TURMEL: Appeal Fothergill bar on Turmel in Federal Courts
JCT: On Nov 9 2022, Federal Court of Canada Justice
Fothergill granted the Crown's application to declare me a
vexatious litigant who should be restricted. Yesterday, Dec
9 2022 I filed my Notice of Appeal.
- Crown has 10 days to file a Notice of Appearance.
- Within 30 days, we must file an agreement as to contents
of the Appeal Book.
- In 30 days, file Appeal Book with grey cover
- In 30 days, file my Appellant's Memorandum
- In 30 days, Crown files Respondent's Memorandum
- In 20 days, file Requisition for hearing
- In 30 days, file Joint Book of Authorities burgundy cover
FCA No._________
FCC No: T-130-21
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
Between:
John Turmel
Appellant
Respondent
AND
Her Majesty The Queen
Respondent
Applicant
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Pursuant to Rule 337
TO THE RESPONDENT:
A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the
appellant. The relief claimed by the appellant appears on
the following page.
THIS APPEAL will be heard by the Court at a time and place
to be fixed by the Judicial Administrator. Unless the Court
directs otherwise, the place of hearing will be as requested
by the appellant. The appellant requests that this appeal be
heard at Toronto.
IF YOU WISH TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, to receive notice of any
step in the appeal or to be served with any documents in the
appeal, you or a solicitor acting for you must prepare a
notice of appearance in Form 341 prescribed by the Federal
Courts Rules and serve it on the appellants solicitor, or
where the appellant is self-represented, on the appellant,
WITHIN 10 DAYS of being served with this notice of appeal.
IF YOU INTEND TO SEEK A DIFFERENT DISPOSITION of the order
appealed from, you must serve and file a notice of cross-
appeal in Form 341 prescribed by the Federal Courts Rules
instead of serving and filing a notice of appearance.
Copies of the Federal Courts Rules information concerning
the local offices of the Court and other necessary
information may be obtained on request to the Administrator
of this Court at Ottawa (telephone 613-992-4238) or at any
local office.
IF YOU FAIL TO OPPOSE THIS APPEAL, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN IN
YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU.
Date: Dec 9 2922
Issued by:________________________________
(Registry Officer)
TO: Attorney General for Canada
Attn: Jon Bricker
APPEAL
1. THE APPELLANT APPEALS to the Federal Court of Appeal from
the Nov 9 2022 decision Federal Court Justice Fothergill who
wrote:
[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, and failed to pay costs
orders.
[4] Despite having no qualifications or apparent ability
to practice law, Mr. Turmel has developed litigation kits
comprising templates for court documents, and has recruited
others to "flood the courts" with these documents.
[5] Mr. Turmel.. continued to express contempt for the
judiciary, maintaining that any judge who disagrees with
him is 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.
[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.
II. Background
[8] According to the affidavit evidence submitted by the
AGC, Mr. Turmel has instituted at least 67 court
proceedings since 1980.... The proceedings have
concerned a wide range of legal issues, and have been
almost entirely unsuccessful.
[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.
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.
2. No judge accepted that foreclosing on farmers who fail to
pay back 11 when banks only printed 10 was a physical
impossibility resulting in genocide of the poor. And since I
use math to determine fairness, judges who determine
fairness by "trial and error" must be wrong to disagree.
3. The Court continued:
[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).
4. And then published an Anti-Foreclosure Stiff-The=Bank kit
showing others how to stall their evictions by arguing the same.
5. The Court continued:
(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..
6. No judge found that getting zero time violated the
Broadcast Act regulation that free broadcast time partisan
political debates must be shared by all rival candidates on
an "equitable basis quantitatively and qualitatively." In
2009, the Supreme Court of Canada in Turmel v. C.R.T.C.
struck that legislation so media may now exclude candidates
from partisan political debates.
7. The Court continued:
[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.
8. Elections Canada had not changed the auditor fee refund
since my first election in 1979 when $250 was enough. 40
years later, it did not cover the auditor's fee. 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 with expenses less than $10K| So
Parliament found it unfair enough to fix even after the
court had not.
9. The Court continued:
(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).
[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.
10. When the Crown would not charge me when I allowed anyone
to be the bank against me, they charged me with possession
of the gambling device, the deck of cards. So I tried to
charge Simpsons with possessing gambling devices to show the
injustice of making me the last person ever charged with
possession of a deck of cards.
11. The Court continued:
[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.
12. The judge changed the law to convict me contrary to the
Strict Interpretation of Criminal Statues, but there it is
in the Criminal Code, a judge changed the meaning of the
word "gain" to mean "win" without Parliament to convict me.
13. The Court continued:
(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.
14. When Dragons Den made fun of me after chopping my 15
minute presentation to 1 with me speaking for 15 seconds, I
sued for defamation and CBC had to give me the whole 15
minutes which I posted to show who made fun of whom:
20110602 KingofthePaupers on Dragons Den for Brantford Bucks
10% Royalty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV0L2hyqAZc
13. The Court continued:
(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).
14. Discovering Health Canada hid those who died while
awaiting their permits in the "dormant" file seemed
important enough to publish and try to stop. This is the
only time I ever ignored a court order.
15. The Court continued:
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).
16. My appeal resulted in the Crown staying the last 4,000
remaining possession charges. Now that the medical benefits
of marijuana are truly established, can trying to abolish
its prohibition be considered frivolous or meritless?
17. The Court continued:
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.
