JCT: http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40r8.pdf is the Memorandum of
the Crown to declare me a vexatious litigant and bar me from
helping people in the Federal Courts.
http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40m.pdf is my Memorandum in response.
Judge Fathergill granged the application:

Date: 20221109
Docket: T-962-22
Citation: 2022 FC 1526

Ottawa, Ontario, November 9, 2022
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Fothergill

BETWEEN:
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Applicant
and
JOHN C. TURMEL
Respondent
JUDGMENT AND REASONS

I. Overview


[1] The Attorney General of Canada [AGC] has brought an
application under s 40 of the Federal Courts Act, RSC 1985,
c F-7 for an Order declaring John C. Turmel to be a
vexatious litigant. The AGC asks that Mr. Turmel be
prohibited from instituting or continuing litigation in this
Court without leave, and proposes the imposition of
additional measures to regulate his conduct before this
Court. These measures include the payment of all outstanding
costs awards and a prohibition on providing assistance to
other litigants.

[2] As required by s 40(2) of the Federal Courts Act, the
AGC's delegate has consented to this application in writing.

[3] Mr. Turmel has instituted numerous meritless and
repetitive proceedings before this Court, the Federal Court
of Appeal, the Ontario Courts, and the Supreme Court of
Canada. He has 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, SOR/98-106 [Rules], and failed to pay costs orders.

JCT: I told him I admitted to refusing to follow only one
court order.

[4] Despite having no qualifications or apparent ability to
practise law, Mr. Turmel has developed litigation "kits"
comprising templates for court documents, and has recruited
others to "flood the courts" with these documents.

JCT: My lack of ability is the reason I won my own gaming
house charge in 1989 and won the stay of 4,000 marijuana
charges in 2003.

[5] Mr. Turmel responded to this application without the
benefit of legal advice or representation. He did not
challenge the evidence relied on by the AGC through
cross-examination, or adduce any evidence of his own. At the
hearing of the application, he continued to express contempt
for the judiciary, maintaining that any judge who disagrees
with him is simply wrong.

JCT: And explained why. Especially as I kept relitigating
when judge after judge said my getting zero free broadcast
time was "equitable, quantitatively and qualitatively." Kept
looking for a judge who wasn't simply wrong.

[6] Mr. Turmel does not object to the imposition of a leave
requirement before commencing further proceedings in this
Court. He says he is unlikely to develop further litigation
"kits" unless the government imposes new vaccination
mandates.

JCT: That's right. I pointed out that though hundreds of
aggrieved victims may have used my templates, there were
only 6 basic court templates:
1) 1980s: Anti-foreclosure Self-Defences in
2) 2000s: Anti-marijuana-prohibition self-defences
3) 2014: Return of possession permits prescribed by doctors
4) 2017: Damages for permit processing delays
5) 2018: Strike 150-gram maximum possession for high-dosers
6) 2021: declare restrictions unconstitutional for Covid
False Alarm;
So it is quite true that unless the Federal Government does
something dirty, I won't have to come back to Federal Court.

[7] For the reasons that follow, Mr. Turmel is declared to
be a vexatious litigant. He must pay all outstanding costs
awards issued by this Court, and obtain leave before
instituting or continuing any litigation in this Court. He
is also prohibited from aiding or abetting others to
initiate proceedings in this Court.

JCT: So let's say Trudeau decides on a new restriction
without my taking the clot shot, I'll have to ask for leave
and suspension of paying past costs since it's important
enough, and others will have to copy my claim by inputting
their own information but I won't be able to help them. And
I may be barred from filing if I don't GoFundMe enough to
pay my costs but it won't stop others from using my proposed
arguments in their own claims. And remember, my claims are
usually standalone! The Plaintiff or Defendant can ask if I
can speak for them but it the judge says no, they then say:
I have nothing more to say and stand on what is written in
my Memorandum.

II. Background

[8] According to the affidavit evidence submitted by the
AGC, Mr. Turmel has instituted at least 67 court proceedings
since 1980. This includes 20 claims and applications in this
Court, 13 appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal [FCA], 18
applications and appeals in the Ontario courts, and 17
applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada [SCC]. The proceedings have concerned a wide range of
legal issues, and have been almost entirely unsuccessful.

