TURMEL: Judge Horne punishes Covid false alarm warners

JCT: Note that everyone's actions were stayed pending my
appeals as Lead Plaintiff and checking with the Supreme
Court of Canada registry, you'll see my Application for
Leave to Appeal is not yet complete. So Judge Horne jumped
the gun:
https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/dock-regi-eng.aspx?cas=40520

Date: 20230828
Dockets: T-138-21
List in Annex A

Toronto, Ontario, August 28, 2023
PRESENT: Associate Judge Trent Horne

SEE ANNEX A FOR A LIST OF ALL OTHER
DOCKETS TO WHICH THIS ORDER APPLIES

BETWEEN:
RAYMOND TURMEL
Plaintiff
and
HIS MAJESTY THE KING
Defendant

ORDER

J: <-- Judge Trent Horne

J: I. Background

[1] These actions were dismissed by my order dated June
19, 2023 ("Order").

[2] The Order did not fix costs. The defendant was directed
to serve and file submissions as to costs within 10 days of
the date of the Order. Any responding submissions from the
plaintiffs as to costs were directed to be served and filed
within 20 days of the date of the Order.

[3] By order dated July 18, 2023, I granted the defendant an
extension of time to July 25, 2023 to serve and file
submissions as to costs. The deadline for the plaintiffs to
serve and file responding submissions as to costs was
extended to August 4, 2023.

JCT: It was brought to Judge Horne's attention that the
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of
Canada was not yet completed.

J: [4] The defendant served and filed costs submissions on
July 18, 2023. The defendant submits that an award of
$500.00 in costs would be appropriate in all matters other
than T-333-21. In particular, the defendant relies on two
orders I made in other matters involving "kit claims"
prepared and promoted by John Turmel.

JCT: The Crown relies on Orders from other matters that were
after these actions. Keep the timing in mind.

J: [5] The defendant submits that $250.00 in costs should be
awarded in T-333-21 because the plaintiff apparently
attempted to discontinue the proceeding. There is no
indication in the Court file that a notice of discontinuance
was presented for filing. There are no submissions from the
plaintiff in T-333-21.

J: [6] Of the 81 plaintiffs, only four filed submissions on
costs: Joan Hughes (T-382-21); James Skerritt (T-404-21);
Carl Wall (T-469-21); and Steven Beausoleil (T-932-21).

J: [7] The genesis of these proceedings is a statement of
claim filed by John Turmel in Court file T-130-21 which
related to the federal government's COVID-19 mitigation
measures. Mr Turmel made a copy of his statement of claim in
T-130-21 available on the internet so that others could
substitute their name as the plaintiff, and then commence an
identical action seeking the same relief. Such actions have
been referred to as "kit claims".

JCT: They did not seek the same relief. They sought their
own personal relief based on the same arguments. So they
substituted their name and their own relief for damages
sought.

J: [8] The statements of claim in each of these actions are
almost identical, and are based on the materials made
available on the internet by Mr Turmel. The claims by
persons other than Mr Turmel were stayed by order of
prothonotary Aylen (as she then was, as that office was then
titled) dated April 8, 2021.

JCT: Notice he doesn't mention they were stayed pending the
results of my action and any appeals that are not yet final.

J: Ultimately, the proceedings were dismissed by my Order.

JCT: Before my appeals were complete.

J: Despite having the opportunity to do so, none of the
plaintiffs made submissions that their proceeding was
differently situated than T-130-21, or provided any reason
why their action should continue.

JCT: That would be because my appeals were not yet final.

J: II. Court Files Other Than T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21,
T-469-21, and T-932-21

[9] The Court has full discretionary power over the amount
and allocation of costs (Federal Courts Rules, SOR/98-106,
subrule 400(1) ("Rules")).

[10] With the exception of Court files T-382-21, T-404-21,
T-469-21, and T-932-21 none of the plaintiffs filed
submissions on costs.

JCT: Again, that would be because my appeals are still not
yet final.

