INDEX A. INDEX __________________________________________________ i B. PART II STATEMENT OF FACTS _______________________ 1 C. PART III - ISSUES _______________________________________ 1 1.

. Question for the Court to answer: ____________________________ 1 2 Introduction ______________________________________________ 1 3 The Grounds _____________________________________________ 2 4. Rule 1.03, 2.01. 2.02, 2.04 and 3.02 ___________________________ 5 5. Closing __________________________________________________ 9

6.Costs ____________________________________________________ 10 D. PART IV ORDERS SOUGHT ____________________________ 14

B. PART II STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. This Motion for an extension of time is necessitated, in light of Applicant

Andre Murrays unfortunate circumstances, regarding computer hard drive failure, and consequential loss of entire data intended to be filed, for the upcoming hearing of Applicant Andre Murrays Charter Challenge Application, and material to be filed for two other scheduled Motions, one Motion filed by ROYAL BANK OF CANADA and a second Motion filed by 501376 N.B. Ltd, a body corporate.

2.

Applicant Andre Murrays situation is further exacerbated by Applicant

Andre Murrays deteriorating mental health, due to the persistent and worsening medical condition of anxiety and clinical depression. C. PART II - ISSUES 1. Question for the Court to answer: Should the Court, pursuant to Rule 1.03, 2.01, 2.02, 2.04 and 3.02 of the Rules of Court the Court, abridge time required for filing and service of the Applicants necessary documents?; 2 Introduction 3. The Court may at any time dispense with compliance with any rule, unless

the rule expressly or impliedly provides otherwise.This position is buttressed by the following Maxim In all affairs, and principally in those which concern the administration of justice, the rules of equity ought to be followed.

4.

The spirit and wording of the New Brunswick Rules of Court allows that a

procedural error, including failure to comply with these rules or with the procedure prescribed by an Act for the conduct of a proceeding, shall be treated as an irregularity and shall not render the proceeding a nullity, and all necessary amendments shall be permitted or other relief granted at any stage in the

proceeding, upon proper terms, to secure the just determination of the matters in dispute between the parties. 5. The Respondents have not claimed prejudice or inconvenience, merely

blanket objections without reason. Applicant respectfully asserts that the balance of convenience favors the granting of the relief therefore herein sought. 3 The Grounds 6. Pursuant to Rule 1.03, 2.01, 2.02, 2.04 and 3.02 of the Rules of Court the

Court, may, abridge time required for filing and service of the Applicants documents;Those rules of Court embody the following Maxim Bonumjudexsecundumaequum et bonumjudicat, et aequitatemstrictojuripraefert. A good judge decides according to justice and right, and prefers equity to strict law.

7.

The legal website duhaime.org provides the following insight into the

principles of equity: Equity Definition: A branch of English law which developed hundreds of years ago when litigants would go to the King and complain of harsh or inflexible rules of common law which prevented "justice" from prevailing. In the 1870s, England and its colonies merged the courts but not the doctrines (in statutes called "judicature"). Although under the umbrella of a unified judiciary, where the principles conflicted, equity was stated to have precedence over the common law. Ontario's initiative is a good sample, now known as the Courts of Justice Act (1990 RSO Chapter C-43; v. 2007), where at 96:

It gives equity rank over the common law ("where a rule of equity conflicts with a rule of the common law, the rule of equity prevails"); Merges the Courts by requiring that there shall no longer be a separate court for equity ("Courts shall administer concurrently all rules of equity and the common law"); and Only federally-appointed judge, also known as "superior-level courts", may consider equity claims or grant equity relief ("only the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Justice, exclusive 2

of the Small Claims Court, may grant equitable relief, unless otherwise provided"). A whole set of equity law principles were developed based on the predominant fairness, reason and good faith characteristics of equity as reflected in some of its maxims: equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy or he who comes to equity must come with clean hands. (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/Equity.aspx) 8. The New Brunswick Judicature Act, also provides for equity law principles based on the predominant principles of fairness, reason and good faith which are characteristics of equity: 26(8) Subject to the aforesaid provisions for giving effect to equitable rights and other matters of equity in manner aforesaid, and to the other express provisions of this Act, the Court and every judge thereof shall recognize and give effect to all legal claims and demands, and all estates, titles, rights, duties, obligations and liabilities existing by the common law or created by any statute, in the same manner as the same would have been recognized and given effect to by the Supreme Court, either at law or in equity, if The Judicature Act, 1909 had not been enacted. 32 Stipulations in contracts as to time or otherwise, which would not before the commencement of The Judicature Act, 1909 have been deemed in a Court of Equity to be or to have become of the essence of such contracts, shall receive in the Court the same construction and effect as they would heretofore have received in Equity. 39 Generally, in all matters not herein before particularly mentioned, in which there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail. Judicature Act, RSNB 1973, c J-2 section 26(8), 32 and 39 (emphasis added) 9. Rule 1.03(2) of the Rules of Court direct the Court so that these rules

shall be liberally construed to secure the just, least expensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits (to safe guard against harsh or inflexible interpretation of the rules of Court or Common Law which may prevent "justice" from prevailing). 3

