From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   TURMEL: Judge Laskin sticks with premature Vexatious Litigant Order   
      
   JCT: The Crown had indicated that the motion to declare me a   
   Vexatious Litigant in the Court of Appeal after the panel   
   had ruled on the appeal and then filed the motion "in   
   writing" so one judge could do it all again. When he did, I   
   filed a motion for him to reconsider and withdraw his ruling   
   so the appeal panel could do it.   
      
   TO: Judicial Administrator   
   FROM: Laskin J.A.   
   DATE: July 20, 2023   
        RE: A-265-22 John Turmel v. His Majesty the King   
      
                            DIRECTION   
   J: The appellant's motion record received June 22, 2023, the   
   respondent's responding motion record received July 4, 2023,   
   and the appellant's written representations in reply on   
   motion for reconsideration received July 10, 2023 shall be   
   accepted for filing.   
   "JBL"   
      
   JCT: I had 4 days to respond from Tuesday July 4. So my due   
   date was Saturday July 8. Since that was on a weekend, it   
   gets pushed off to Monday July 10. So I was on time and did   
   not need a Direction accepting it for filing.   
      
   Date: 20230720   
   Docket: A-265-22   
   Ottawa, Ontario, July 20, 2023   
      
   Present: LASKIN J.A.   
      
   BETWEEN:   
                           JOHN TURMEL   
                                                     Appellant   
                               and   
                       HIS MAJESTY THE KING   
                                                    Respondent   
                              ORDER   
      
   J: WHEREAS on November 9, 2022, the Federal Court made an   
   order under section 40 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C.   
   1985, c. F-7, declaring the appellant to be a vexatious   
   litigant and, among other things, prohibiting the appellant   
   from instituting new proceedings in the Federal Court,   
   continuing any proceedings previously instituted by him in   
   the Federal Court, except with leave of the Court, and   
   preparing, distributing or disseminating court documents,   
   including template documents, for use by others in Federal   
   Court proceedings;   
      
   WHEREAS on December 9, 2022, the appellant commenced an   
   appeal to this Court from the Federal Court's order;   
      
   WHEREAS on June 15, 2023, on motion in writing by the   
   respondent in this appeal, to which the appellant filed no   
   response, this Court made a vexatious litigant order against   
   the appellant applicable to proceedings in this Court;   
      
   WHEREAS the appellant has brought a motion for   
   reconsideration of this Court's June 15, 2023 order on the   
   grounds that   
   (1) the respondent had stated his intention to seek an order   
   that the motion that resulted in the June 15, 2023 order be   
   heard orally together with the appeal,   
   (2) the respondent's written representations in seeking the   
   June 15, 2023 order were virtually identical to the   
   respondent's memorandum in the appeal, and   
      
   JCT: Which means this judge made a decision with arguments   
   of only one side without the benefit of mine.   
      
   (3) that the motion that resulted in the June 15, 2023 order   
   should have been heard after this appeal is heard, not   
   before;   
      
   JCT: Doesn't it make sense? If the Panel overturn the first   
   decision, what do they do about his newest one?   
      
   WHEREAS by rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules, a motion   
   for reconsideration of an order may be brought only on the   
   grounds that   
   (1) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it,   
   (2) the court has in making the order overlooked or omitted   
   a matter that should have been dealt with, or   
      
   JCT: Overlooked my arguments...   
      
   J: (3) the order contains clerical mistakes or omissions;   
      
   JCT: Omitted my arguments which the Panel would have heard   
   before granting the Vexatious Litigant Order in the Court of   
   Appeal.   
      
   J: AND WHEREAS the appellant has failed to make out any of   
   these grounds,   
      
   JCT: I thought I had made them...   
      
   J: this Court was fully aware of the pending appeal when it   
   granted the June 15, 2023 order, and the appellant himself   
   bears responsibility for his decision not to file responding   
   representations on the motion that resulted in the June 15,   
   2023 order;   
      
   JCT: I bear responsibility for the Crown reneging on their   
   intent to have the motion heard by the panel hearing the   
   appeal so they could make Judge Laskin do all the work again   
   but without my input. The Crown reneged and I'm responsible   
   for not filing the same arguments again.   
      
   J: THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion is dismissed with costs   
   fixed at $1,000 all-inclusive.  J.B. Laskin J.A.   
      
   JCT: So Judge Laskin just couldn't figure out why it should   
   have been dealt with the panel hearing both sides when he   
   was asked to do it hearing only one side. And he knew about   
   the appeal so he knew my memorandum arguments were available   
   but chose to rule without them.   
      
   If the panel rules against me, won't it be neat appealing to   
   the Supreme Court also appealing this premature decision.   
      
   But yes, I had thought that the written motion would be   
   handled by the panel and should have filed my memorandum   
   arguments here too so he could have left it to the panel.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)