Court File Number: F/M/1/11 F/M/22/11

IN THE COURT OF QUEENS BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK TRIAL DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FREDERICTON BETWEEN: ANDRE MURRAY Applicant, -andTHE NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION Respondent, _____________________________________________________________________ The Applicants Post-Hearing Brief Rules of Court, Rule 38.06.1 For joint Hearing regarding Court File Number: F/M/1/11 and F/M/22/11 Filed by the Self Represented Applicant Andr Murray _____________________________________________________________________

Andr Murray The Applicant 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3A 4J8 Telephone Number: E-mail address:

andremurraynow@ gmail.com

Debora M. Lamont Stewart McKelvey Barristers, Solicitors and Trademark Agents Suite 600 Frederick Square 77 Westmorland Street P.O. Box 730 Fredericton NB E3B 5B4 Direct Dial: 506.443.0125 Main Tel: 506.458.1970 Fax: 506.444.8974 Email: dlamont@smss.com

Debora M. Lamont Solicitor for Respondent The New Brunswick Police Commission / 435 King Street, Suite 202 / 435, Fredericton NB E3B 1E5 Tel.(506) 453-2632 Fax.(506) 457-3542

PART 1 INDEX
The Plaintiffs Post-Hearing Brief

PAGE A. PART I INDEX ____________________________________ii

B. PART II - ISSUES ____________________________________ 1 1. 1.02 Application______________________________________ 4 1.03 Interpretation ______________________________________ 5 Jurisdiction____________________________________________14 FORM 1 REFERRAL __________________________________ 35 Closing ______________________________________________ 36 NOTE _______________________________________________ 39

C. PART III ORDERS SOUGHT ________________________ 40

{(d) a concise statement of the relief sought by the party.} D. Schedule A - A list of authorities in the order referred to

in the Post Hearing Brief; _______________________________ 40 D. Schedule B - The text of all relevant provisions of Statutes or Regulations ___________________________________________45

ii

PART II - ISSUES 1. Maxim - Neminem laedit qui jure suo utitur. A person who exercises his own rights injures no one. If as in this case the Applicant was actually Defending a criminal matter then according to natural Justice a alleged Defendant in a criminal matter would have the right to confront all evidence intended for use in a fair hearing (therefore all substantive information/material would have been revealed), which is one of the fundamental principles of Justice adhered to in Canada. One of the fundamental principles of justice is that no accusation be allowed to stand unless there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation, however, the Applicant in this matter has suffered injury and harm by judgment without trial, experienced by arrest without warrant, therefore in the interest of preventing further injustice, the Applicant to gain the information necessary for his safety inter alia, is requesting of the Courts assistance to take this alternative route, as contemplated by the drafters of Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6,.

2.

The Applicant claims this Court has the power to order an investigation

at the behest of the alleged matters herewithin alluded to, (this is such a case) when it is in the interest of the public good. 3. The Applicants request is believed to be meritorious requiring

therefore consideration of alleged substantive matters, as distinguished from procedural issues in a case, furthermore Section 66 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, provides this Court with the appropriate procedure and therefore jurisdiction to make the requested Order.

4.

The Applicant believes that (pursuant to section 12(1) (e) of the Police

Act) each police officer of the Fredericton Police Force is charged with responsibility for serving and executing court process in respect of offences against the law,

5.

The purposes of this Right to Information and Protection of Privacy

Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 pursuant to section 2 (a) is to allow any person a right of access to records in the custody or under the control of public bodies, subject to the limited and specific exceptions set out in this Act,

6.

The Applicant believes that this subject request is: Necessary for the Applicants protection, safety and wellbeing. Legally right; lawful; equitable Congruent with fair and proper administration of laws. Appropriate and well adapted to fulfilling intended objectives as found drafted and issued therewithin the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Congruent with application of judicial discretion, that being exercise of judgment by a judge or court based on what is fair under circumstances and guided by rules and principles of law

7.

The Applicant believes this subject request is not frivolous or

vexatious nor amounts to an abuse of the right to access as contemplated by the drafters of Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6.

8.