10. Rule 2.01 of the Rules of Court provides the Court with the express tool to dispense with compliance with any rule (the rules of equity shall prevail).

11. Rule 2.02 of the Rules of Court compels Courts to overlook procedural errors and to take appropriate measures to secure the just determination of the matters in dispute between the parties (fairness, reason and good faith)

12. Rule 2.04 of the Rules of Court direct the Court, that in any matter of procedure not provided for by the Rules of Court or by an Act, the court may, on motion, give directions.(to safe guard against harsh or inflexible interpretation of the rules of Court or Common Law which may prevent "justice" from prevailing).

13. Rule 3.01 of the Rules of Courtdirect the Court on such terms as may be just, to extend the time prescribed by an order or judgment or by the Rules of Court; (to safe guard against harsh or inflexible interpretation of the rules of Court or Common Law which may prevent "justice" from prevailing).

14. Law Society of New Brunswick Code of Professional Conduct compels Solicitors to overlook procedural errors and to act appropriately to secure the just determination of the matters in dispute between the parties pursuant to direction from CHAPTER 15 (2)(iii), (2 )(vii) and (4).One would expect, from a law school graduate, an adherence to Courteous, kind, and pleasant, behavior in genuine pursuit of remedy esp., towards self litigating applicants. For that purpose avoidance of "Sharp Practice", by consenting to requested abridgements, when their client will not be prejudiced by that action. 15. To have the Applicants painstakingly prepared documents dismissed, struck from the record or not considered by the Court is most egregiously offensive and a disservice to the administration of Justice. The Court should keep the following Maxim in mind- Justitianemineneganda est. Justice is not to be denied. 4. 4

Rule 1.03, 2.01. 2.02, 2.04 and 3.02 16. Maxim - Lex non deficit in justitiaexibenda. The law does not fail in showing justice.

17. The Rules of Court are that which enables rights to be delivered and claims to be enforced. As such, a Court should interpret and apply the Rules of court to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that there is a determination of the substantive matters in dispute between the Parties, unless the application of the Rules of Court would result in a serious prejudice or injustice.

18. Rule 1.03, 2.01, 2.02, 2.04 and 3.02 of the Rules of Court are reproduced as follows: 1.03 Interpretation (1) Except where a contrary intention appears, the InterpretationAct and the interpretation section of the JudicatureAct apply to these rules. (2) These rules shall be liberally construed to securethe just, least expensive and most expeditious determinationof every proceeding on its merits. (3) The arrangement of these rules and their titleheadings are primarily intended for convenience, but maybe used to assist in their interpretation. 2.01 The Court Dispensing with Compliance The court may at any time dispense with compliance with any rule, unless the rule expressly or impliedly provides otherwise. 2.02 Effect of Non-Compliance A procedural error, including failure to comply with these rules or with the procedure prescribed by an Act for the conduct of a proceeding, shall be treated as an irregularity and shall not render the proceeding a nullity, and all necessary amendments shall be permitted or other relief granted at any stage in the proceeding, upon proper terms, to secure the just determination of the matters in dispute between the parties. In particular, the court shall not set aside any proceeding because it ought to have been commenced by an originating process other than the one employed. 2.04 Where No Procedure Provided In any matter of procedure not provided for by these rules or by an Act the court may, on motion, give directions. 3.02 Extension or Abridgment 5