JCT: Like I pointed out,
- 1980s, lots of foreclosed people got to stall evictions
rent-free for months;
- 1988 my Blackjack loophole was accepted and I was
acquitted of keeping a common gaming house;
- 2003 Crown had to withdraw 4,000 pot charges and another
80 plus stays, withdrawals or sweet plea deals leaving no
criminal records;
- 2017 forced Health Canada to start permits when issued,
not 11 months earlier when the doctor signed;
- 2017 forced Health Canada to extend permits for which
renewals were filed avoiding hearing asking the court to
extend them.

So that's "almost entirely unsuccessful." I don't think
posterity will agree.

[9] Mr. Turmel's proceedings have been dismissed as failing
to disclose reasonable causes of action, as wholly
unsupported by evidence, as attempts to re-litigate matters
previously decided, or as otherwise frivolous and vexatious
and abuses of process.

JCT: Too bad the Crown couldn't provide nor could the court
cite even one example.

A. Proceedings Commenced by Mr. Turmel

[10] Mr. Turmel's numerous legal proceedings may be divided
into the following categories.

(1) Banking Proceedings

[11] In 1981, Mr. Turmel filed an unsuccessful application
in this Court for an order that the Bank of Canada cease and
desist the "genocidal practice of interest" (T-896-81). Both
the FCA (A-136-81) and the SCC (17314) dismissed Mr.
Turmel's attempts to appeal.

JCT: Think of how the world would have been different had
poverty been eliminated by restricting bank computers to a
pure service charge and the interest charge causing
financial failure abolished! Jesus said the Kingdom of
Heaven is like the KIngdom of Hell, the only difference was
that the Kingdom of Hell had a master who charged interest!
And the Court could have made Hell like Heaven but said no.
Bora Laskin must be having a hot time in Heaven with 40
million souls perishing every year he could have saved.
JCT: http://SmartestMan.Ca/1974 explain how Mr. Spock would
save us.

[12] In 1982, the County Court of Ontario allowed an action
by the Toronto Dominion Bank against Mr. Turmel, and granted
judgment in the amount of $2,813.19. After unsuccessfully
appealing to the Ontario Court of Appeal [ONCA], Mr. Turmel
also unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal to the SCC based
on the assertion that the interest charged by banks violates
natural, biblical or criminal laws (18329).


JCT: And then showed others how to stall their evictions by
arguing bank interest violates natural, biblical or criminal
laws!

(2) Elections Proceedings

[13] Mr. Turmel is a perennial candidate in municipal,
provincial and federal elections, and holds the Guinness
World Record for the most elections contested and lost. He
has commenced numerous court proceedings related to his
candidacy in these elections.

[14] Mr. Turmel has instituted 12 proceedings against the
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission
and several broadcasters concerning their allocation of free
political broadcast time or his exclusion from broadcast
debates. Of these proceedings, 11 were dismissed (T-5329-80,
T-2883-83, T-2884-83, T-1516-84, 300/84, T-798-85, T-799-85,
T1716-87, T-1717-87, A-451-07 and 09-A-19) and one was
stayed for non-payment of court costs (1827/90). Mr.
Turmel's appeals to the FCA were dismissed or abandoned (A-
912-80, A-13-84, A-955-84), and his applications for leave
to appeal to the SCC were dismissed (19099 and 33319).

JCT: I wonder if he missed that the Broadcast Act said free-
time had to shared "by all rival candidates on an equitable
basis quantitatively and qualitatively." Those judges won't
sound so righteous when you realise that said my getting no
time was still fair and democratic. Har har har har har har.
Guess he couldn't mention why I said the judges were wrong
and I kept relitigating looking for one would be right.

[15] In 2015, Mr. Turmel brought an action in this Court for
a declaration that the expense audit provisions of the
Canada Elections Act, SC 2000, c 9, infringed his right
under s 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
[Charter] to participate as a candidate in federal elections
(T-561-15). The action, an appeal to the FCA (A-202-16), and
an application for leave to appeal to the SCC (37646) were
all dismissed.

