• TURMEL: Appeal of Vexatious Litigant Label Denied

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@21:1/5 to All on Wed Oct 4 19:19:44 2023
    TURMEL: Appeal of Vexatious Litigant Label Denied

    JCT: The arguments why I'm not a vexatious litigant are in
    my Appeal Memorandum at: http://SmartestMan.Ca/s4008.txt

    The appeal was heard on Sep 26 2023 at Toronto. This is the
    S.40 from the Federal Court Act:
    Vexatious proceedings
    40 (1) If the Federal Court of Appeal or the Federal
    Court is satisfied, on application, that a person has
    persistently instituted vexatious proceedings or has
    conducted a proceeding in a vexatious manner, it may
    order that no further proceedings be instituted by the
    person in that court or that a proceeding previously
    instituted by the person in that court not be continued,
    except by leave of that court.

    JCT: So "no further proceedings be instituted by the person
    in that court" should mean others may.

    (2) An application under subsection (1) may be made only
    with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada, who
    is entitled to be heard on the application and on any
    application made under subsection (3).

    Application for rescission or leave to proceed
    (3) A person against whom a court has made an order
    under subsection (1) may apply to the court for
    rescission of the order or for leave to institute or
    continue a proceeding.
    Court may grant leave

    JCT: Rescission: revocation, cancellation of a law, order..
    So I can ask to have the order struck down next time I have
    to do a fight in Federal Court. If no, then seek leave to
    appeal.

    (4) If an application is made to a court under
    subsection (3) for leave to institute or continue a
    proceeding, the court may grant leave if it is satisfied
    that the proceeding is not an abuse of process and that
    there are reasonable grounds for the proceeding.
    No appeal
    (5) A decision of the court under subsection (4) is
    final and is not subject to appeal.

    JCT: Fine. All my issues were of national importance and any
    new one will have to be proven an abuse of process without
    reasonable grounds for proceeding. One at a time, all my
    issues were reasonable. All together, they may conclude like
    this decision:

    Date: 20230928
    Docket: A-265-22
    Citation: 2023 FCA 197

    CORAM: DE MONTIGNY J.A.
    LEBLANC J.A.
    GOYETTE J.A.

    BETWEEN:
    JOHN TURMEL
    Appellant
    and
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
    Respondent

    Heard at Toronto, Ontario, on September 26, 2023.
    Judgment delivered at Toronto, Ontario, on September 28,
    2023.

    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BY: LEBLANC J.A.
    CONCURRED IN BY: DE MONTIGNY J.A.
    GOYETTE J.A.

    REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

    LEBLANC, J.A.

    J: [1] This is an appeal of a decision of the Federal Court,
    per Fothergill J. (the Application Judge), made pursuant to
    section 40 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-7
    (the Act). In his decision (the Decision), the Application
    Judge declared the appellant to be a vexatious litigant and,
    as contemplated by paragraph 40(1) of the Act, prohibited
    the appellant from instituting new proceedings in that
    Court, or continuing previously instituted proceedings,
    except with leave of the Court. The Application Judge also
    saw fit to impose on the appellant additional measures to
    regulate his conduct before the Federal Court, such as
    requiring that any application for leave the appellant may
    bring to institute or continue a proceeding demonstrate that
    all outstanding costs awards made against him in the Federal
    Court have been paid in full, or prohibiting the appellant
    from aiding or abetting others to initiate proceedings
    before that Court.

    JCT: The exact order of Fothergill is:
    5. Mr. Turmel is prohibited from assisting others with
    any proceedings before this Court, including by filing
    materials, or purporting to represent them, or
    communicating with the Court on their behalf.

    JCT: So it's not just to initiate proceedings but to assist
    others at all. I'd bet that's never been done.