The Applicant believes that without this Honorable Courts

intervention, the applicant will continue to be harassed, harmed, and injured, furthermore, it is plain and obvious after 6 years of this abuse at the hands of members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE (three separate arrests without charge, including and or in some cases involving several illegal entries and searches of the Applicants Residential Marshall Street Property) that the Fredericton Police Force have no intention to uphold their Duty, to act to protect the Applicant.

9.

To assist this Honorable Court to come to a decision regarding the

Courts Jurisdiction and Discretion to grant APPLICANTS requested Order, as alleged herewithin, requiring for that reason an investigation into abuse and malicious manipulation of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE services, further, determining the volume and substance of telephone reports and complaints containing erroneous and provocative allegations against Andr Murray (Applicant in this matter) and further and most importantly that this Honorable Court Order disclosure of same investigation to the APPLICANT.

10.

The APPLICANT will review and define the relevant sections of the

law as the APPLICANT understands them as follows: Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 Rules of Court of new Brunswick 1.02 Application, 1.03 Interpretation (1) (2) and 1.08 Orders on Terms Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 section 17 Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 Section 2 and Section 66 The Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 section 12 Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius definition: Latin: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.

Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Latin: Subsequent laws repeal prior conflicting ones. 1.02 Application

11. 1.02 Application These rules apply to all proceedings in the Court of Queens Bench and the Court of Appeal unless some other procedure is provided under an Act. 12. Reference there is the underlying consideration of doing justice

between the parties (Grewal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1986), 63 N.R. 106 (F.C.A.), as summed up by Mr. Justice Strayer). 13. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines Justice, at Page 2527 JUSTICE justice. 1. The fair and proper administration of laws.

2528 as follows:

14.

The following definition of fair is found at Merriam Webster online at Main Entry: 1fair 6 a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism <a very fair person to do business with> b (1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed (2) : consonant with merit or importance : due <a fair share> c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule <fair game>

the following: address: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair

15. follows

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines fair, at Page 1788 as FAIR fair,adj.1. Impartial; just; equitable; disinterested <everyone thought that Judge Jones was fair>

2. Free of bias or prejudice <in jury selection, the lawyers tried to select a fair and impartial jury>. 16. Rule 1.02 provides that these Rules of Court apply to all proceedings in

the Court of Queens Bench unless some other procedure is provided under an Act. Regarding jurisdiction and discretion of this Court to provide the requested relief, Section 66 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 affirms this position and does not in fact provide any other contrary procedure for the Court to follow in regards to granting the relief sought. 17. Section 66 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 provides the following: Decision of The Court of Queens Bench 66(1) (c) If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under subsection 65(1), the judge shall hold a hearing and, (a) where the matter is referred by an applicant, (i) if the head of a public body denied a request for information in whole or in part, may order the head of the public body to grant the request in whole or in part, and (c) may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge, necessary 18. Section 66 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 clearly states this Court may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge, necessary the APPLICANT believes this assertion also includes the relief as sought by the APPLICANT.

1.03 Interpretation

19. 1.03 Interpretation (1) Except where a contrary intention appears, the Interpretation Act and the interpretation section of the Judicature Act apply to these rules. (2) These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, least expensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits. 20. As stated in section 1.03 (1) Except where a contrary intention appears,

(in this case there is none) the Interpretation Act and the interpretation section of the Judicature Act apply to these rules

21.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines Justice, at Page 2527 JUSTICE justice. 1. The fair and proper administration of laws.

2528 as follows:

22.

Furthermore, regarding the New Brunswick Rules of court, Rule

1.03(2) to secure the just, least expensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits, it is my understanding that Judgment on the merits is a judgment made after consideration of the substantive, as distinguished from procedural issues in a case. Further to this point please find the following definition of Merits. 23. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) at Page 3136 May it please the MERITS merits. 1. The elements or grounds of a claim or defense; the substantive considerations to be taken into account in deciding a case, as opposed to extraneous or technical points, esp. of procedure <trial on the merits>.

Honorable Court the defines merits as the following:

2.EQUITY(3) <on questions of euthanasia, the Supreme Court has begun to concern itself with the merits as well as the law>.

24. The rules of Court 1.03 (2) states These rules shall be liberally construed; may it please the Honorable Court the please find the following definition of Construed. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) at Page 947 defines Construe as follows: CONSTRUE construe (k<<schwa>>n-stroo), vb. To analyze and explain the meaning of (a sentence or passage) <the court construed the language of the statute>. Furthermore: May it please the Honorable Court the Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) at Page 2526 defines Just as follows: JUST just, adj. Legally right; lawful; equitable

25.