JCT: They hadn't changed the auditor fee refund since my
first election in 1979 when $250 was enough. 40 years later,
it wasn't. So I tried to strike the $250 cap and Judge
Phelan suggested I save $10 a month out of my pension so
I'd be able to afford my democratic right to run. After a
presentation to the Parliamentary Committee, the law was
changed so no auditor was needed for campaigns less than
$10K| So Parliament found it unfair enough to fix even after
the court had not.

(3) Gaming Proceedings

[16] Mr. Turmel has commenced multiple legal proceedings in
relation to Canada's gaming laws. In 1981, he unsuccessfully
applied to this Court for an Order compelling the Crown to
prosecute the retail chain Simpsons-Sears for selling
playing cards, which Mr. Turmel alleged were prohibited
gaming devices (T-3-81).

JCT: I've mentioned beating my gaming house charge in 1988
but they focused on my trying to charge Simpsons with
possessing gambling devices after I'd been charged with
possession of the gambling device, the deck of cards.

[17] In 1993, Mr. Turmel was criminally charged for keeping
a gaming house and subsequently convicted by the Ontario
Court of Justice (93-18193). His appeal to the ONCA (C21516)
and application for leave to appeal to the SCC (25610) were
both dismissed.

JCT: Yes, a judge changed the law to convict me, something
the courts are not allowed to do but there it is in the
Criminal Code, a judge changed the meaning of the word
"gain" to mean "win" without Parliament.

(4) Canadian Broadcasting Corporation Proceedings

[18] In 2010, Mr. Turmel brought two libel actions against
the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice [OSCJ] (CV-10-48 and CV-699-2010)
arising from his appearance on the television program
Dragon's Den. The actions, appeals to the ONCA (CFN 52849
and C53732), and an application for leave to appeal to the
SCC (34882) were all dismissed.

JCT: This was when Dragons Den made fun of me and I sued for
defamation for chopping my 15 minutes to one. My suit made
them give me the whole 15 minutes:
20110602 KingofthePaupers on Dragons Den for Brantford Bucks
10% Royalty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV0L2hyqAZc

(5) Cannabis Proceedings

[19] Mr. Turmel has brought or helped others to bring
numerous constitutional challenges to Canada's cannabis
laws. In 2001, Mr. Turmel was charged with contempt for
violating a publication ban issued by the Quebec Superior
Court (550-01003994).

JCT: The one and only time I disobeyed a court order...

Mr. Turmel also brought a motion for a declaration that the
marihuana prohibitions in the Controlled Drugs and
Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19 [CDSA], infringed s 7 of the
Charter, which was dismissed.

[20] In 2002 and 2003, Mr. Turmel brought two unsuccessful
applications in the OSCJ for Orders declaring that the
marihuana provisions of the CDSA were unconstitutional
(573/3003 and 133-2003). The applications, appeals to the
ONCA (C39740 and C39653), and an application for leave to
appeal to the SCC (30570) were all dismissed.

[21] In 2003, Mr. Turmel was charged with possession of
marihuana for the purposes of trafficking. In the course of
his prosecution, he brought three applications in the OSCJ
challenging the constitutionality of the CDSA marihuana
provisions. These applications, the appeals to the ONCA
(C40127, C44587, C44588) and applications for leave to
appeal to the SCC (32011 and 32012) were all dismissed. Mr.
Turmel was ultimately convicted, and all of his attempts to
appeal, together with related motions, were dismissed by the
ONCA (C45295, M45479, M45751) and the SCC (32013 and 37064).

22] Mr. Turmel frequently purports to provide legal
assistance to others charged with marihuana offences.
Between 2008 and 2014, at least four accused persons relied
on court materials or legal strategies developed by Mr.
Turmel to bring applications challenging the
constitutionality of the CDSA marihuana provisions. The OSCJ
dismissed each of these applications.