    J: [2] As pointed out by the Application Judge, the concept
    of vexatiousness within the context of section 40 of the Act
    does not have a precise meaning but as this Court stated,
    "it is best not to be precise" (Canada v. Olumide, 2017 FCA
    42, at para. 32 (Olumide)). However, there is ample
    jurisprudential guidance - or hallmarks - as to what this
    concept entails. These "hallmarks", which come in "many
    shapes and sizes", include the following:
    a) being admonished by various courts for engaging in
    vexatious and abusive behaviour;
    b) instituting frivolous proceedings (including motions,
    applications, actions and appeals);
    c) making scandalous and unsupported allegations against
    opposing parties of the Court;
    d) re-litigating issues which have already been decided
    against the vexatious litigant;
    e) bringing unsuccessful appeals of interlocutory and
    final decisions as a matter of course;
    f) ignoring court orders and court rules; and
    g) refusing to pay outstanding costs awards against the
    vexatious litigant.
    (Olumide v. Canada, 2016 FC 1106 at paras. 9-10, cited
    in Olumide, at para. 34)

    [3] Here, the Application Judge was satisfied that the
    appellant has exhibited all these hallmarks (Decision at
    para.38).

    JCT: All the hallmarks!

    J: More particularly, he noted that the appellant "has
    instituted numerous meritless and repetitive proceedings
    before [the Federal Court], the Federal Court of Appeal, the
    Ontario Courts, and the Supreme Court of Canada", "brought
    proceedings for improper purposes, frequently sought to re-
    litigate matters decided previously, made scandalous
    allegations against members of the courts and other parties,
    refused to follow the Federal Courts Rules, and failed to
    pay costs orders" (Decision at paras. 3, 5) [reference
    omitted].

    JCT: I asked them: Who believes the Court would let someone
    refuse to follow the rules?

    J: [4] The Application Judge further noted that the
    appellant has instituted, since 1980, at least 67 court
    proceedings,

    JCT: 1.6 court proceedings a year. Ouch. How overwhelming!

    J; that he did so on a wide range of issues (banking,
    elections, gaming, libel, cannabis and COVID-19),

    JCT: Any one feel like laughing at the frivolity of
    (banking, elections, gaming, libel, cannabis and COVID-19)?

    J: and that virtually all of them "have been dismissed as
    failing to disclose reasonable causes of action,

    JCT: No cause of action is a standard judicial cop out. From
    Google:
    Cause of action is the legal claim [a claim that
    sometimes goes unstated] that allows a party to seek
    judicial relief. [1] This gives the legal right to seek
    a remedy because of the act or omission, failure to
    perform duty, or breach of obligation of the defendant
    towards the plaintiff.

    JCT: I like to call it Cause of Anger. How I was harmed. So
    no cause of anger about:
    - usury taking from the poor to give to the rich;
    - zero free-time in quantitatively equitable political
    broadcasts;
    - being busted for playing Blackjack and Poker;
    - being libelled by low-tech Dragons Den losers;
    - being prohibited from using the best natural medication;
    - being tricked into lockdowns and vax to get out.

    None of these are to get angry about. No cause of anger. No
    cause of action. They did say: we can't be judging past
    decisions that ruled all these issues were not reasonable
    causes of action.

    J: as wholly unsupported by evidence,

    JCT: To judges with their eyes closed.

    J: as attempts to relitigate matters previously decided,

    JCT: Only trying to find a judge who doesn't think getting
    zero time is quantitatively equitable and fair.

    J: or as otherwise frivolous and vexatious and abuses of
    process" (Decision at paras. 8-9).

    JCT: Anyone find those life-and-death topics frivolous like
    the judges did? Especially with 40 million dead poor people
    over the past 40 years, the thousands who suffered without
    herbal medication; only millions suffering adverse effects
    and death from the lockdowns and not safe and effective vax!
    Let's all laugh over the corpses with the judges who ruled
    trying to stop it frivolous and vexations and an abuse of
    process!

    J: [5] The Application Judge also pointed to the fact that
    since 2014, the appellant has prepared and distributed
    "litigation kits" comprising templates for initiating legal
    claims,

    JCT: I was using "litigation kits" helping people fight
    their bank foreclosures in the 1980s, and helping people
    defend their marijuana charges since 2000.