(1) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), the court may,on such terms as may be just, extend or abridge the timeprescribed by an order or judgment or by these rules. (2) A motion for extension of time may be made eitherbefore or after the expiration of the time prescribed. (3) Where the time prescribed by these rules relatesto an appeal, only a judge of the Court of Appeal maymake an order under paragraph (1). (4) Any time prescribed by these rules for serving,filing or delivering a document may be extended orabridged by consent. 19. Regarding Rules Rule 2.02,Justice TURNBULL, J.A.,in Juniberry Corp. v. Triathlonstated the following regarding the application of Rule 2.01: Rule 2.02 further directs: ... all necessary amendments shall be permitted ... at any stage in the proceeding, upon proper terms, to secure the just determination of the matters in dispute between the parties. These are rules of procedure as opposed to the substantive law which defines substantial legal rights and claims. The rules are the vehicle that enables rights to be delivered and claims to be enforced. As such, a Court should interpret and apply the rules to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that there is a determination of the substantive law unless the application of the rules would result in a serious prejudice or injustice. Accordingly, amendments to pleadings are generally allowed. That is the reason for the use of such phrases as "determining the real questions in dispute" in Rule 27.10 and "just determination of the matters in dispute" in Rule 2.02. As a general principle, therefore, the rules of procedure should not be used to prevent the delivery of rights; nor should they be used to preclude the enforcement of claims which are derived from the substantive law. Juniberry Corp. v. Triathlon Leasing Inc., 1995 CanLII 6225 (NB C.A.) pg 7-8 20. J. ERNEST DRAPEAU, J.A.. in Western Surety Co. v. National Bank of Canada, stated the following regarding application of Rule 2.02: [91] Rule 2.02 of the Rules of Court enjoins courts to overlook procedural errors and to take appropriate measures to secure the just determination of the matters in dispute between the parties.

Western Surety Co. v. National Bank of Canada, 2001 NBCA 15 (CanLII) para 91 21. The word enjoins was of particular note to the Applicant, the definition is provided below from Black's Law Dictionary: enjoin, vb. - 2. To prescribe, mandate, or strongly encourage Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 1608: ENJOIN 22. Justice RIDEOUT, J. stated that the Court must consider what is necessary to see that justice is done? in LeBlanc v. Bastarache, regarding applying Rule Rules 1.03(2); 2.02; 3.02(1) and (2): [15] In particular, he relied on the case of Simpson v. Saskatchewan : 6 "In an application to renew a writ of summons the basic question which faces the court is, what is necessary to see that justice is done? That question must be answered after a careful study and review of all the circumstances. If the refusal to renew the writ would do an obvious and substantial injustice to the plaintiff, while to permit it is not going to work any substantial injustice to the defendant or prejudice the defendant's defence, then the writ should be renewed. This should be done even if the only reason for non-service is the negligence, inattention or inaction of the plaintiff's solicitors and notwithstanding that a limitation defence may have accrued if a new writ was to be issued. If the non-service of the writ was due to the personal actions of the plaintiff, that, of course, would be a fact to be considered by the court. Each case should be considered in the light of its own peculiar circumstances and the court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, should be determined to see that justice is done." 7The rule which emerges from these cases unequivocally recognizes that the court's main concern must be to see that justice is done and to make certain that the extension of time for service does not prejudice or work any injustice to either of the parties... [19] I am satisfied that the delay in service was caused by the lawyer which in the circumstances should be treated as a neutral event. I am also satisfied that the Defendants insurer has not and will not suffer any prejudice if the Plaintiffs motion is granted. However, prejudice will occur to the Plaintiff if the time period for service is not extended. Therefore justice will be done if the time period for service is extended. 7

LeBlanc v. Bastarache, 2005 NBQB 142 (CanLII) paragraph 11 to 19 23. Justice LUCIE A. LaVIGNE in Agnew v. Knowlton, stated the following regarding granting an extension of time: 17. Rule 2.02 clearly stipulates that failure to comply with the Rules must be treated as an "irregularity", which can be remedied to secure the just determination of the matters in dispute. 18. Rule 1.03(2) provides that this Court should apply the Rules so as to secure a just, least expensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits. 19. The main concern in cases such as this is to see that justice is done and to make certain that any extension of time for service does not prejudice or work injustice to the parties involved. Agnew v. Knowlton, 2003 NBQB 454 (CanLII) .; paragraph 17 19 24. Chief Justice J. ERNEST DRAPEAU, J.AinK.C. v. New Brunswick, stated the following regarding Rule 3.02(1): [Page 3] Rule3.02 (1) permits the court to extend the time prescribed by an order, judgment or the rules. Thus, where the statute does not fix a deadline the court may extend the time under the authority of Rule3.02(1). K.C. v. New Brunswick (Health and Community Services), 1998 CanLII 17954 (NB CA) pg 3 25. The Honorable Chief Justice J. Ernest Drapeau,in Michaud v. Robertson, discussed whether it was appropriate that a party suffer dismissal of an Appeal, simply because the Appellant had unduly delayed preparation and perfection of his appeal: This is a motion by the respondents, other than Par Syndication Group Inc., for an order dismissing the appeal pursuant to Rule 62.23(1)(c) of the Rules of Court on the ground that the appellant has unduly delayed preparation and perfection of his appeal.Dismissal of an appeal for failure to comply with Rule 62.15 is only appropriate "where it is shown that the interests of justice would be ill-served by a less drastic measure." 8