When viewed in the here within above language, the defined words are

followed by bracketed definitions, the Rule 1.03 (2) reads: These rules shall be liberally construed (analyzed and the meaning of explained ) to secure the just (Legally right; lawful; equitable), least expensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits (The elements or grounds of a claim or defense; the substantive considerations to be taken into account in deciding a case, as opposed to extraneous or technical points, esp. of procedure).

26.

Furthermore, May it please the Honorable Court the Merriam-

webster.com defines merit at the following address

(http://mw4.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/merits) as follows: Main Entry: 1merit 1 a obsolete : reward or punishment due b : the qualities or actions that constitute the basis of one's deserts c : a praiseworthy quality : virtue d : character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem; also : achievement 2 : spiritual credit held to be earned by performance of righteous acts and to ensure future benefits 3 a plural : the substance of a legal case apart from matters of jurisdiction, procedure, or form b : individual significance or justification

27.

The APPLICANT, requests that the Court keep with the general

direction contained in the New Brunswick Rules of court Rule 1.03(2). to secure a fair, just and balanced determination, based on the MERITS. There is a need to protect against rigid compliance with the rules taking precedence over resolving the dispute and furthermore, securing a just and meritorious determination. In this case the rules of Court grant this Court the jurisdiction and discretion to grant the relief sought by the APPLICANT, so there is no procedural hang up in issue.

28.

The APPLICANT justly seeks a fair opportunity to have this

Honorable Court make an Order which may resolve the issues which the APPLICANT is requesting relief, and this Court has the discretion to grant this requested Order.

29.

In Daly v. Petro-Canada, 1995 CanLII 6205 (NB Q.B.) Justice H. H.

McLellan stated his view regarding the discretion of the Trial Judge and also his view that the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that matters of civil

procedure should be decided on their substance and merits, May it please the Honorable Court found at page 9 to page 17 as, follows: It seems to me to be worthy particular emphasis that the phrase "should not be granted except for the most compelling reasons" are not found in the Rules of Court. Those words appear to me to be inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of the Rules and the Judicature Act, which, for example, in s. 26(3) uses words such as "as to the Court seems just".

30.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B at Page 5327

provided the following excerpt: Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Subsequent laws repeal prior conflicting ones. [Cases: Statutes 159, 162. C.J.S. Statutes 287, 294.] 31. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B, at Page 5294 provide the following excerpt: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. 32. The definition of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius may be found

at the following website (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclusioAlteri us.aspx ) and is reproduced below for convenience: Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius definition: Latin: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other. In Rodaro, Justice, at 856, defined the Latin maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius as follows: "... a maxim of interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract or will, an intention to exclude all others

from its operation may be inferred. In this case, the reference to the assignment to a financial institution excludes assignment to any other entity." In Dorval, Justice Cameron expressed it as: "... to express one thing is to exclude another." 33. Rule 59.01 of the Rules of Court, state that the costs of a proceeding

are in the discretion of the Court, subject to any Act and these rules of Court, Rule 59.01 of the Rule so of Court is reproduced as follows: 59.01 Authority of the Court (1) Subject to any Act and these rules, the costs of a proceeding or a step in a proceeding are in the discretion of the court and the court may determine by whom and to what extent costs shall be paid. 34. Rule 59.01 of the Rules of Court, specifically expresses the courts

discretion when awarding Costs to Parties. Rule 59.01 recognized that the discretion regarding cost is subject to the Acts of New Brunswick as well as any Rules of Court to the contrary. Section 76 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 is just such a Rule, the Maxim Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant (Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary, a.k.a. "Last in Time") and affirmed by the Maxim Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others) }, which limits the discretion of the Court, when deciding Costs on a Referral Hearing.

35.