JCT: http://SmartestMan.Ca/wins has the other 80 wins

(6) COVID-19 Proceedings

[23] In January 2021, Mr. Turmel filed a claim in this Court
alleging that Canada's COVID19 public health measures
infringed the Charter (T-130-21). He asserted that COVID-19
was an "imaginary plague", and the resulting deaths were
greatly exaggerated by an "evil cabal" that includes the
World Health Organization. On July 21, 2021, Prothonotary
Mandy Aylen (as she then was) struck Mr. Turmel's claim
without leave to amend. Subsequent appeals of this decision
were dismissed by both this Court and the FCA (A-286-21).

JCT: She ruled that WHO compared the Covid CFR mortality to
the Flu IFR mortality to exaggerate the threat a hundredfold
wasn't a fact;
Wuhan finding zero asumptomatic transmission out of 10
million tested was not a fact.
CTV announcing only 166 deaths not in long-term-care in
Canada was not a fact.
CDC changed the death certificate guidelines from "dead from
covid" to "dead with covid" so accidents, suicides and
murders could count as Covid was not a fact;
PCR tests were set too sensitive was not a fact;
Lancet and NEJM published bogus anti-HCQ data and Bill Gates
Oxford test killed 32 times more patients than in france by
over-dosing the patients by 9.6 times was not a fact. So she
couldn't distinguish facts, not me.

[24] On February 16, 2022, Mr. Turmel filed a claim
challenging the constitutionality of Canada's vaccination
requirements for air travellers (T-277-22). This Court
struck the claim without leave to amend.

JCT: She struck my claim because I had sought a declaration
that any restriction due to a false alarm was
unconstitutional and she said I had to have an actual
restriction like maybe some of the other 75 plaintiffs she
had stayed might. So when the air travel ban was a
restriction was on me, I relitigated.

B. Mr. Turmel's Litigation Kits

[25] Since 2014, Mr. Turmel has prepared and distributed
litigation "kits" comprising templates for initiating legal
claims. These have been used by other litigants to file more
than 800 claims, nearly all of which 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. Several of these litigants
are subject to costs awards, many of which remain unpaid.

JCT: Decisions by judge who admit they cannot see are not to
be taken seriously.

[26] Mr. Turmel candidly admits that his litigation kits are
ineffective. According to the AGC:
In still other [social media] posts, Mr. Turmel
acknowledges that his kit proceedings lack merit, but
explains why he nevertheless brings them. In a 2014
post, he acknowledged that his challenge to the
Marihuana Medical Access Regulations had been rendered
moot by the repeal of those regulations, but explained
that he was proceeding with his challenge "to smear
[Health Canada] with their own dirt. These are
malevolent government gremlins and I'm about to really
light a fire under their asses."
In another post concerning the Turmel Kit 150-gram
claims, Mr. Turmel explained that "People ask me why I
keep fighting so many loser fights. It's because I love
ruining the careers of the judges and Crowns who get
added to the History Wall of MedPot shame." After this
court struck the Turmel Kit MMAR-MMPR claims, Mr. Turmel
similarly used social media to announce that he would
appeal, noting that "Sure, the chances are slim but I
enjoy exposing judicial failures to their bosses."

JCT: I don't just refile to show the judges wrong, I refile
to find a judge who is right.

[27] Mr. Turmel also admits that he encourages plaintiffs to
use his litigation kits to "flood the courts". According to
the AGC:
In social media posts, Mr. Turmel has described his
development and distribution of litigation kits as part
of an intentional strategy to overwhelm the courts and
the Crown. He invites plaintiffs to "clog up," "flood,"
"swamp," "semi-paralyze" or "ream out" the Federal Court
registry with a "tidal wave" or "avalanche" of claims or
requests for documents.
In a July 2016 post promoting the Turmel Kit [marihuana]
juice and oil claims, Mr. Turmel explained that "The
real winning power is once again what freaked out both
the Crown and the Registry last time, the volume." In a
December 2018 post concerning a proposed challenge to
the Criminal Code drug-impaired driving provisions, he
similarly explained that "There is only [one] way to
fight back and that's through mass action in the
courts."
In other posts, Mr. Turmel uses militaristic or violent
language to characterize his litigation strategy. He
describes himself as a "guerrilla lawyer" and invites
his kit users (whom he has described as an "army of
goldstars," in reference to the gold-coloured seal
placed on Federal Court claims) to "sap the defences" of
the court and Crown and file claims and "get in on the
kill."