-3(Q.L.). The same approach is warranted when Rule 62.23(1)(c) is brought into play In our view, the interests of justice would be better served by an order under Rule 62.24(1)(a)(ii) directing the appellant to perfect his appeal within a specified timeDispositionThe motion for an order under Rule 62.23(1)(c) is dismissed. The appellant is directed to perfect his appeal on or before December 19, 2003, failing which it will stand dismissed. Michaud v. Robertson, 2003 NBCA 79 (CanLII) pg 1-3 26. In part because of the Respondents unsubstantiated objections, it has been necessary for the Applicant to file this subject Motion to be granted the necessary time abridgement. The Applicant has been prejudiced by unnecessary cost, time and energy preparing for this otherwise unneeded Motion, when the self represented Applicant was already experiencing a difficult situation to begin with.

27. Applicant Andr Murray is confident that it is the intention of The Honorable Court in "determining the real questions in dispute". For that purpose will not allow minor procedural matters to cloud or impede our journey to justice. Applicant Andr Murray contends that the balance of convenience favors the granting of the relief sought. Granting the requested Orders will not prejudice the Respondents in any way. Not granting the requested Orders will be an undeniable prejudice to the Applicant, who would be barred from relief without just cause (which would be contrary to the Rules of Court, jurisprudence and the principles of equity favoring the Granting of the Orders).

5. Closing 28. In Closing, the Applicant will refer to Black's Law Dictionary, which defines Justice as: justice. 1. The fair and proper administration of laws. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 2528 JUSTICE

29. The Respondent has not identified any prejudice that which will arise from the Court granting the Applicants requested Orders, however, it is notable the Law Society of New Brunswick Code of Professional Conduct, compels their members, to act in favor of granting Orders as are the subject herewithin.

30. The Rules of Court support the relief the Applicant is seeking, principles of equity support the relief the Applicant is seeking, balance of convenience favors granting of the relief sought, Jurisprudence further supports granting relief the Applicant is seeking, the Applicant believes that this honorable court granting the requested Order would be the fair and proper administration of laws and express the spirit and intention of the New Brunswick Rules of Court. 6 Costs Cost Orders In Favor Of Self-Represented Litigants 31. McNichol v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, Chief Justice

Drapeau addresses orders for costs in favor of self-represented litigants, stating:

[43]. . . Rule 59.01, however, makes it clear that costs are in the discretion of the trial court who can determine by whom and to what extent costs shall be paid and that such costs can be fixed with or without reference to a tariff. In addition, there appears to be a modern trend regarding the granting of costs to unrepresented lay litigants. McNichol v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, 2006 NBCA 54 (CanLII), para. 43

32.

The Applicant offers that after due consideration, this Honorable Court

may conclude similarly as in McNichol v. Co-operators General Insurance Company, supra, that the case before it is one that calls for the exercise of this Honorable Courts discretion under Rule 59.01 in a manner favorable to a lay litigant; therefore, this Honorable Court may find it appropriate to order the costs, in addition to all reasonable disbursements.

33.

In Fong, et al. v. Chan, et al, Sharpe J.A stated the opinion of the Court

regarding the right of self-represented lay litigants to recover costs, the full citation from paragraph 15 to 27 is very informative, here is an except: [15] The appellant relies on a number of decisions, discussed below, on the right of self-represented lay litigants to recover costs. 10

The appellant submits that those cases establish that lay litigants may be awarded costs, including counsel fee, and that it follows that self-represented solicitors must be similarly entitled. Fong, et al. v. Chan, et al., 1999 CanLII 2052 (ON CA), paras. 15 - 27 34. As similarly stated in King v. Barker, 2006CanLII 27871 (ON SC) . . .

Costs should only be awarded to those lay litigants who can demonstrate that they devoted time and effort to work ordinarily done by a lawyer retained for litigation, and that as a result, self-represented litigants incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing remunerative activity such as the Applicant before this Honourable Court. It is abundantly clear that the Applicant devoted much time to present thought-provoking legal arguments ordinarily submitted by an attorney, further is evidenced by the quality of the material presented for consideration by this Honorable Court. King v. Barker, 2006CanLII 27871 (ON SC), para. 5

35.

As stated in Fong, et al. v. Chan,, three purposes are fostered by

allowing the trial judge discretion to award costs to self-represented litigants: . . . modern cost rules are designed to foster three fundamental purposes: (1) to indemnify successful litigants for the cost of litigation; (2) to encourage settlements; and (3) to discourage and sanction inappropriate behaviour by litigants. . . . Fong, et al. v. Chan, et al., supra,para. 22

36.