Section 76 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 provides the following Costs 76(1) If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under subsection 65(1) or appealed to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under section 75, the

10

judge shall award costs in favour of the person who referred or appealed the matter (a) where the person is successful, and (b) where the person is not successful, if the judge considers it to be in the public interest. 76(2) Despite subsection (1), a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick may award costs in favour of the public body if the judge considers that the matter for review or appeal is frivolous or vexatious or amounts to an abuse of the right to access. 36. Section 76 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 according to the Maxim to express one thing is to exclude another makes its interpretation clear, specifically regarding costs that The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick may award costs in favour of the public body only if the judge considers that the matter for review or appeal is frivolous or vexatious or amounts to an abuse of the right to access. In comparison Section 66 of RTIPPA not so limited.

37.

Section 66 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 states the following Decision of The Court of Queens Bench 66(1) If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under subsection 65(1), the judge shall hold a hearing and, (c) may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge, necessary. 38. Section 76 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 is restrictive regarding the Order as to Costs that this Court may make, probably because the Right to Information and Protection of

11

Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 is a tool to be used by the people and for the peoples benefit. The idea of the publics tax dollars being used to fund a legal council hired thereby to advise the executive head of a public body (funded by public tax dollars) who for that reason will fight a Taxpayer in the Honorable Court of Queens Bench; moreover a Tax payer who is attempting to retrieve information the Taxpayer believes he is entitled to. Section 76 of the Right to Information and Protection appears to be legislation issued as a governor on the throttle, so as to limit the harm imposed on the public.

39.

Section 66 is in the alternative is expansive, allowing this Court the

discretion to make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge, necessary to provide relief to the public, and allow for the Court to be creative, in areas where the drafters of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, left out possible just relief. 40. The definition of opinion may be found at the following website

(http://www.merriam_webster.com/dictionary/opinion) and is reproduced below for convenience: Definition of OPINION 1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter 2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view 41. The definition of opinion may be found at the following website

(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/opinion) and is reproduced below for convenience: opinion [??p?nj?n] n

12

1. judgment or belief not founded on certainty or proof 2. the prevailing or popular feeling or view public opinion 3. evaluation, impression, or estimation of the value or worth of a person or thing 42. The definition of DISCRETION is provided by Black's Law Dictionary

(8th ed. 2004), at Page 1405 and 1406 DISCRETION discretion (di-skresh-<<schwa>>n).1. Wise conduct and management; cautious discernment; prudence. 2. Individual judgment; the power of free decision-making. sole discretion. An individual's power to make decisions without anyone else's advice or consent. 4. A public official's power or right to act in certain circumstances according to personal judgment and conscience, often in an official or representative capacity. Also termed discretionary power. administrative discretion.A public official's or agency's power to exercise judgment in the discharge of its duties. [Cases: Administrative Law and Procedure 324, 754. C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and Procedure 60, 206, 223.] judicial discretion. The exercise of judgment by a judge or court based on what is fair under the circumstances and guided by the rules and principles of law; a court's power to act or not act when a litigant is not entitled to demand the act as a matter of right. Also termed legal discretion. [Cases: Courts 26. C.J.S. Courts 3, 6465, 67.]

43.

The definition of NECESSARY AND PROPER is provided by Black's NECESSARY AND PROPER necessary and proper,adj. Being appropriate and well adapted to fulfilling an objective.

Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 3273

13

44.

When read in the above referenced language, bold words are defined

with the following brackets, section 66(1) (c) reads as follows the Court may make any other order that is, in the opinion ( judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter) of the judge, necessary (Being appropriate and well adapted to fulfilling an objective.). This is congruent with the definition of judicial discretion, which is the exercise of judgment by a judge or court based on what is fair under the circumstances and guided by the rules and principles of law.

45.

The Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009,

c. R-10.6, 66(1) (c), states the jurisdiction and the discretion of this Honorable Court as follows (Honorable Court) may make any other order (jurisdiction stated) that is, in the opinion (discretion) of the judge, necessary (Being appropriate and well adapted to fulfilling an objective.). The APPLICANT believes that this statement is most similar to the definition of judicial discretion found in blacks Law Dictionary, which reads The exercise of judgment by a judge or court based on what is fair under the circumstances and guided by the rules and principles of law; a court's power to act or not act when a litigant is not entitled to demand the act as a matter of right.

Jurisdiction 46. In determining if this Honorable Court has Jurisdiction to make an order, which would Order the Fredericton Police Force to conduct an investigation as requested by the APPLICANT, may require the interpretation of three statues namely: Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-10.6

14

Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 47. Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 claims that the Act is

notwithstanding any other Act, which would of course include Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-10.6 and the Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2.