JCT: I explained it was better to flood the court than to
flood Ottawa streets.

[28] Using Mr. Turmel's kits, litigants have filed or
attempted to file hundreds of substantially identical
proceedings challenging various aspects of Canada's medical
cannabis regulatory regime, including:

(a) 315 actions, including one by Mr. Turmel (T-488-
14), challenging the former Marihuana Medical Access
Regulations and Marihuana for Medical Purposes Regulations;
(b) 19 motions for extensions of time to appeal the
decision of this Court in Allard v Canada, 2014 FC 1260;
(c) nine actions, including one by Mr. Turmel (T-1932-
18), for declarations that the CDSA infringes s 7 of the
Charter by failing to provide access to cannabis juice and
oil for medical purposes;
(d) 393 actions challenging the processing time for
registration with Health Canada to produce cannabis for
personal medical use;
(e) 36 actions challenging the 150-gram public limit on
public possession and shipping of cannabis for medical
purposes;
(f) four actions challenging the requirement for annual
healthcare practitioner authorization to use cannabis for
medical purposes;
(g) one action challenging Health Canada's rejection of
a plaintiff's application for registration to produce
cannabis for personal medical use; and
(h) one action challenging the production site
requirements for producing cannabis for personal medical
use, and one action challenging criminal record
requirements.

JCT: And I have no doubt posterity will deem all the judges
in error.

[29] Of these roughly 770 proceedings, at least 657 were
struck or dismissed by the Federal Courts. The remainder
were discontinued, not accepted for filing, or remain
subject to outstanding requests by the AGC for dismissal.

JCT: I'm sure I mentioned the almost 80 hop-to-it permits
that were successfully obtained for the movers in time to
mooten their upcoming hearings.

[30] Mr. Turmel has also developed litigation kits to
challenge Canada's COVID-19 public health measures. Similar
to Mr. Turmel's claim in T-130-21, one kit instructs
plaintiffs to allege that Canada's COVID-19 mitigation
measures infringe the Charter. Based on this kit,
approximately 80 self-represented plaintiffs have filed
substantially identical claims in this Court. These were
stayed pending the outcome of Mr. Turmel's appeal of T-130-
21 to the FCA, which was dismissed on October 4, 2022
(Turmel v Canada, 2022 FCA 166).

JCT: So almost 80 plaintiffs against any restrictions.

[31] Similar to his claim in T-277-22, another one of Mr.
Turmel's kits instructs litigants to challenge the
constitutionality of Canada's vaccination requirements for
air travellers. This Court has struck eight substantially
identical claims based on this kit. C. Mr. Turmel's Comments
on Social Media

JCT: Only a dozen or so challenging the air travel ban.

[32] Mr. Turmel frequently uses social media to insult the
intelligence or integrity of judges who dismiss his
proceedings or those commenced by users of his litigation
kits. He calls judges "imbeciles", and alleges that those
who have dismissed his cannabis or COVID-19 kit claims have
"blood on their hands" or "deserve death row for what they
have done."

JCT: Paragraph 78 of my Memorandum says:
78. Applicant alleges I referred to judges as
"imbeciles." I had asked whom posterity will rule to be
the imbecile in the matter, (me or the judge?) I had
said one of us was, not that the judge was."

JCT: But yes the implication is that I don't think I'm the
imbecile leaving only...

[33] In January 2017, after this Court struck claims based
on one of his litigation kits, Mr. Turmel alleged in a
social media post that one of the plaintiffs had cancer and
was medically authorized to use cannabis, but the "Judge
said that's not enough. Wanted to see her X-rays, maybe give
her a feel for those tumors before Doubting Thomas would
believe."