J: The defendant advises that only the plaintiff in T-333-21
advised that he attempted to discontinue his action. I will
therefore determine the amount of costs payable in all Court
files other than T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and
T-932-21, and then separately consider the cost consequences
in T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and T-932-21.

[11] There is no material before me to indicate what, if
any, consideration any of these plaintiffs gave to the
merits of their claim before filing it, considered whether
the claim advanced a credible cause of action, or complied
with the rules of pleading.

JCT: Did he presume they didn't read their Statement of
Claim?: http://SmartestMan.Ca/c19sc.pdf

J: [12] As I stated in earlier costs rulings in Turmel "kit
claim" matters,

JCT: As he stated in later cost rulings... They could not be
expected to know what he was going to say later, could they?

J: I have difficulty understanding how completing a "kit
claim", replacing only the name of the plaintiff and
otherwise adopting the pleading of someone else,

JCT: Yes, they adopted the facts and arguments but not
"replacing only the name of the plaintiff," they also
replaced the plaintiff personal damages claim. Looks like he
ignored the different damages or didn't notice.

J: advances a legitimate legal interest, particularly when
the relief sought in T-130-21 challenged the
constitutionality of the federal government's Covid
mitigation restrictions generally, not just as they applied
to Mr Turmel.

JCT: Right, we were challenging the Covid mitigation
restrictions generally as they applied to and violated the
rights of all Canadians.

J: Absent any separate or unique claim to advance,

JCT: Their unique claim to damages was not absent. Judge
Horne just didn't notice.

J: the plaintiffs should have known or expected that their
duplicative actions would be stayed.

JCT: I had informed them that we could expect and consent to
their personal damages actions being stayed pending the
determination for Lead Plaintiff whether the restrictions
were unconstitutional and if yes, then their damages claims
could be adjudicated. Sure, I might have gotten the
restrictions declared unconstitutional for all Canadians but
not gotten them the damages for their personal lockdown
injuries. They had to file an action for their own damages.

J: None of the plaintiffs have demonstrated a distinct or
practical result that could flow from filing or prosecuting
their own action, separate and apart from what could have
been ordered in Mr Turmel's action.

JCT: Every plaintiff's Statement of Claim demonstrated a
distinct and practical result in damages that could flow
from filing their own action. He just ignored or didn't
notice the distinct damages they could not have received
without filing their own actions.

J: [13] In the absence of any submissions from the
plaintiffs in these Court files, I can only conclude that
the actions were improper, vexatious and unnecessary.

JCT: As long as he ignores their personal damages claims.

J: There is no indication that any of those plaintiffs had
an intention or interest to independently prosecute the
actions they commenced.

JCT: Of course, the original Statement of Claim for their
own personal damages inherently shows intent to prosecute
the actions they commenced for personal damages if I proved
the restrictions unconstitutional. He just didn't notice or
ignored them.

J: In the absence of evidence or submissions from these
plaintiffs, it appears that the plaintiffs' objectives in
filing statements of claim was to clog the registry with
redundant actions, and vex the defendant with needless
filings.

JCT: Or to obtain personal damages that could not be
obtained in any other way without needing to pay for legal
counsel.

J: Even if I am incorrect in this respect, I have no
difficulty concluding that the actions in all proceedings
other than T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and T-
932-21 were filed and maintained for a collateral purpose,
and not to advance a reasonable cause of action.

JCT: He is incorrect in concluding their claims were filed
for a collateral purpose and not for personal relief for
distinct damages suffered.

J: [14] Litigation is a serious business which consumes
public resources. The plaintiffs' conduct has abused these
resources.

JCT: Filing a claim for personal damages then waiting to see
if I could get the restrictions declared unconstitutional
did not abuse the resources. How else could they get their
claims for damages filed? And how many Crown resources were
abused by them waiting too?

J: [15] Deterrence is a factor that can be considered in the
assessment of costs (Hutton v Sayat, 2020 FC 1183 at paras
64 and 66).

