JCT: This is the reply of the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission to my complaint about being ejected
by police from a debate hosted by Rogers after moderator Fuhrer
Philp had made me remove my party badge.

Court File No: 09-A-19

FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN:

John C. Turmel
Applicant

and
Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission
Respondent



AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT A. MORIN
(solemnly affirmed on May 28 2009)


I, Robert A Morin, Secretary General of the Canadian Radio-
Television and Telecommunications Commission ("Commission") of
the City of Ottawa, solemnly affirm:

1. I am the Secretary General of the Commission. As such, I have
knowledge of matters to which I depose below.

2. I solemnly affirm this affidavit in support of the
Commission's response to the application of John Turmel for leave
to appeal the Broadcasting Decision CRTC-2009-184 of the
Commission.

3. The Commission's policy with regard to election campaign
broadcasting is found in Public Notice CRTC 1982-142. This
document is attached as Exhibit A to this affidavit.

4. The Commission's policy with regard to election debate
programs is found in Public Notice CRTC-1995-44. This document is
attached as Exhibit B to this affidavit.

5. The guidelines that were issued to all licensees of
broadcasting undertakings serving the province of Ontario
concerning the Ontario provincial election that took place on 10
October 2007 is found in Broadcasting Circular CRTC 2007-5. This
document is attached as Exhibit C to this affidavit.

Solemnly affirmed bon May 28 2009.
Robert A. Morin

JCT: Wow, I never expected an affidavit by the Secretary General.

MEMORANDUM OF FACT AND LAW OF THE CANADIAN
RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

PART I - FACTS

1. The applicant, John Turmel, has sought leave to appeal
Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184, dated 8 April 2009 of the
Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (the
"Commission"), which dismissed the applicant's complaint relating
to an election debate program hosted by Rogers Cable
Communications Inc (Rogers) during the 2007 Ontario provincial
election.

A. History of the applicant's complaint

2. The applicant was a candidate in the 2007 Ontario provincial
election. On 18 September 2007, he participated in a debate
program hosted by Rogers on its community channel, Rogers TV, for
six candidates of the riding of Brant. At some point during or
shortly after the applicant made his opening statement, he was
removed from the set and did not participate further in the
debate.

JCT: They know it was during so why bring up after?

3. On 24 Sep 2007, the applicant filed a complaint with the
Commission alleging that his removal from the debate amounted to
denying him an equitable share of a free-time partisan political
broadcast as he asserted was required by the Commission's
regulations and requesting that the Commission take action.

4. Rogers responded to the applicant's complaint on 27 Sep 2007
and explained its reasons for why the applicant was removed from
the debate program. Rogers alleged that the applicant had taken
issue with a request to remove a badge he was wearing in
violation of rules set by Rogers for the debate regarding the
display of candidates' promotional material on the production
set.

JCT: Notice how they don't mention that I had obeyed and taken
it off before the decision to have police remove me. But they do
crystallize the issue: they want control over the display of
"candidates' promotional material." Their own words from now on.
That's the crux issue I'm challenging. Fuhrer Philp didn't like
that I had all these great exhibits and props do to a great show
so he banned them to impair only one "candidate's promotional
material."

Subsequently, according to Rogers, the applicant interrupted a
fellow candidate, at which point the moderator had the applicant
removed from the set.

JCT: Of course, after the moderator had interrupted me and I had
obeyed, it was still my time and I was interrupting no one. Since
I did mention this already, there must be a reason they're
purposely leaving it out.

5. On 1 Oct 2007, the applicant wrote again to the Commission
requesting it compel Rogers to give the applicant an equitable
share of time before election day.

6. On 4 Oct 2007, the applicant brought an application for
judicial review against the Commission. The applicant's request
for interlocutory relief was dismissed by Decary J.A. on 5 Nov
2007. The application for judicial review was dismissed by the
Federal Court of Appeal on 17 Dec 2008 on the grounds that the
Commission had not rendered a decision in relation to the
applicant's complaint which could be subject of a judicial review
or against which relief could be sought.

