From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
    TURMEL: Crown opposes more time for 26 MedPot Appeals   
      
   JCT: I screwed up and missed a deadline so I had to file a   
   motion for "an Order extending the time to file the Agreement   
   to the Contents of the Appeal Book." This is the proposed   
   Appeal Book for the 26 consolidated appeals! So I had to ask   
   for an extension of time!! My Affidavit could only plead: "I   
   have no excuse for being late other than having been   
   overwhelmed by the consolidation and two by-elections in the   
   past few months."   
      
   The Crown, forgetting they are the main beneficiaries of the   
   consolidation, opposed the extension of time!!! Here's their   
   Response and then my Reply filed yesterday.   
      
   Department of Justice   
   3400-130 King  St. W. Toronto   
      
   March 17 2015   
      
   Federal Court of Appeal   
   Federal Court Registries   
      
   Dear Sir/Madam:   
      
   RE: John C. Turmel v. HMTQ A-342-14   
      
   CR: On behalf of HMTQ, I am writing to request that the   
   Appellant's motion for an extension of time to file an   
   appeal Book agreement be dismissed. Canada submits that the   
   Appellant has not adequately explained his delay, and that   
   the underlying consolidated appeals are so lacking in merit   
   that there would be no useful purpose served by allowing   
   them to proceed.   
      
   A. Background   
      
   Since Feb 2014, more than 270 self-represented plaintiffs   
   have filed virtually identical claims in the Federal Court.   
   The claims, which are based on templates downloaded fro the   
   website of the Appellant, seek declarations that Canada's   
   new medical marihuana regulatory regime is unconstitutional.   
      
   JCT: And the MMAR too. We're not against MMAR repeal, we're   
   for it.   
      
   CR: By order dated May 7 2014, the case-management judge,   
   Mr. Justice Phelan, granted a motion by Canada to stay the   
   "Turmel Kit" actions pending final disposition of another   
   action raising substantially similar issues, Allard et al v.   
   HMTQ T-2030-14 (the May 7 Order").   
      
   JCT: Actually T-2030-13, not 14.   
      
   CR: By further order dated June 4 2014, Phelan J. dismissed   
   motions by several plaintiffs for "interim constitutional   
   exemptions" from the CDSA pending trial of their actions   
   (the "June 4 Order").   
      
   The June 4 Order also confirmed the earlier stay of the   
   Turmel Kit actions. By amended Order dated July 9 2014, the   
   Court clarified that this stay would remain in place until   
   all appeals from the Allard trial decision had been   
   exhausted.   
      
   The Appellant now appeals the July 9 Amended Order. The   
   Notice of Appeal takes no issue with the July 9 amendment   
   but alleges that the court below erred in its earlier   
   decisions to temporarily stay the Turmel Kit actions and   
   dismiss the plaintiffs' motions for interim relief.   
      
   By order dated Dec 12 2014, this Court (Boivin J.A.)   
   consolidated the present appeal with 25 other appeals from   
   the June 4 and July 9 orders and designated the Appellant as   
   lead appellant for the purposes of consolidation. The order   
   also required that an "agreement as to the content of the   
   consolidated Appeal Book shall be filed on or before Jan 29   
   2015." The Appellant now brings the present motion to extend   
   this deadline.   
      
   B. An extension is not in the "interests of justice"   
      
   The factors relevant to a motion to extend time are well   
   known. They include (1)_ whether the Appellant has   
   demonstrated a continuing intention to pursue the appeal,   
   (b) whether there is potential merit to the appeal, (c)   
   whether prejudice arises from the delay, and (d) whether the   
   moving party has a reasonable explanation for the delay.   
   However, no single factor is determinative, and the over-   
   arching consideration is whether the proposed extension is   
   in the "interests of justice." \   
      
   No continuing intention or reasonable explanation for delay   
      
   The Appellant has not demonstrated a continuing intention to   
   pursue his appeal. Counsel for Canada has written to the   
   Appellant three times (on Jan 5, Jan 29, Feb 18 2015)   
   concerning the Appeal Book contents. Although ordinarily the   
   responsibility of the Appellant, counsel for Canada also   
   prepared a draft Appeal Book agreement and offered to file   
   it on behalf of the parties. In written submissions, the   
   Appellant notes that he received this correspondence but   
   candidly acknowledges that it "fell onto a pile that didn't   
   get dealt with on time."   
      
   In a supporting affidavit, the Appellant further   
   acknowledges that he has "no excuse for being late other   
   than having been overwhelmed by the consolidation and two   
   byelections in the past few months. Canada submits that this   
   is an inadequate excuse for delay. Although self-   
   represented, the Appellant has extensive experience in the   
   Federal Courts, having been the plaintiff, applicant or   
   appellant in at least 25 separate proceedings, according to   
   the online Federal Courts docket.   
      
   JCT: I wonder if it goes back to 1980?   
      
   CR: Given his vast experience, the suggestion that he was   
   overwhelmed by consolidation is simply not credible. As to   
   his submission that he was occupied by two byelections,   
   Canada notes that the Nov 2014 federal byelection in Whitby-   
   Oshawa) pre-dates the consolidation of these appeals.   
      
   JCT: Darn, forgot to mention how I had to apply for an   
   extension of time to file my Return and got it because my   
   auditor retired in the middle of it and we got out signals   
   crossed. So I'm now still looking for another auditor within   
   the next 30 days!!! Imagine, still having headaches with   
   that election that pre-dated all this.   
      
   CR: In any event, the Appellant's decision to run for office   
   does not excuse his failure to comply with a Court-imposed   
   deadline.   
      
   Nor is this the first deadline missed by the Appellant. In   
   March 2014, the Appellant filed an unsuccessful motion for   
   an extension of time to appeal a prior direction staying his   
   action in Federal Court. During the time period relevant to   
   this motion, the Appellant has also orchestrated the filing   
   of motions by 11 other individuals for extensions of time to   
   appeal an interlocutory order of the case-management judge   
   in Allard. Canada submits that these motions demonstrate a   
   pattern of disregard for Court deadlines which should not be   
   tolerated.   
      
   The consolidated appeals lack merit   
      
   The Appellant has not appealed either the May 7 order   
   staying his action or the Jun 4 Order dismissing his motion   
   for interim relief. He now attempts to appeal those orders   
   indirectly by appealing from the July 9 Amended Order.   
   Canada submits that this is an improper use of the appeal   
   procedure. In any event, Canada submits that the appeal is   
   moot as the prior interlocutory orders will remain in effect   
   regardless of the outcomes.   
      
   JCT: We want them expanded, not knocked down.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)