TURMEL: Judge Laskin sticks with premature Vexatious Litigant Order

JCT: The Crown had indicated that the motion to declare me a
Vexatious Litigant in the Court of Appeal after the panel
had ruled on the appeal and then filed the motion "in
writing" so one judge could do it all again. When he did, I
filed a motion for him to reconsider and withdraw his ruling
so the appeal panel could do it.

TO: Judicial Administrator
FROM: Laskin J.A.
DATE: July 20, 2023
RE: A-265-22 John Turmel v. His Majesty the King

DIRECTION
J: The appellant's motion record received June 22, 2023, the
respondent's responding motion record received July 4, 2023,
and the appellant's written representations in reply on
motion for reconsideration received July 10, 2023 shall be
accepted for filing.
"JBL"

JCT: I had 4 days to respond from Tuesday July 4. So my due
date was Saturday July 8. Since that was on a weekend, it
gets pushed off to Monday July 10. So I was on time and did
not need a Direction accepting it for filing.

Date: 20230720
Docket: A-265-22
Ottawa, Ontario, July 20, 2023

Present: LASKIN J.A.

BETWEEN:
JOHN TURMEL
Appellant
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Respondent
ORDER

J: WHEREAS on November 9, 2022, the Federal Court made an
order under section 40 of the Federal Courts Act, R.S.C.
1985, c. F-7, declaring the appellant to be a vexatious
litigant and, among other things, prohibiting the appellant
from instituting new proceedings in the Federal Court,
continuing any proceedings previously instituted by him in
the Federal Court, except with leave of the Court, and
preparing, distributing or disseminating court documents,
including template documents, for use by others in Federal
Court proceedings;

WHEREAS on December 9, 2022, the appellant commenced an
appeal to this Court from the Federal Court's order;

WHEREAS on June 15, 2023, on motion in writing by the
respondent in this appeal, to which the appellant filed no
response, this Court made a vexatious litigant order against
the appellant applicable to proceedings in this Court;

WHEREAS the appellant has brought a motion for
reconsideration of this Court's June 15, 2023 order on the
grounds that
(1) the respondent had stated his intention to seek an order
that the motion that resulted in the June 15, 2023 order be
heard orally together with the appeal,
(2) the respondent's written representations in seeking the
June 15, 2023 order were virtually identical to the
respondent's memorandum in the appeal, and

JCT: Which means this judge made a decision with arguments
of only one side without the benefit of mine.

(3) that the motion that resulted in the June 15, 2023 order
should have been heard after this appeal is heard, not
before;

JCT: Doesn't it make sense? If the Panel overturn the first
decision, what do they do about his newest one?

WHEREAS by rule 397 of the Federal Courts Rules, a motion
for reconsideration of an order may be brought only on the
grounds that
(1) the order does not accord with any reasons given for it,
(2) the court has in making the order overlooked or omitted
a matter that should have been dealt with, or

JCT: Overlooked my arguments...

J: (3) the order contains clerical mistakes or omissions;

JCT: Omitted my arguments which the Panel would have heard
before granting the Vexatious Litigant Order in the Court of
Appeal.

J: AND WHEREAS the appellant has failed to make out any of
these grounds,

JCT: I thought I had made them...

J: this Court was fully aware of the pending appeal when it
granted the June 15, 2023 order, and the appellant himself
bears responsibility for his decision not to file responding
representations on the motion that resulted in the June 15,
2023 order;

JCT: I bear responsibility for the Crown reneging on their
intent to have the motion heard by the panel hearing the
appeal so they could make Judge Laskin do all the work again
but without my input. The Crown reneged and I'm responsible
for not filing the same arguments again.

J: THIS COURT ORDERS that the motion is dismissed with costs
fixed at $1,000 all-inclusive. J.B. Laskin J.A.

JCT: So Judge Laskin just couldn't figure out why it should
have been dealt with the panel hearing both sides when he
was asked to do it hearing only one side. And he knew about
the appeal so he knew my memorandum arguments were available
but chose to rule without them.

If the panel rules against me, won't it be neat appealing to
the Supreme Court also appealing this premature decision.

But yes, I had thought that the written motion would be
handled by the panel and should have filed my memorandum
arguments here too so he could have left it to the panel.

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