7. On 26 Jan 2009, the applicant requested that the Commission
render a decision with respect to his complaint. On 8 Apr 2009,
the Commission issued Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184 (the
"Decision") dismissing the applicant's complaint.

B. Broadcasting Decision CRTC 2009-184
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2009/2009-184.htm

8. In the Decision, the Commission noted that it considered the
applicant's request that the Commission compel Rogers to provide
him with an equitable share of the time in the election debate
program was now moot given that the election had already taken
place.

JCT: Because the Commission failed to act on time to compel them
to let me tape my 22-minute share so they could add it to the
other broadcast, is is now too late and getting me my fair share
before the election is now moot. Because the Commission failed to
act on time.

9. The Commission considered that the remaining issue raised by
the applicant's complaint was whether Rogers had breached the
Commission's regulations regarding the equitable allocation of
time for programs of a partisan political character during an
election period. The Commission noted that the provision that
applied to Rogers in this case was subsection 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Distribution Regulations, but that similar wording
exists in other regulations governing radio, television and
specialty services.

10. The Commission noted that in Public Notice 1995-44, it stated
that, pursuant to the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision in R. v.
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (1993), the Commission's
regulations regarding the equitable allocation of time did not
apply to election debate programs because they are not programs
of a "partisan political character."

JCT: You have to admit that this is pretty funny. They're going
to rationalize how excluding some candidates is still democratic!
The Ontario Court of Appeal, the guys who gave us the Hitzig
Resurrection when Parliament wouldn't do it that tricked 9,000
known Canadian epileptics to death in the past 6 years, they said
the Pitt decision on a Criminal matter that the Government had
not complied with the Parker Court's ruling was properly set
aside as in Civil Court by an peer judge as as Default Judgment
because there had been improper service when Superior Courts can
dispense with service altogether. And so they're going to have
the chance to explain how excluded candidates are still getting
an equitable share of the debate. Har har har har. Who are these
"winners?" Dubin, McKinlay, Carthy.

We met Carthy J.A. when he refused the Crown's extension of time
to appeal the Lederman decision because, instead of explaining
why it would unleash dangerous marijuana users on society, they
complained that Turmel's web site was laughing at their
predicament. He said being chortled at isn't reason enough!
That's why they had to mail out the pot by July 9 and I had a
countdown while being laughed at. Then Anne McLellan announced
they were sending out the pot!

And I've crossed words with Justice Dubin many times in the past.
He's the one who told the allergic lady being evicted in Smiths
Falls in 1983 that courts weren't a social service to fend off
her bankers. See my http://johnturmel.com/prspol83

830603Tu
Ottawa Citizen, CP
Challenge to eviction rejected
After an unsuccessful eviction challenge in a Toronto courtroom
Monday, Jean Metcalfe is waiting for the sheriff to force her
from her home. The sheriff will evict Metcalfe when he receives
instructions to do so from Paul Howard. Howard said he is
awaiting word from the bank and said eviction should take place
soon.
Bank-fighter John Turmel, who has been helping her throughout a
series of court battles, says he'll attempt to go before the SCC
this week to get a stay of the eviction notice. She may be
evicted before then, however.
While in Toronto, Metcalfe told Ontario Supreme Court justices
they were "committing murder" by refusing to hear her plea
against eviction. She told Mr. Justice Charles Dubin, head of a
panel of three motion court judges, that she would die if she is
turned out on the streets. Dubin said the matter had been fully
litigated and was completely out of his hands. "You have been to
almost every court in the country," he said. Metcalfe, who was
not represented by a lawyer, kept talking as Dubin tried to
explain he could do nothing and that the decision by the
Divisional Court rejecting her application was final litigation.
Finally, as Metcalfe kept saying she had nowhere to go and would
die, Dubin said: "This a court of law, not a social agency." As
she stalked from the court, Metcalfe shouted back through the
open door: "You're committing murder."

