From: johnturmel@yahoo.com   
      
   TURMEL: Appeal Federal Court stalls to Supreme Court   
      
   JCT: Earlier this year, Federal Court Justice Phelan refused   
   to allow me to file a Motion for Summary Judgment because it   
   was a "simplified" action having forgotten he had himself   
   changed it to an ordinary action.   
   Then Federal Court of Appeal Justice Dawson refused to allow   
   me to file a Notice of Appeal because there were no appeals   
   against judgments of a procedural nature, having forgotten   
   she herself allowed the appeals of Ray Turmel and 5 others   
   of the procedural Crampton stay.   
      
   There's nothing I can do if the courts want to play around   
   with the law this way but get the story and my objection on   
   the record:   
                                          File Number:   
                  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA   
           (ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL)   
   BETWEEN:   
                          John Turmel   
                                                      Applicant   
                                            Appellant in appeal   
                      Her Majesty The Queen   
                                                     Respondent   
      
                 APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
                    JOHN TURMEL, APPLICANT   
         (Pursuant to Rule 25 of the Supreme Court Rules)   
      
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS   
      
   1. Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal..........1   
   2. Applicant's Certificate............................4   
   3. Jan 5 2015 Direction of Phelan J...................6   
   4. Feb 13 2015 Direction of Dawson J.A................7   
   5. Applicant's Memorandum.............................8   
      
            NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL   
      
   TAKE NOTICE that Applicant seeks an Order overturning the   
   Feb 13 2015 Direction of Federal Court of Appeal Madam   
   Justice Dawson ordering the Registry to not file my Notice   
   of Appeal of the Jan 5 2015 Direction of Phelan J. ordering   
   the Registry to not file my Motion for Summary Judgment.   
      
   THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL are that the Tajkin decision bars   
   appeals of a direction by a Prothonotary, not appeals of a   
   direction by a Judge.   
      
   Dated at Toronto on April 10 2015.   
   For the Applicant:   
   John C. Turmel, B.Eng.,   
      
                      APPLICANT'S MEMORANDUM   
                      JOHN TURMEL, APPLICANT   
      
   PART I - OVERVIEW   
      
   1. On Mar 7 2014, Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton   
   issued a Direction staying the Actions of several hundred   
   Plaintiffs pending the decision of Manson J. on the Mar 21   
   2014 motion in Allard et al v. HMTQ [T-2030-13].   
      
   2. The Federal Court of Appeal Registry refused to file my   
   Notice of Appeal of the Stay Direction on time stating only   
   Orders, not Directions, could be appealed.   
      
   3. I inserted the following paragraph into the Notice of   
   Appeal:   
       2. Federal Court Rule 53.(1) states:   
            Orders and Directions   
            Orders on terms   
            53. (1) In making an order under these Rules, the   
            Court may impose such conditions and give such   
            directions as it considers just.   
            Motion for directions   
            54. A person may at any time bring a motion for   
            directions concerning the procedure to be followed   
            under these Rules.   
       4. Rule 53.(1) does not say: "The Court may impose   
       directions," it says "in making an order, the court may   
       impose directions."   
      
   4. On Mar 17 2014, Ray Turmel and 5 more Appellants   
   submitted the amended Notice of Appeal with Rule 53 but the   
   Notices of Appeal against the Direction were sent for a   
   Direction.   
      
   5. On Mar 20 2014, Federal Court of Appeal Justice Dawson   
   issued the Direction:   
       The Registry is directed to file the six notices of   
       appeal.. [Ray Turmel A-152-14]   
      
   6. I then filed a motion [14-A-18] for an extension of time   
   to file my Notice of Appeal against Crampton J.'s Direction.   
      
   7. On Apr 1 2014, though the Crown argued the stay still   
   needed to be "lifted" after the Mar 21 2014 Manson ruling   
   before our Actions could proceed, Federal Court of Appeal   
   Justices Blais, Stratas and Scott ruled the stay was   
   automatically "lifted" after lapsing on Mar 21 2014 so   
   that appeals and motions for extension of time to appeal   
   against the expired Direction were now mooted and dismissed   
   without costs.   
      
   8. On Apr 16 2014, I wrote Federal Court of Appeal Chief   
   Justice Blais:   
       When I tried to file my Notice of Appeal against the Mar   
       7 Direction of Crampton C.J. staying my action, the   
       Registry refused stating Directions could not be   
       appealed.   
      
       Having examined the rules, I found a Direction may only   
       be given within an Order and calling it a Direction does   
       not preclude it being an appealable Order. I amended the   
       Notice of Appeal to so indicate and 6 other Notices of   
       Appeal were then accepted for filing. I then had to ask   
       for an extension of time to file the appeal I'd been   
       wrongly denied.   
      
       In the Crown's Written Representations, it says:   
       Para. 2: No appeal lies from a Direction.   
       Para 36: No appeal from Direction   
      
       To support that argument, the Crown cited:   
       1) Aga Khan v. Tajdin [2012];   
       2) Peak Innovations v. Simpson Strong [2011]   
      
       1) Aga Khan says the Direction of a Prothonotary is not   
       appealable to a Judge, not that the Direction of a Judge   
       is not appealable to 3 Judges.   
      
       2) Peak Innovations again says the Direction of a   
       Prothonotary is not appealable to a Judge, not that the   
       Direction of a Judge is not appealable to 3 Judges.   
      
       Finally, the Crown repeats the error a third time:   
       Para 61: Applicant cannot appeal a direction of the   
       Federal Court.   
      
       Despite the six Appeals being dismissed by three Judges   
       as mooted indicating the Court knows its own rules, the   
       Attorney General and Registry staff as yet do not.   
      
       Could you instruct the Attorney General and Registry   
       staff that a Direction by a Judge is appealable to three   
       Judges even if a Direction by a Prothonotary to one   
       Judge is not? A little refresher schooling seems called   
       for because this could recur at an instant's notice.   
       John C. Turmel   
      
   9. On Apr 29 hearing, upon my motion and Crown consent,   
   Justice Phelan changed my "Simplified Action" to an Action.   
   At page 42 of the transcript:   
       JUSTICE PHELAN: Okay. What is your next point?   
       MR. J. TURMEL: Okay. The Crown says that the simplified   
       action does bar us from doing certain things, and I   
       agree. And I just have a motion here to amend, which I   
       would like to bring up right now. When I originally came   
       in to file my Statement of Claim, it was perfect. But   
       Her Majesty the clerk said, "Under 50,000 bucks? That is   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)