• TURMEL: Truman & Jackes rebut Crown to join Harris appeal

    From John KingofthePaupers Turmel@1:229/2 to All on Mon Mar 18 11:21:21 2019
    From: johnturmel@gmail.com

    JCT: Yesterday, I posted the Crown's letters opposing Art
    Jackes "ready to go" appeal and Kent Truman's less ready to
    go appeal. These are their responses sent to the Registry
    earlier today:

    Arthur Jackes

    March 16 2019

    VIA FACSIMILE

    Court Administrator:
    Federal Court of Appeal
    180 Queen St. W. #200
    Toronto, ON, M5V 3L6
    Fax: 416-973-2154

    Re: JACKES, Arthur, v. HMTQ No: A-294-18

    The Respondent Canada wrote in a March 15 2019 letter:

    CR: I am writing to respond to the appellant's letter
    and Requisition for Hearing dated March 12 2019. The
    deadline to file a Requisition for Hearing has passed
    and the appellant has not brought a motion for an
    extension of time.

    The Clerk refused to file the Requisition late. An extension
    of time may be sought. The point is that both appeals are at
    the Requisition for Hearing stage. It would seem a waste of
    resources to have a second panel deal with the same issue
    again.

    CR: The Requisition provided by the Appellant also
    purports to provide a list of dates when the parties are
    available to participate in a hearing of this matter.
    The appellant did not consult me with respect to this
    and I can advise that it does not accurately reflect my
    availability.

    It is the same list of available dates submitted by the
    Crown in their own Harris hearing Requisition. Since I seek
    to be beard with Harris, I submitted the very same dates.
    May the Crown explain why the available dates for Harris
    would not be available for me.

    CR: Canada requests that the appellant's Requisition not
    be accepted for filing in these circumstances.

    If the Court does not expedite the hearing of my appeal to
    the Harris appeal, I will ask for an extension of time to
    requisition a hearing with another list of available dates.
    Since both our appeals are at the stage of requisitioning a
    date for hearing, it makes even more sense they be heard by
    one panel and not two.

    CR: Canada also requests that this appeal not be heard
    together with Allan J. Harris v. HMTQ No: A-258-218
    ("Harris appeal"), as proposed by the appellant in his
    letter. While the appellant's claim is being
    collectively case-managed with the Harris claim in
    Federal Court, the appeals are from distinct decisions
    of the case-management judge and concern different
    issues.

    There are no different issues. My case concerns only one
    issue in common with some of the plaintiffs led by Harris.
    As Donald Cote seeks damages for delay from wrong rejections
    of original signatures 4 times over 8 months, I seek damages
    for delay for the same reason over 3 months. So they are
    different decisions concerning the same issue.

    CR: The appellants have also requested hearings in
    different cities (Toronto and Vancouver, respectively).

    Or attend by teleconference. There is no need to open a
    courtroom unless the hundreds of plaintiffs below can
    attend.

    CR: Canada submits that the appropriate course in these
    circumstances is for the appeals to continue separately.
    However, if the appellant feels that a decision in the
    Harris appeal would assist the parties or the Court in
    the present appeal, Canada would consent to an
    adjournment of the present appeal pending the outcome of
    the Harris appeal.

    If the Crown does not succeed in striking Cote's claim for 8
    months damages due to false rejection, my claim for 3 months
    damages should be allowed to proceed too.
    ____________________________
    Arthur Jackes
    For the Appellant

    CC: Jon Bricker Fax: 416-973-0809
    For the Respondent

    JCT: Similarly, Kent Truman responded:

    Wilfred Kent Truman

    March 16 2019

    VIA FACSIMILE

    Court Administrator:

    Re: Kent Truman v. HMTQ A-176-18

    The Respondent Canada wrote in a March 15 2019 letter:
    CR: The appellant's letter request that this appeal be
    heard together with Allan J. Harris v. HMTQ No: A-258-
    218 ("Harris appeal"). This request is inappropriate.

    It is appropriate because the issue of whether the March 2
    2018 Class Exemptions mooted our remedy sought or not will
    be raised by Harris. Same issue is to be decided.

    CR: The appellant has taken no steps to advance the
    present appeal since filing a Notice of Appeal. On Feb 6
    2018,(?) the Court accordingly issued a Notice of Status
    Review. The appellant has not responded to this Notice
    and the deadline to do so has now passed. In the
    circumstances, Canada requests that the Court proceed to
    determine that status review and that the present appeal
    not be scheduled for hearing at this time.
    If the Court determines on status review that the
    present appeal should proceed, Canada also requests that
    it not be heard with the Harris appeal.

    I am trying to end the matter with the trial of the same
    issue in Harris and the Respondent wants the paperwork
    duplicated in another proceeding? Rather than another
    procedural status hearing to get my appeal back on track,
    this is the chance to get it on the final track with Harris.

    CR: While the appellant's claim is being collectively
    case-managed with the Harris claim in Federal Court, the
    appeals are from distinct decisions of the case-
    management judge and concern different issues

    There are no different issues. I have only one issue in
    common with the Harris appeal, whether the Class Exemptions
    mooted our remedies, mine interim. Different decisions
    concerning the same issue.

    CR: and the appellants have requested hearings in
    different cities (Toronto and Vancouver, respectively).

    Or attend by teleconference. There is no need to open a
    courtroom unless the hundreds of plaintiffs below can
    attend.

    CR: The Harris appeal is also much further advanced and
    would be unduly delayed if not scheduled until all steps
    in the present appeal are complete.

    I'm not asking that Harris be delayed until I catch up on
    all steps to document the same issue. I'm asking that I
    piggy-back forward to have my say on my issue at Harris's
    hearing of the same issue.

    CR: Canada submits that the appropriate course in these
    circumstances is for the appeals to continue separately.
    However, if the appellant feels that a decision in the
    Harris appeal would assist the parties or the Court in
    the present appeal, Canada would consent to an
    adjournment of the present appeal pending the outcome of
    the Harris appeal.

    That doesn't give the opportunity to influence the outcome
    of the decision to affect me. Since Harris is making the
    same arguments on the same issue that I will, does it really
    need to be raised separately?
    ________________________________
    Wilfred Kent Truman
    For the Appellant
    CC: Jon Bricker Fax: 416-973-0809
    For the Respondent

    JCT: So the Court has the power to finish 4 filed appeals at
    once, Harris, Mozajko, Jackes and Truman, one of which
    subsumes the issues in the other three, or see them go to
    three extra hearings.

    I think we're going to get a Quadruple Appeal to get
    everything back on track.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: www.darkrealms.ca (1:229/2)