JCT: Deter people from seeking remedy for distinct damages
suffered?

J: [16] The Court is not restricted to Tariff B in an
assessment of costs, and may award a lump sum (subrule
400(4)).

[17] I will accept the defendant's submissions, but
acknowledge that the amount requested may not be fully
sufficient to recognize the improper, vexatious and
unnecessary nature of these actions (subrule 400(3)(k)(i)),
the need for deterrence, and the absence of a demonstrated
good faith basis to file each of these statements of claim.

JCT: He can only say that if he ignores their relief for
personal damages was sought in good faith?

J: A lump sum award of costs of $500.00 in each action,
excepting T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and T-932-
21, will be awarded.

JCT: Must punish them for daring to join in trying to warn
the world that the killer clot shot was for a hundredfold-
hyped false alarm and be compensated for damages suffered?

III. Court Files T-333-21, T-382-21, T-404-21, T-469-21, and
T-932-21

[18] I accept the defendant's submissions that the costs to
be awarded in T-333-21 should be $250.00.

[19] Ms Hughes (T-382-21) submits that it was not her
intention to abuse the resources of the Court. While she had
concerns that assurances as to the safety and efficacy of
Covid vaccines were not accurate,

JCT: Even kiddie killer Prime Minister Trudeau knew he was
lying when he banned the unvaccinated from travelling with
the vaccinated because he knew they were not protected by
their vaccination:

When Trudeau deemed the clot shots Safe, Effective, not to fret,
But "unVaxed can't ride with the Vax Protected: Danger yet."
If Vaxed are not protected, then it's sure Effective NOT.
Our fool Prime Minister, in contradiction has been caught.

J: she now realizes that any trust in Mr Turmel was
misplaced. She states that she attempted to withdraw from
the proceedings, but was unfamiliar with the proper way to
close the Court file. I accept that Ms Hughes was
effectively duped by Mr Turmel, and that her intention was
not to abuse the resources of the Court. No award of costs
will be made in T-382-21.

[20] Mr Skerritt (T-404-21) is Ms Hughes' partner. His
submissions express regret in attaching his name to Mr
Turmel's actions. He states that if he had known at the time
that Mr Turmel had been declared to be a vexatious litigant,
he would not have filed this claim. Like Ms Hughes, I accept
that Mr Skerritt was effectively duped by Mr Turmel, and
that his intention was not to abuse the resources of the
Court. No award of costs will be made in T-404-21.

JCT: All they had to do was say I duped them into seeking
damages for their sufferings to save $500.

J: [21] Mr Wall (T-469-21) submits that an all-inclusive sum
of $500.00 should be awarded to the defendant. He asserts
that his personal interest in this matter was to have the
courts take an impartial look into the science that was
being used by federal, provincial and to a lesser extent
municipal governments to impose restrictions on him and
other Canadians. What I do not understand from Mr Wall's
submissions is why he thought it was necessary to bring a
separate action when the issues were already being litigated
by Mr Turmel.

JCT: Judge Horne just does not understand why he had to
bring a separate action for his own separate personal
damages claim when Turmel's damages were already being
litigated by Turmel for Turmel and not Mr. Wall. Just can't
understand why he did the only thing he could do to seek
relief. So hard to understand.

J: Dividing a $500.00 costs award among 81 plaintiffs would
only serve to encourage this kind of improper, vexatious and
unnecessary litigation.

JCT: Everyone seeking their own personal damages was not
improper, vexatious and unnecessary litigation since it was
the only way it could be sought. And how much work did the
Crown have to do for stayed cases? One payment of $6 each to
cover the Crown not having to do anything in the stayed
cases seemed reasonable. In a previous such multi-plaintiff
case, Judge Brown offered no costs if plaintiffs chose not
to pursue their claims. So the costs here were not to cover
minimal Crown expenses but to punish them for trying to warn
the world of the unnecessary kill shot and get their own
remedy.