48.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B at Page 5327

provided the following excerpt: Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Subsequent laws repeal prior conflicting ones. [Cases: Statutes 159, 162. C.J.S. Statutes 287, 294.] 49. The definition of the Maxim Leges posteriores priores contrarias

abrogant is provided at the Legal Dictionary website at the following URL at (http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Leges+posteriores+priores+contrarias+abrog ant) Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary. 2 Rol. R. 410; 11 Co. 626, 630. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856. 50. The definition of Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant is

provided by Wikipedia, at the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_repeal Implied repeal

15

The doctrine of implied repeal is a concept in English constitutional theory which states that where an Act of Parliament conflicts with an earlier one, the later Act takes precedence and the conflicting parts of the earlier Act are repealed (i.e. no longer law). This doctrine is expressed in the Latin phrase "leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant". 51. Leges Posteriores Priores Contrarias Abrogant: This method of

statutory construction in this case, could apply to: Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-10.6 and, Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2. and, Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2,

but it does not, because there is not conflicting portions or sections. The concept of this maxim is the newer statute later abrogates a prior statute only where the two are manifestly inconsistent with and repugnant to each other. The rationale for this form of construction is that the newer statute more accurately depicts the current societal mood or more appropriately applies Jurisdiction to a given subject. 52. The subject section of the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 which 9(1) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of this or any other Act or the Rules of Court, the Trial Division shall have and exercise general and original jurisdiction in all causes and matters including jurisdiction in the following matters, namely: (a) all causes and matters, civil and criminal, that were within the exclusive cognizance of the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original common law jurisdiction, before the commencement of the Judicature Act, 1909;

includes notwithstanding is reproduced below as follows:

16

(b) all causes and matters that prior to July 1, 1966, were assigned to or cognizable by the Chancery Division; (c) all causes and matters that prior to September 4, 1979, were within the jurisdiction of the County Court of New Brunswick; and (d) all causes and matters that prior to September 4, 1979, were within the jurisdiction of the Queens Bench Division of the Supreme Court. 53. For the benefit of the Court, the following definition of

notwithstanding is provided from: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/Notwithstanding.aspx Notwithstanding In spite of, even if, without regard to or impediment by other things. In spite of, even if, without regard to or impediment by other things as stated. 54. Additionally, the following definition of notwithstanding is from NOTWITHSTANDING notwithstanding, prep. Despite; in spite of <notwithstanding the conditions listed above, the landlord can terminate the lease if the tenant defaults>. 55. To understand the use of the term and meaning of notwithstanding

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004),at Page 3378 as follows:

requires that we interpret the subject statutes. The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, and correctness is the standard of review applicable in this case. Statutory interpretation should be approached with the following analytical framework set out in Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., 1998 CanLII 837 (S.C.C.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at pages 40 and 41: Although much has been written about the interpretation of legislation . . ., Elmer Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) best

17

encapsulates the approach upon which I prefer to rely. He recognizes that statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the legislation alone. At p. 87 he states: Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. 56. In Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2

S.C.R. 559 Justice IACOBUCCI J., provided the following insight into the Principles of Statutory Interpretation: Today there is only one principle or approach; namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament. provides that every enactment is deemed remedial, and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects. words, like people, take their colour from their surroundings. This being the case, where the provision under consideration is found in an Act that is itself a component of a larger statutory scheme, the surroundings that colour the words and the scheme of the Act are more expansive.., as the principle of interpretation that presumes a harmony, coherence, and consistency between statutes dealing with the same subject matter. Other principles of interpretation such as the strict construction of penal statutes and the Charter values presumption only receive application where there is ambiguity as to the meaning of a provision.

18

What, then, in law is an ambiguity? It is only when genuine ambiguity arises between two or more plausible readings, each equally in accordance with the intentions of the statute, that the courts need to resort to external interpretive aids (emphasis added), to which I would add, including other principles of interpretation. 57. For comparison, let us review The New Brunswick Interpretation Act,

R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 which states: 17 Every Act and regulation and every provision thereof shall be deemed remedial, and shall receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of the object of the Act, regulation or provision.

58.

