JCT: First, they filed a motion for an extension of time for
being 2 days late. No opposition.

B) JULY 4 RESPONSE LETTER

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Department of Justice Canada
Ontario Regional Office
120 Adelaide Street West Suite #400
Toronto, ON M5H 1T1

VIA EMAIL Our File Number: LEX-500081718
July 4, 2023

Federal Court
180 Queen Street West, Suite 200
Toronto, Ontario M5V 3L6
Dear Registry:

Re: Raymond Turmel v His Majesty the King, T-138-21 and
other files listed in Annex A

I am writing on behalf of the defendant in the above-noted
matters, Her Majesty the King ("Canada"), in response to the
Court's Order of June 19, 2023. I ask that you kindly place
this letter before the case-management judge, Associate
Justice Horne.

Canada requests costs of $500 in each of these matters. The
Plaintiffs' claims are based on a "kit" Statement of Claim
accessed from the website of John Turmel. The Federal Courts
have consistently dismissed these types of claims -
including a group of prior challenges to the very same
federal COVID-19 mitigation measures on the grounds that
facts pleaded concerning each plaintiff's personal
circumstances were insufficient to disclose a reasonable
cause of caution.1
1 In the matter of numerous filings, 2017 FC 30, paras 37-
38; Order of Zinn J., dated in August 17, 2018, in Hathaway
v HMQ (T-983-16); Order of Aalto, Proth., dated October 11,
2016 in several files including MacDonald v HMQ (T-1113-16);
Harris v HMQ, 2019 FCA 232, paras 6, 19-20, 23; Order of
Brown J, dated April 27, 2020, in several files including
McCluskey v HMQ (T-2126-18); Harris v HMQ, 2020 FCA 124,
paras 26, 30-38, 41-42, leave refused [2021] SCCA No 228.

Despite these decisions, the plaintiffs filed the present
claims which suffered from the same fundamental defects. A
cost consequence is reasonable in this circumstance given
that the plaintiffs embarked on litigation with Statements
of Claim they found online that they either knew, or should
have known, were deficient.

Canada notes that the "kit claims" on which the Plaintiff
relies appears to have been removed from the internet.
Nonetheless, an award of costs in these circumstances will
still serve as a deterrent to the filing of "kit claims"
generally in this or any future matters.

As this honourable Case Management Judge noted in his
Orders of July 27, 2022 and September 6, 2022, an award of
$500 would be "sufficient to recognize the improper,
vexatious and unnecessary nature of these actions (subrule
400(3)(k)(i)), the need for deterrence, and the absence of a
demonstrated good faith basis to file each of these
statements of claim.

It would also be consistent with those two orders, which
dealt with substantially similar kit claims. Sincerely,
James Schneider
c.c. All Plaintiffs, by email
Attachments
Order of July 27, 2022 (c19b Travel Ban)
Order of September 6, 2022 (Ray Turmel costs)

Order of July 27, 2022 (c19b Travel Ban)
PRESENT: Case Management Judge Trent Horne
http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19133.txt is my report on the
judgment.
Order of September 6, 2022 (Ray Turmel costs)
Dockets: T-740-22 (Ray Turmel)
T-837-22
T-841-22
PRESENT: Case Management Judge Trent Horne
ORDER
[1] These actions were dismissed by my judgment dated July
2, 2022 ("Judgment")....
THIS COURT ORDERS that:
1. The plaintiffs in Court file nos T-693-22, T-694-22, T-
695-22, T-705-22, T-710-22, T- 827-22, T-828-22, T-929-22
shall each pay costs to the defendant, fixed at $500.00,
payable forthwith.

JCT: Have you noticed the Crown misplay. Can't mention it
now or they might correct it.

Since I was declared a Vexatious Litigant, I can't help
anyone any more. So they've taken away your McKenzie Friend.
In Federal Court. I can still help challenge bad laws in
provincial courts.

I helped Ray do his motion to Judge Horne which he won't
complete and the Crown complained I was helping despite the
Vexatious Litigant Order. It is being appealed and I hope it
is stayed pending appeal without my having to ask. Used to
be how it was sometimes done. Used automatic appeals
fighting foreclosures in the 1980s. Upon appeal, the
foreclosure was stayed and the family stayed in the home.
Then the court changed their rules with no more automatics
and having to ask for stay. Really slowed down the Anti-
Foreclosure Stiff-the-Bank kits.

Of course. any plaintiff can submit a letter.All they have
to do is follow the same instructions to efile their letter
and Affidavit of Email Service they followed before if they
don't remember them. Here's how I do it.

I email a copy my document (Letter, Motion, Reply, Etc.)
to the Respondent.

Then I use the Affidavitof Service template on the
http://SmartestMan.Ca/kits intro page.

http://SmartestMan.Ca/efiling.pdf instructions to efile at

https://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/pages/online-access/e-filing

Click on already started proceeding, not initiate new one,
then follow the instructions at the
http://SmartestMan.Ca/efiling.pdf page.
Add document "Letter" instead of Statement of Claim
Follow their instructions to finish.

So if someone wants to say the costs sought aren't
warranted. It's doable and won't cost you anything.

If they do nothing, then they await his decision.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)