JCT: And searching my private unpublished journals for McKinlay,
I found this interesting tidbit, she was associated with Jean
Metcalfe's case too!

871021We
PAPER = Globe & Mail, Appeal court gets second woman judge
NEWS = Madam Justice Hilda McKinlay officially became the second
woman to sit on the Ontario Court of Appeal. A member of the SCO
since 1983, she joins the 18-member court that has been all-male
since Justice Bertha Wilson was appointed to the SCC.
Jct: She was the lady lawyer who handled Jean Metcalfe's eviction
at Osgoode Hall in 1982 for the Bank of Montreal. It's funny how
people who have tangled with me get promoted quickly. I'll be
talking about more powerful people which should interest the
others.

JCT: So now let's see what the Bank Judge and Bank Lawyer and
Justice Carthy came up with to say that excluding candidates is
still equitable.

The Commission further noted that it had reiterated this
statement in Broadcasting Circular 2007-5 issued in connection
with the 2007 Ontario provincial election.

JCT: Right, in doing their job of ensuring a democratic election,
the Commission made sure to alert the media that the O.C.A. had
okayed their excluding anyone they wanted if they called it a
debate. Har har har har. Convicted without knowing it. Nyuk nyuk.

11. The Commission considered that, in light of its
determinations in Public Notice 1995-44, it was within Rogers'
editorial discretion to exclude participants from an election
debate program...

JCT: Yes we know the court said they could exclude candidates
from debate programs.

who were not complying with the rules and format Rogers had set
for the program.

JCT: Of course, if they can short out anyone they want, they can
exclude anyone they want for any reason they may make up: for
instance, they wanted me to go on the show denuded. I didn't obey
the rules so I can be excluded. Actually, I did obey the rules
and was excluded. So they're going to have rely on the blanket
right to exclude anyone from a debate because the Ontario Court
of Appeal Justices Dubin, McKinlay and Carthy said debates are
not partisan and don't have to be shared equitably.

12. As a result of these considerations, the Commission
determined that Rogers did not breach subsection 27(4) of the
Broadcasting Regulations and accordingly dismissed the
Applicant's complaint.

C. Regulatory framework

13. Paragraph 10(1)(e) of the Broadcasting Act empowers the
Commission to make regulations "respecting the proportion of time
that may be devoted to the broadcasting of programs, including
advertisement or announcements, of a partisan political character
and the assignment of that time on an equitable basis to
political parties and candidates.

JCT: In the old days, the legislation said: "all rival parties
and candidates." I don't know if Parliament dropped the word
"all" or if they chose to omit it to help their case. Of course,
if Parliament had dropped the "all parties and candidates" for
just "parties and candidates," then yes, it explains why the OCA
said the media can now exclude people from debates. Of course,
that wasn't their reason so I still think they just omitted the
word. I'll have to check.

14. Under this provision, the Commission has enacted several
regulations requiring that, during n election period,
broadcasters allocate time for broadcasting programs,
advertisements or announcements or a "partisan political
character" on an equitable basis to accredited political parties
and rival candidates in the election.

JCT: Again, omitting the "all" from the law. If Parliament
removed it, we'll have to get the courts to order them to put it
back. I'm still betting it's only a CRTC interpretation on their
circulars and not a change in the legislation by Parliament. Can
you imagine Parliamentary debate on removing the "all" from "all
rival parties and candidates?" No, I'd bet the interpretation on
their circular has been corrupted, not the law I'll be invoking.

15. On 2 Sep 1998, the Commission issued A Policy with Respect to
Election Campaign Broadcasting, Public Notice CRTC 1988-142.

JCT: No doubt fostering democracy by making sure the media know
the court has said they can exclude anyone they want if they call
it a debate.