    J: that these kits were used by other litigants to file
    roughly 770 substantially identical claims challenging
    various aspects of Canada's medical cannabis regulatory
    regime, that the appellant encouraged the use of his
    litigation kits to "flood the courts",

    JCT: Judge Manson cancelled the medication to 18,000
    patients and showing them how to ask to get them back means
    the court should have been flooded with 18,000 plaintiffs,
    not just 400.

    J: and that nearly all of them "have been dismissed or are
    in the process of being dismissed as failing to disclose
    reasonable causes of action, or as otherwise frivolous,
    vexatious or abuses of process" (Decision at paras. 25-28).

    JCT: Boy, won't those judges going to have a hot time
    running into their victims in the afterlife? Har har har.
    Imagine if every soul ends up in the same place?

    J:L [6] Finally, it is important to underscore that the
    appellant has neither challenged the evidence relied on by
    the respondent in his application under section 40 of the
    Act, nor adduced any evidence of his own (Decision at para.
    5).

    JCT: It seems pretty obvious that most issues I raised were
    of life-and-death national import. Sad the judges were busy
    laughing!

    J: [7] It is trite that decisions made on motions brought
    under section 40 of the Act are discretionary in nature
    (Feeney v. Canada, 2022 FCA 190, at para. 4 (Feeney);
    Olumide at para. 23). Therefore, in order to intervene in
    such matters, this Court must be satisfied that the Federal
    Court erred on a question of law or committed a palpable and
    overriding error on a question of fact or of mixed fact and
    law (Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 23;
    Hospira Healthcare Corporation v. Kennedy Institute of
    Rheumatology, 2016 FCA 215). The palpable and overriding
    error standard is a highly deferential one; the Court will
    only interfere with a decision under appeal where an error
    is obvious and affected the outcome of the case (Benhaim v.
    St-Germain, 2016 SCC 48, [2016] 2 S.C.R. 352 at para. 38;
    H.L. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2005 SCC 25, [2005] 1
    S.C.R. 401 at paras. 55-56, 69-70; Contact Lens King Inc. c.
    Canada, 2022 CAF 154 at paras. 76, 84).

    JCT: Legalese for why it was right to declare me a vexatious
    litigant for making the judge laugh at my frivolity.

    J: [8] Before this Court, both in his written submissions
    and at the hearing, the appellant has attempted to show that
    the court proceedings he has brought so far have merits and
    are neither vexatious nor frivolous and that it was
    therefore an error on the part of the Application Judge to
    conclude otherwise.

    JCT: Bingo. That's my Wild Card.

    J: [9] However, this approach is fundamentally flawed. As
    indicated to the appellant at the hearing of this appeal,
    and as pointed out by the respondent in its written
    submissions, we are well past the stage where the court
    decisions in the appellant's prior cases can be questioned.

    JCT: Get that? They can't question the judges who found
    putting farmers out of work in a world that's starving
    frivolous, judges who found zero time a quantitatively
    equitable share; judges who found marijuana could not
    prevent illnesses it was good for once you got them; judges
    who didn't think warning the world Covid was a false alarm
    needing no lockdowns or vax mandates was serious. Judges who
    screw up can't be questioned.

    Actually, that's not true. A judge can always do justice and
    then take the heat if it contradicts and judge who was
    wrong.

    J: Put another way, it was not open to the Application Judge
    - and it is even less open to this Court- to embark in some
    sort of review as to whether these decisions were right or
    wrong. The proper course for the appellant to challenge
    those decisions was to appeal them, something he has done in
    many instances, albeit unsuccessfully.

    JCT: So no help when millions of corpses are too frivolous
    for appellate courts to hear the appeal.

    J: [10] These decisions were therefore part of the factual
    matrix upon which the respondent's application under section
    40 of the Act needed to be determined. The Application Judge
    considered that factual matrix in light of the
    jurisprudential guidelines developed in vexatious litigants'
    misbehaviour matters and I see no error on his part-be it on
    the law or on the application of the law to the facts,
    which, as indicated above, is only fatal in presence of a
    palpable and overriding error-that would justify this
    Court's intervention.

    JCT: Nothing they can do because previous courts found all
    the corpses funny.

