs gave to the merits of their claim before filing   
   it, considered whether the claim advanced a credible cause   
   of action, or complied with the rules of pleading.   
      
   JCT: It's the same credible cause of action as filed by   
   Brian Peckford and Maxime Bernier challenging the   
   unconstitutional air-travel ban. Except that unlike Peckford   
   and Bernier who accepted the danger of the threat, the   
   material before Judge Horne argued that the threat was a   
   false alarm because:   
        1) WHO's comparing the Covid 3.4% "Apple" CFR "Case   
   Fatality Rate" not to Flu's known 10% CFR "Apple" but to the   
   100-times smaller Flu 0.1% "Orange" IFR "Infection Fatality   
   Rate" exaggerated the threat by a hundredfold;   
        2) CDC said masked social distanced lockdowns were   
   needed when "most coronavirus cases spread from people with   
   no symptoms." An asymptomatic spreader would unknowningly   
   infect clusters of family and friends. But no such clusters   
   have been found. On April 2 WHO found "no documented   
   asymptomatic transmission." On June 3, Wuhan tested 10   
   million to find zero transmission by asymptomatics   
        and the restriction was therefore an unconstitutional   
   limitation of our rights. A better case than Peckford and   
   Bernier who could only argue the restriction hurt too much.   
      
   So Judge Horne knew the threat prompting the air travel   
   restriction was a false alarm due to an Apple-Orange   
   comparison. So there was material before the judge to   
   indicate that the plaintiffs thought the merits of their   
   claim advanced a credible cause of action that an air travel   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)