The Public Notice set out the Commission's position regarding
various aspects of election period broadcasting. With respect to
debate programs held during an election, the Commission noted
that it may be impractical to include all rival parties and
candidates in one program.

JCT: So they can always be excluded because it's sometimes
inconvenient in one program?

However, the Commission stated that if this type of broadcast
takes place, all parties and candidates should be accommodated,
even if doing so requires that more than one program be
broadcast.

JCT: Bingo! This Commission statement is why I asked that I be
accommodated after the event even if doing so required that more
than one program be broadcast or appended. Didn't they know they
should have accommodated me?
Unless I broke the rules! So now they have to rely on the rules
because the CRTC says I should have been accommodated for an
equitable portion in this circular, they did not and the reason
is because hesitated to go on the show denuded but eventually
acquiesced.

16. On 15 Mar 1995, the Commission issued Public Notice CRTC
1995-44 which revised its policy set out in Public Notice CRTC
1988-142 with respect to election debate programs. The Commission
noted that the Ontario Court of Appeal had ruled in R. v. C.B.C.
that debates were not covered by the Commission's regulations
regarding the equitable allocation of time during election
periods.

JCT: Incredible isn't it? The Commission to ensure democracy
peddling a decision for why broadcast time doesn't have to be
shared equitably among all rival political candidates. How
shameful, I'm so pleased that some of Dubin's dirty works meet
the light of day.

In light of this decision, the Commission stated that it would no
longer require that debate programs feature all rival parties and
candidates in one or more program.

JCT: Yes, in furtherance of their mandate to safeguard the
democratic integrity of Canada's elections, the Commission made
sure to alert Rogers they could get away with excluding anyone
they wanted as long as it was called a debate. Har har har. And
that's why I'm going after the CRTC and not Rogers. Yet. They
were given the power to safeguard democracy in broadcast election
debates and have failed spectacularly.

PART II - POINTS IN ISSUE

17. The Commission's submissions will address the following two
issues:
(a) The test on a motion for leave to appeal a decision of the
Commission; and

JCT: Technicalities.

(b) Whether there is an arguable ground upon which the
applicant's appeal may succeed.

JCT: 1) Whether the Ontario Court of Appeal is right that debates
are not partisan political broadcasts and if they are,
2) can media mandate candidates' promotion materials.


PART III - SUBMISSIONS

A. Test for leave to appeal

18. An appeal to this Court from a decision of the Commission
under the Broadcasting ACt may only be brought on a question of
law or jurisdiction, and then only with the leave of the court.

JCT: If we're asking for leave, it's because we know we need
leave of the court.

19. The test for leave is whether there is an arguable ground
upon which an appeal might succeed.

B. Whether there is an arguable ground upon which the applicant's
appeal might succeed.

20. In the Commission's submission, the applicant has not
raised an arguable ground upon which his appeal might succeed.

JCT: I think a good question of law and a good question of
jurisdiction.

21. The applicant has failed to point to an error in law or
jurisdiction made by the Commission in the decision.

JCT: Not appealing the O.C.A.'s silly ruling that debates are not
of a partisan political character is one big one. Letting them
dictate a candidates' promotional materials is a lack of
jurisdiction.

The applicant's argument - that Rogers did not have sufficient
justification to remove him from the election debate program

JCT: Once I had complied with the dictator's command.

- is premised on the notion that he was entitled to an equitable
share in the debate program pursuant to ss.27(4). However, in the
Decision, the Commission reiterated that subsection 27(4) does
not apply to debate programs because they are not programs of a
"partisan political character."

JCT: Har har har har. It's so funny to keep hearing that. Because
a triplet of provincial judges said so.

The Commission notes that the application does not seek to
contest this conclusion.

JCT: Boy, are they wrong.

As such, the applicant's argument about the sufficiency of
Rogers' reasons for ejecting him from the debate and does not
point to an error of law or jurisdiction by the Commission.