18.
http://SmartestMan.Ca/wins lists the other 80 wins where
charges were withdrawn or the accused were given sweet deals
to plead to lesser charge with no criminal records.
19. The Court continued:
(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).
20. The Court ruled that:
- WHO comparing the Covid CFR mortality to the Flu IFR
mortality to exaggerate the threat a hundredfold wasn't a
fact;
- Wuhan finding zero asymptomatic 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 changing the death certificate guidelines from "dead
from covid" to "dead with covid" so accidents, suicides and
murders, other co-morbidities count as Covid was not a fact;
- Setting PCR tests too sensitive was not a fact;
- Lancet and NEJM publishing bogus anti-HCQ data and Bill
Gates Oxford test killing 32 times more patients than in
france by over-dosing the patients with 9.6 times the France
dosage was not a fact. And the fact I had not personally
suffered any restriction on me while the other plaintiffs'
actions were stayed was reason to strike my claim to declare
any restrictions based on a false alarm unconstitutional.
21. The Court continued:
[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.
22. My claim had been struck because there was then no
restriction on me and now that there was a restriction on
me, this action has been deemed to be relitigation.
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.
[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.
24. (b) The Allard decision grand-fathered the grow permits
of all exemptees but not the possession permits. So half of
Canada's 36,000 medpot patients could no longer possess what
they could grow. The kit let them seek to have their permits
back because their doctor had prescribed cannabis and Health
Canada had authorized them. Proof of permit was deemed
insufficient when the court wanted to see their medical
files and their actions were dismissed.
25. The Court continued:
[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...
noting that "Sure, the chances are slim but I enjoy
exposing judicial failures to their bosses."
26. I have never said my kits lacked merit and slim chance
of finding a judge does not mean no chance. I don't refile
to show the judges who are wrong, I refile to find a judge
who will be right.
27. The Court continued:
[27] Mr. Turmel also admits that he encourages
plaintiffs to use his litigation kits to "flood the
courts".
28. I explain it is better to flood the Crown than to
flood Ottawa streets to get Ottawa's attention.
29. The Court continued:
[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."
30. 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."
31. The Court continued:
IV. Analysis
A. Should Mr. Turmel be declared a vexatious litigant?
[38] While "vexatiousness" does not have a precise
meaning, its indicia may include: (a) instituting
frivolous proceedings;
32. I have not yet heard of one frivolous proceeding. Trying
to delay foreclosure wasn't; trying to legalize casinos
wasn't; trying to decriminalize cannabis wasn't; trying to
get 18,000 patients their medical permits back wasn't;
trying to strike the 150 gram cap preventing hi-dosers from
leaving home wasn't; trying to call off mandates for
vaccines for a false alarm wasn't; not one frivolous
proceeding that I am not proud of initiating.
33. The Court continued:
(b) making scandalous or unsupported allegations against
opposing parties;
34. Saying Bill Gates murdered his patients to discredit HCQ
and enable Emergency Use Authorization may seem scandalous
but was supported by the data.
35. The Court continued:
(c) re-litigating settled issues;
36. Using the same facts to litigate the new air travel ban
on me was not relitigating the claim against any
restriction. The only issue I did relitigate was when judges
kept finding that my getting zero broadcast time was
equitable as I kept seeking a judge who would find not.
37. The Court continued:
(d) unsuccessfully appealing decisions;
38. There is no law against appealing whether successful or not.
39. The Court continued:
(e) ignoring court orders and rules; and
40. I only ever ignored a court order once. And how could I
get away with ignoring court rules?
41. The Court continued:
(f) refusing to pay outstanding cost awards (Olumide v
Canada, 2016 FC 1106 at para 10). Mr. Turmel exhibits
all of these indicia.
42. It's not being able to pay rather than refusing to pay.
When I could pay, I did pay. But I was examined about costs
and showed enough impecuniosity that they gave up trying to
collect.
43. The Court continued:
[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.
44. Most of those motions were only dismissed after Health
Canada hopped to it to grant the permits to mooten the
motion hearings. They weren't dismissed on the merits, but
on the Respondent satisfying the interim relief sought.
45. The Court continued:
[42] In his social media posts, Mr. Turmel admits that
he has filed materials for others,
46. I have filed the documentation of others for them,
online and live. There is no law preventing someone from
filing documentation for others live, why would there be for
others online?
47. The Court continued:
[43] Mr. Turmel has.. shown disregard for court rules
and timelines.
48. I have missed a few deadlines and needed extensions of
time mostly granted but after more than 40 years know better
than to disregard court rules.
49. The Court continued:
[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.
50. How can I purport to make legal representations for
others? I can't trick the courts into thinking I'm a lawyer.
I ask to be a McKenzie friend to make it easy for the court
and have often had success before lower courts, courts of
appeal, and even the Supreme Court of Canada once.
51. The Court continued:
[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]
52. I did cover all the Harris' costs up to when he refused
to continue filing the Supreme Court of Canada documentation
I had prepared for him. I paid $2,500 for his last
proceeding before the Federal Court of Appeal at $200 a
month. So I paid all his costs until he quit and refused to
file.
53. The Court continued:
[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."
54. Just tough talk from a pauper who can't afford to pay.
55. The Court continued:
[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.
56. I only initiated 5 different actions in the past 8 years
even if with many participating victims. None of the issues
was frivolous and none were vexatious. And given no further
such actions are foreseen unless Canada aggrieves me and
many more, there is no reason for any restrictions on my
access to the court.
Dated at Brantford on Dec 9 2022
__________________________________
For the Appellant/Respondent
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)