JCT: Yes, Judge Phelan ruled that having a permit after your
doctor prescribe it wasn't enough proof of medical need for
him. He wanted to see their medical file, put his medical
education to work.

[34] In another instance, after the FCA stayed a proceeding
based on Mr. Turmel's litigation kit concerning the public
possession and shipping limit of medical cannabis, Mr.
Turmel observed: "I feel sad for what [the judge] has done
to punish 7,000 sick people. Because that's the number who
will benefit when we strike the cap. God'll get him."

JCT: Don't you feel bad to know a judge condemned so many
patients to virtually house arrest not letting them leave
home with more than 2 days worth of medication?

III. Issues

[35] This application raises the following issues:

A. Should Mr. Turmel be declared a vexatious litigant?
B. If so, what restrictions are appropriate?

IV. Analysis

A. Should Mr. Turmel be declared a vexatious litigant?

[36] Subsection 40(1) of the Federal Courts Act provides as
follows:
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.

[37] This provision empowers the Court to prevent one
litigant from squandering judicial resources through
duplicative proceedings and pointless litigation by
declaring them to be vexatious (Canada (Attorney General) v
Ubah, 2021 FC 1466 [Ubah] at para 24, citing Simon v Canada
(Attorney General), 2019 FCA 28 [Simon] at paras 15-16). As
Justice David Stratas explained in Simon, courts are
community property, not a private resource meant to advance
the interests of one (at paras 9-10):
Litigants have a right of access to this community
property and the Court's resources: Trial Lawyers
Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia
(Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59, [2014] 3 S.C.R. 31. For
most litigants, the usual regulatory measures in the
Rules suffice. For some, tougher regulatory measures are
needed: Fabrikant v. Canada, 2018 FCA 171; Fabrikant v.
Canada, 2018 FCA 206; Fabrikant v. Canada, 2018 FCA 224.
Further, in the cases of a select few, the nature and
quality of their behaviour, the actual or likely
recurrence of that behaviour in multiple proceedings,
and the harm they cause to other litigants and the Court
make a vexatious litigant declaration necessary: Olumide
at para. 24.

[38] While "vexatiousness" does not have a precise meaning,
its indicia may include: (a) instituting frivolous
proceedings;

JCT: I've yet to hear of one frivolous proceeding? Trying to
delay foreclosure, ha ha ha. Trying to legalize casinos, ha
ha ha. Trying to decriminalize cannabis, ha ha ha. Trying to
get 18,000 patients their medicine back, ha ha ha. Trying to
strike the 150 gram cap preventing hi-dosers from
travelling, ha ha ha. Trying to call off mandates for
vaccines for a false alarm, ha ha ha. So many frivolous
proceedings that I am not ashamed of.

(b) making scandalous or unsupported allegations against
opposing parties;

JCT: Sure, saying Bill Gates murdered his patients to
discredit HCQ to enable Emergency Use Authorization is
scandalous but supported by the data.

(c) re-litigating settled issues;

JCT: A judgment not not granting righteous relief needs to
be relitigated.

(d) unsuccessfully appealing decisions;

JCT: No law against appealing whether successful or not.

(e) ignoring court orders and rules; and

JCT: Once.

(f) refusing to pay outstanding cost awards (Olumide v
Canada, 2016 FC 1106 at para 10). Mr. Turmel exhibits all of
these indicia.

JCT: Not being able to pay rather than refusing. When I
could, I did. But I was examined about costs and they gave
up trying to collect.

[39] The courts have dismissed virtually all of the
proceedings brought by Mr. Turmel and his kit users.

JCT: No matter how righteous, giving us an idea how crooked
are the courts.

Common reasons for dismissal are that the claims failed to
disclose reasonable causes of action, were scandalous,
frivolous, vexatious or abuses of process, or were
unsupported by evidence.

JCT: Common reasons from judges who were wrong.

[40] Mr. Turmel and his kit users have frequently attempted
to re-litigate matters. For example, in Turmel v Canada,
2022 FC 732, this Court struck Mr. Turmel's constitutional
challenge to Canada's vaccination requirements for air
travellers because the matter had been decided in a previous
claim, and declared his second challenge to be an abuse of
process. The Court also expressed concern about the
boilerplate nature of the statement of claim (at paras 9,
11-12).