As is well established by the Courts, lay litigants may recover costs,

including counsel fees. This is a clear trend of both the common law and the statutory law to allow for recovery of costs by self-represented litigants.

37.

Costs may be awarded to those lay litigants who can demonstrate

devoted time and effort, which would ordinarily have been done by a lawyer retained for same litigation. Further, it is consistent when lay litigants incurred an opportunity cost by foregoing their usual remunerative activity; therefore, awarding of additional costs is a useful tool of the Court to encourage settlements and/or to discourage or sanction inappropriate behavior, as the case may be. 11

38.

In consideration for costs of a proceeding, the Applicant would like this

Honourable Court to consider granting costs in favor of the Applicant because of the importance of the issues. In Lang v. Tran, Cavarzan J. addressed the following regarding importance of the issues: With respect to the factor involving the importance of the issues, I note that the rule does not refer to the importance of the issues to the parties. No doubt, when matters require resolution by proceeding to trial the issues are important to the parties. In my view, however, importance of the issues comprehends matters of general importance affecting the rights of society at large, . . . Lang v. Tran, 2006 CanLII 32627 (ON SC), para. 11

39.

A Charter violation, which may be cured by the Applicants actions,

should qualify as an important issue. This is a matter of general importance affecting the rights of society at large.

40.

The Court should consider this in context that the Royal Bank of

Canada and 501376N.B. Ltd., are trying to collaterally attack the Charter Challenge Application regarding Charter issues, and the damage this motion could cause to the Applicants ability to have a Charter issue resolved. This atrocious behavior of the Royal Bank of Canada and the empty shelf company 501376N.B. Ltd., owned by Mecca Corporation is a self-serving agenda which should not be rewarded by the Court, or condoned in any way.

41.

Black's Law Dictionary defines frivolous as: frivolous, adj. Lacking a

legal basis or legal merit; not serious; not reasonably purposeful. Garner, Bryan A. and Braum A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary,8th ed., frivolous. (Thomson/West, 2004) at p. 1969 42. Black's Law Dictionary defines vexatious as: vexatious, adj. (Of

conduct) without reasonable or probable cause or excuse; harassing; annoying. Garner, Bryan A. and Braum A. Garner, Black's Law Dictionary,8th ed., vexatious. (Thomson/West, 2004) at p. 4842

12

43.

The Applicant believes that the conduct of ROYAL BANK OF

CANADA and 501376 N.B. Ltd., to oppose this Motion for Abridgement without a reason, is further evidence of their litigious actions, therefore, should qualify under the subject of frivolous and vexatious. This Honorable Court should consider same when deciding the matter of costs of this Motion.

44.

Having considered the provided arguments for costs, this Honorable

Court may find it appropriate to order the Royal Bank of Canada & 501376 N.B. Ltd., to pay costs throughout, in addition to all reasonable disbursements. D. PART IV ORDERS SOUGHT 1. pursuant to Rule 1.03, 2.01, 2.02, 2.04 and 3.02 of the Rules of Court the Court, to abridge time required for Court Filing and Document Service upon the Respondents, of the Applicants following documents: a) Pre Hearing Brief Filed for consideration at the Hearing of a Notice of Application, scheduled to be heard December 17, 2012, regarding Constitutional issues and Charter Challenge, subject Notice of Application Form 16D, Dated May 31, 2012; b) RECORD ON MOTION to be used at the Hearing of a Notice of Application, scheduled to be heard December 17, 2012, regarding Constitutional issues and Charter Challenge, subject Notice of Application Form 16D, Dated May 31, 2012; c) Applicants Brief, to be used in response to Motion, Dated July 3, 2012 file by 501376 N.B. Ltd., a body corporate, to be heard December 17, 2012; d) Responding Affidavit of Andre Murray, Dated December 14, 2012, to be used in response to Motion, Dated July 3, 2012 file by 501376 N.B. Ltd., a body corporate, to be heard December 17, 2012; e) Applicants Brief, to be used in response to Motion Dated July 5, 2012, filed by ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, to be heard December 17, 2012; f) Responding Affidavit of Andre Murray, Dated December 14, 2012, to be used in response to Motion Dated July 5, 2012, filed by ROYAL BANK OF CANADA, to be heard December 17, 2012; g) This subject Notice of Motion FORM 37A, for an abridgement of time and supporting Affidavit. 2. the Respondent in this matter pay costs of the within Motion; 13