J: I do not agree with Mr Wall that there were 81 plaintiffs
in a matter condensed down to a single action. Mr Wall
refers to Adelberg v Canada, 2023 FC 252, but that was a
single proceeding where many plaintiffs were named in one
Court file. Here, 81 separate and duplicative statements of
claim were filed,

JCT: For 81 separate damages claims from duplicative facts
and arguments...

J: creating a significant burden for the Court and the
defendant. $500.00 in costs will be awarded in T-469-21.

JCT: Too bad! If the Government imposed restrictions that
caused many different damages, it's not our fault that
everyone filing claims makes it a burden for the Court to
hand the many demands for remedy.

J: [22] The submissions from Mr Beausoleil (T-932-21) (which
were filed before the defendant's submissions, and nothing
further was submitted after the defendant's submissions)
focus on things he enjoyed doing, but were negatively
impacted by the pandemic and the fact that he was
unvaccinated. These submissions do not address the
reasonableness or purpose of filing his claim in the first
instance.

JCT: The judge didn't find it reasonable for him to make a
claim for his own unique personal damages when Turmel was
making a claim for Turmel's own unique personal damages.

J: $500.00 in costs will be awarded in T-932-21.

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1. The plaintiff in T-333-21 shall pay costs to the
defendant, fixed at $250.00, payable forthwith.

2. There is no order as to costs in T-382-21 and T-404-21.

3. The plaintiff in T-138-21, and the plaintiffs in each of
the Court files listed in Annex A to this order (excepting
T-333-21, T-382-21, and T-404-21) shall each pay costs to
the defendant, fixed at $500.00, payable forthwith.

4. A copy of this order shall be placed in Court file T-138-
21, and each of the Court files listed in Annex A.
Horne" Judge

JCT: Grounds should anyone want to appeal:

1) The judge jumped the gun before Turmel's appeals were
complete;

2) He punished plaintiffs for not heeding his orders that
were made AFTER their actions were stayed;

3) Plaintiffs did give consideration to the Statement of
Claim they had read;

4) The judge repeatedly ignored or failed to notice
plaintiffs were seeking distinctly unique remedies with no
other way to obtain remedy;

5) The actions were improper, vexatious and unnecessary only
if he ignored their own unique claims for remedy;

6) Their original Statement of Claim for their own personal
damages inherently showed intent to prosecute...

7) Their intent was to seek remedy for damages, not for
collateral purpose of clogging the court. That was just a
side benefit.

8) Filing a unique claim for distinct remedy is not abuse.

Now we're going to have to do a fund-raiser to pay for the
costs of trying to save millions from the kill shot. I had
set one up at GoFundMe for
Federal Court of Canada Covid False Alarm Costs https://www.gofundme.com/f/9cqfvq-federal-court-of-canada-covid-false-alarm-costs
https://rumble.com/v1jzi3l-gofundme-for-federal-court-of-canada-covid-false-alarm-costs.html

But we've seen that GoFundMe is controlled by the Deep State
when they cancelled trucker donations and other resistance
pleas. But I've never heard a bad thing about
http://GiveSendGo.com so that's where we'll try to raise
funds for these costs of trying to warn people of the false
alarm.

And given it looks like they're going to try to impose
lockdowns, masks and social distancing again, we may need
funds to hire a lawyer to do a class action again. As a
vexatious litigant, I've been barred from helping people any
more. My appeal of that decision is coming up in Toronto on
Sep 26!

Remember, not one lawyer, scientist, doctor, mathematician
noticed that WHO tricked the world by comparing the Covid
CFR Apple to the Flu IFR Orange. Only me which does
reinforce my claim to SmartestManOnEarth.Ca
http://SmartestMan.Ca for short. If anyone is going to find
the odds-on winningest way to go, it's going to be me. And
we'll need to pay a lawyer to do what I tell him or her.

So stay tuned. More soon.

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