JCT: The first one was because there was no restriction to
challenge, and the second, with a restriction to challenge?

[41] Mr. Turmel and his kit users have often brought
identical motions for interlocutory relief, claiming that
the impugned legislative provisions violate their Charter
rights. These motions have all been dismissed, as have Mr.
Turmel's numerous appeals.

JCT: Most of those motions were only dismissed after Health
Canada granted the permits to mooten the motion hearings.
They weren't dismissed on the merits, but on the Respondent
satisfying the relief sought.

[42] In his social media posts, Mr. Turmel admits that he
has filed materials for others, that his litigation kits
lack merit, and that his goal is to "flood the registry"
with claims. He has frequently made disparaging remarks
about opposing parties and the courts.

JCT: Yes, I have taken the documentation of others and filed
it for them. Online and Live. There is no law preventing
someone from filing documentation for you live, why would
there be online?

[43] Mr. Turmel has failed to comply with court orders. He
has been charged with contempt for violating a publication
ban issued by the Quebec Superior Court, and he has
frequently shown disregard for court rules and timelines.

JCT: Once contempt citation is not failing to comply with
court orders. Plural does not apply to just one.

[44] Rule 119 of the Rules states that an individual may act
in person or be represented by a solicitor in a proceeding.
Mr. Turmel nevertheless purports to make legal submissions
on behalf of others, despite not being a solicitor and in
defiance of numerous admonitions from the courts not to
engage in this behaviour.

JCT: How can I purport to make legal representations for
others? Do I trick the courts into thinking I'm a lawyer?
No, I ask to be a McKenzie friend of the court to make it
easy and have often with success before lower courts, courts
of appeal, and even the Supreme Court of Canada once.

[45] Not only are Mr. Turmel's litigation kits ineffective;
they have also caused direct harm to the legal and financial
interests of those who have used them. In a post on social
media, Jeff Harris, one of Mr. Turmel's "lead plaintiffs",
wrote the following:
People put their faith in you to help and you never do.
you spout lies and nonsense but when the Crown does it-
you cry foul...way too funny. you think you're such a
big deal and so important. just because you're a loser??
i guess we should be aware of something like you
[.] too bad you didn't cover all the costs. I had to pay
some myself. you knew there was more to pay but you said
nothing to me after your cheques ran out. nice try
claiming you paid it all...another
LIE !
[sic throughout]

JCT: I did cover all the Jeff's costs up to when he refused
to continue filing the documentation I had filed for him.
His last proceeding was the Federal Court of Appeal with
costs of $2,500 which I paid off at $200 a month. So I paid
all his costs until he quit. Sad to have Judge Fothergill
think I owed more after my checks ran out. I covered it all
until he told me to he quit on me. But I had Igor Mozajko
whose Application for leave to appeal the same decision is
now ongoing at the Supreme Court of Canada #40395 Could
have been Jeff's case. I didn't mind him quitting with Igor
coming along.

[46] Mr. Turmel has paid just one of the many costs orders
issued against him, in the amount of $100. The remaining
accumulated sum of $18,453.04 remains unpaid. An additional
22 cost orders totalling $16,362.82 awarded against his kit
users remain unpaid. In social media posts, Mr. Turmel has
told kit users that "It's okay to skip out on costs" and
remarked, "I'd forgotten about all the times I stiffed them
on costs."

JCT: So my GoFundMe will need to raise $18,453 for me and
$16,392 for others. $34,845 is needed

[47] The test for vexatiousness is if "the litigant's
ungovernability or harmfulness to the court system and its
participants justify a leave-granting process for any new
proceedings" (Simon at para 18). Mr. Turmel is a vexatious
litigant. His conduct is both ungovernable and harmful, and
requires the imposition of restrictions on his conduct
before this Court.

JCT: Like I pointed out, I only initiated 5 different
actions in the past 8 years even if with many participating
victims. Tough to call that vexatious conduct.


[continued in next message]

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