JCT: After I had complied with Fuhrer Philp's command. And
letting Rogers dictate candidates' promotional materials is
undemocratic.

22. Furthermore, in determining that ss.27(4) does not apply to
election debate programs, the Commission was merely following
existing judicial precedent as well as its own public notices.

JCT: And the Commission said they should have had an extra show
to accommodate all candidates. They did not and the reason why
they failed is now important.

23. In R. v. CBC, the Ontario Court of Appeal established clearly
that election debates do not constitute programs of "partisan
political character" within the meaning of the Commission's
regulations since they present a number of different political
viewpoints.


JCT: Because they present a number, they don't have to present
all? Typical lawyer thinking. Har har har.

The court stated that "while the statements made by each of the
participants are undoubtedly partisan, the program itself is
clearly not."

JCT: Clear to a lawyer's brain maybe that partisan statements
don't make for a show of partisan political character." Har har
har.

Leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court was denied.

JCT: You'd expect the top court to provide the top screw-ups.

24. As a result of the Ontario Court of Appeal's decision, the
Commission issued Public Notice 1995-44 which stated it would no
longer require that debate programs feature all rival parties and
candidates in one or more programs. This Public Notice was
referred to in Broadcasting Circular 2007-5 which was issued in
connection with the 2007 Ontario provincial election.

JCT: Just in time to ensure a better democracy! Har har har.
Okay, so because the Ontario Court of Appeal said it's okay to
exclude candidates, the Commission has now gone even further so
that media no longer have to accommodate all rival candidates on
different programs any more. If they don't need to include them
at all, there's no need for another show. They can now just
exclude whom they want. Democracy Dubin-style. Bet he's burning
in Hell. He's a guy hiding from a billion lost souls he had the
chance to save but didn't do social service, words I hope he's
ruing yet.

25. The applicant has not raised any reason to doubt the
correctness of R. v. CBC or the Commission's reliance on that
decision.

JCT: That's what I'm going to now have to do since the Commission
has now raised the silly ruling in defence of its policy of
permitting the media to exclude candidates from political debates
of non-partisan political character. Nyuk nyuk nyuk nyuk.

For the foregoing reasons, the Commission submits that the
applicant has not raised an arguable error of law or jurisdiction
upon which his appeal might succeed.

JCT: Let's see if I can raise those issues in response to their
defence to permitting media to exclude candidates from debates.
Remember, these are the guys who can change the policy so that
the court's can't say it's equitable to exclude candidates. They
have the responsibility to ensure fairness and to say they can't
because the courts have ordered unfairness is silly when they get
to write the policy that the court's interpret. They have the
power to compel the media to be fair and that they rely on an
irrational court judgment to thwart their own mission says it
all. The ultimate dereliction of duty.

PART IV - ORDER SOUGHT

26. The Commission respectfully submits that the applicant's
motion for leave to appeal should be denied.

ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
June 1 2009
Regan Morris
Solicitor for the Commission
CRTC Ottawa Ontario

JCT: I have until June 15 to file my Reply. I don't think I'm
even going to go read the Ontario Court of Appeal decision. I'm
just going to do like I've done so far and just point out how
"Statements of partisan political character do not make debates
of partisan political character" is a contradiction. I'll let the
Crown go into the details how they arrived that this inane
conclusion. Judges are all lawyers, what do you expect? Most are
like this.

I bet the Court argues that statements of partisan political
character influence voters but since they get to hear all
statements at a debate, the debate itself isn't of political
character since it's evenly spread out. All this presumes that
all rival philosophies are offered. Then they extend the
principle that debates with all candidates are not partisan to
debates with less than all candidates are not partisan either.
Yet, partisan means it influences in your direction, it biases in
your direction, it induces voters in your direction. Not all
candidates is the ultimate partisan political broadcast! And
these lawying judges have come to the very opposite conclusion.
Where have we seen this tendency before? Har har.

So my official Reply in a few days.