    J: [11] The appellant insisted at the hearing that he had
    good intentions in bringing all these claims. However, this,
    in and of itself, is no bar to the application of section 40
    of the Act if a party "litigate(s) in a way that implicates
    section 40's purposes" (Olumide at para.33; Feeney at para.
    25). This is what the Application Judge found to be the case
    here, and once again, I see no basis upon which to interfere
    with his findings.

    JCT: Failed to see...

    J: [12] Respecting the additional measures imposed on the
    appellant, the Application Judge correctly pointed out that
    the Federal Court has "plenary jurisdiction to impose
    additional requirements as may be necessary to prevent
    abuses of process" and that some litigants may require
    different measures and restrictions, including safeguards to
    "discourage them from finding other ways to continue their
    vexatious conduct" (Decision at paras. 49-50).

    JCT: But prove the vexatious conduct first.

    J: [13] There is again ample evidence on record supporting
    the Application Judge's conclusion that additional
    restrictions were appropriate in the case at bar, be it the
    number of meritless claims advanced by the appellant, his
    tendency to re-litigate these matters, his failure to pay
    costs orders, his recruitment of others to "flood the
    courts" with his "litigation kits", or his derogatory
    statements on members of the judiciary on social media.

    JCT: It does depend if the previous judges were wrong.

    J: [14] It is useful at this point, in order to put the
    Decision in its proper perspective, to remind what this
    Court said, in Olumide, about what section 40 of the Act
    strives to achieve:
    [17] Section 40 reflects the fact that the Federal
    Courts are community property that exists to serve
    everyone, not a private resource that can commandeered
    in damaging ways to advance the interests of one.
    [18] As community property, courts allow unrestricted
    access by default: anyone with standing can start a
    proceeding. But those who misuse unrestricted access in
    a damaging way must be restrained. In this way, courts
    are no different from other community properties like
    public parks, libraries, community halls and museums.
    [19] The Federal Courts have finite resources that
    cannot be squandered. Every moment devoted to a
    vexatious litigant is a moment unavailable to a
    deserving litigant. The unrestricted access to courts by
    those whose access should be restricted affects the
    access of others who need and deserve it. Inaction on
    the former damages the latter.

    JCT: What about every moment devoted to hundreds of
    litigants?

    J: [15] Finally, I note that the Application Judge declined
    to impose a further restriction on the appellant by
    extending his order, as sought by the respondent, to
    proceedings in this Court as he was left with some doubt
    whether he had that authority. Having said that, the
    Application Judge suggested that in the event of an appeal
    of the Decision, this Court "may wish to provide further
    guidance on this jurisdictional question" (Decision at
    para.54). As the appellant has since been declared a
    vexatious litigant in this Court by order dated June 15,
    2023 (reported at 2023 FCA 140), I am of the view that we
    should forgo that invitation because this is no longer a
    live issue in this case.

    [16] On a purely procedural standpoint, the appellant has
    incorrectly named the respondent in this appeal as "Her
    Majesty the Queen". He should have named the respondent as
    the Attorney General of Canada, who was the applicant in the
    Federal Court proceeding that led to the Decision. The style
    of cause in this appeal should therefore be amended
    accordingly.

    [17] I would therefore dismiss the appeal, with costs to the
    respondent in a fixed amount of $750.00, disbursements
    included.

    JCT: Crown asked for $1,800 in costs. So a thousand cheaper
    is an interesting result.

    "Rene LeBlanc" J.A.
    "I agree
    Yves de Montigny J.A."
    "I agree
    Nathalie Goyette J.A."

    APPEARANCES:
    John C. Turmel FOR THE APPELLANT
    (ON HIS OWN BEHALF)
    Jon Bricker
    Addison Leigh
    FOR THE RESPONDENT
    SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
    Shalene Curtis-Micallef
    Deputy Attorney General of Canada
    FOR THE RESPONDENT

    JCT: So I'll appeal to the Supreme Court which has little
    chance. Remember, they chose not to warn Canadians that
    Covid was a false alarm needing no vax and the vax is still
    being pushed.

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