TURMEL: Turmel Reply to Reconsider FCA Vexatious Litigant Motion


http://SmartestMan.Ca/s40rnr.pdf

No: A-265-22

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

Between:
John Turmel
Applicant
Appellant

AND

His Majesty The King
Respondent

APPLICANT'S WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS
IN REPLY ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

1. This Court must have been surprised to learn in my Motion
for Reconsideration that Canada had written in the February
28 2023 letter of Jon Bricker:

Canada advised of its intention to bring a motion for an
order declaring the appellant a vexatious litigant in
the Federal Court of Appeal (the "Motion")..
Specifically, Canada intends to seek directions or
orders:
4. That the Motion be heard orally, together with the
underlying appeal; and

2. The Written Representations in the Motion to declare the
Appellant a "Vexatious Litigant" are virtually identical to
its Aug 11 2022 Federal Court Memorandum whose issues are
being appealed and in my Mar 29 2023 Appeal Memorandum.


3. In the Motion Written Representations, Canada says:

17. Mr. Turmel now explains that he did not respond to
Canada's motion because he was under the mistaken belief
that it would be heard orally together with his appeal.
However, it is unclear on the facts how Mr. Turmel could
have arrived at this belief given the March 6 Direction
and the clear indicators in Canada's motion record that
the motion was brought in writing. In any event, even if
Mr. Turmel was under this mistaken belief, Rule 397 is
available only to correct errors by the Court, and not
errors by a party.

4. My arriving at the belief that the motion would be heard
orally with the appeal was not unclear given Canada's Feb 28
2023 letter and para.6 herein which says:

6. Canada sent a further letter to this Court on
February 28, 2023. This letter... advised of Canada's
intention to seek a direction or order in case
management that its motion be heard orally, together
with the appeal.

5. Canada mentions how the appeal is ready for hearing but
did not mention that it had told the Court the motion was
intended to be argued orally before the Court of Appeal
panel, not in writing before 1 judge. Canada reneged on the
intent it had indicated to the Court to have its motion
heard orally by switching to motion in writing under Rule
369.

6. Is there any reason the Court of Appeal panel could not
have dealt with the Motion in writing after the appeal? This
Court acting on the Motion for a "Vexatious Litigant"
declaration before the appeal of the Federal Court
'Vexatious Litigant" Order did not have the benefit of my
response on the appeal. And since my opposing arguments were
in the Appeal Memorandum, shouldn't that have been the venue
with judges apprised of both sides of the issues?

7. So this Court was faced with a motion in writing without
being informed we had been told it was going to be argued
orally before the appeal panel. Omitting to inform that the
Court expected the motion to be argued orally misled this
Court into duplicating the work of the panel with only one
side of the arguments.

8. Canada says reconsideration should only be entertained if
some important matter had been overlooked. This Court did
not have the benefit of both sides of the arguments. The
opposition arguments from my Appeal Memorandum on the same
issues were overlooked herein.

9. Canada says the Court may grant the motion while the
appeal is pending but this could influence the appeal panel.
What if the Appeal Court should find that the litigations
brought had some merit and sets aside the Declaration from
below. What do do about the premature Declaration herein?
Would the panel have to say this Court didn't have the
benefit of my opposing arguments?

10. Respondent erred in presenting the Motion to extend the
Federal "Vexatious Litigant" Order now under appeal to 1
judge before it could be sustained by the Court of Appeal
because it now prejudices the appeal.

Dated at Brantford on Jul 10 2023
For the Appellant/Respondent
John C. Turmel, B. Eng.,

JCT: "How Turmel could have come to believe" what he had
told the Court! Har har har har har har. He did sucker the
judge into doing the work a second time which the panel was
already doing once. Hope the judge gets pissed at them.

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