It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the

legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences. According to Ct, supra, an interpretation can be considered absurd if it leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the legislative enactment. Sullivan echoes these comments noting that a label of absurdity can be attached to interpretations which defeat the purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile.

59.

The Applicant will refer to and rely on the well established principle of

statutory interpretation, that: the legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences. an interpretation may be considered absurd, if it leads to ridiculous or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with the object of the legislative enactment

19

a label of absurdity may be attached to interpretations which defeat the purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile.

60.

APPLICANT in this matter, argues that a label of absurdity may be

attached to interpretations of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, that, which may defeat the purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile. 61. In applying this principle it is instructive to look at the objectives set

out in section 9(1) of the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2, which provides the Trial Division shall have and exercise general and original jurisdiction in all causes and matters, while at the same time, section 66(1) (c) of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-10.6 clearly reiterates the jurisdiction of a Judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick in relation to matters governed by Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6. The Applicant reasonably submits that the legislation in question, Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 is not by any means ambiguous, and the intention is to make abundantly clear the relationship, role and jurisdiction of Judges of The Court of Queens Bench Trail Division of New Brunswick.

62.

Section 66 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 provides the following Decision of The Court of Queens Bench 66(1) (c)If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under subsection 65(1), the judge shall hold a hearing and, (a) where the matter is referred by an applicant,

20

(i) if the head of a public body denied a request for information in whole or in part, may order the head of the public body to grant the request in whole or in part, and (c) may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge, necessary

63.

The following explanation of Statutory interpretation is provided at

Wikipedia located at the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation Conflicts between sources of law Where legislation and case law are in conflict, there is a presumption that legislation takes precedence insofar as there is any inconsistency. In the United Kingdom this principle is known as Parliamentary Sovereignty. In Australia and in the United States, the courts have consistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute. U.S. Supreme Court: "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "when the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254. Supreme Court of Virginia: "A fundamental rule of statutory construction requires that every part of a statute be presumed to have some effect, and not be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary." Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher, 153 Va. 332, 149 S.E. 541 (1929). Supreme Court of Alaska: "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage." Muller v.

21

BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska 1996); 64. An analysis of the principle in Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., supra,

can also be buttressed by the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 clearly defines the role of a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick, in relation to matters governed by the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6. In section 66(1)(c) of the Act, Section 66(1) (c) reaffirms the jurisdiction of a Judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick to act and in that capacity. If the legislation within the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, intended that a Judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick shall not have unlimited jurisdiction already granted by Section 9(1) of the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2, then there would have been a need to include conditions on how a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick has jurisdiction to act and in what capacity, (example Section 76 of the same Act) which has the effect of excluding while limiting the already granted jurisdiction of the Court as per the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.

65.

Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B, at Page 5294 Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another. Also termed Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius or enumeratio unius est exclusio alteriu. [Cases: Contracts 152; Statutes 195. C.J.S. Contracts 307, 318322, 327, 331; Statutes 323.]

provide the following excerpt:

22

66.

The definition of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius may be found

at the following website (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclusioAlteri us.aspx ) and is reproduced below for convenience: Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius definition: Latin: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other. Sometimes referred to in short form as expressio unius. In Rodaro, Justice, at 856, defined the Latin maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius as follows: "... a maxim of interpretation meaning that the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other. When certain persons or things are specified in a law, contract or will, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred. In this case, the reference to the assignment to a financial institution excludes assignment to any other entity." In Dorval, Justice Cameron expressed it as: "... to express one thing is to exclude another." In Transpacific, Justice Lysyk described it as follows: "The principle ... expressio unius est exclusio alterius: the express mention of one or more things of a particular class may be regarded as impliedly excluding others." Although the doctrine is useful in determining the extents of contracts, it is also an important principle in the construction of statutes. In her book on the topic, jurist Ruth Sullivan wrote: "One of the so-called maxims of statutory interpretation is expressio unius est exclusio alterius: to express one thing is to exclude another. "The maxim reflects a form of reasoning that is widespread and important in interpretation .... the a contrario argument ... negative implication ..implied exclusion ... "An implied exclusion argument lies whenever there is reason to

23

believe that if the legislature had meant to include a particular thing within the ambit of its legislation, it would have referred to that thing expressly. Because of this expectation, the legislatures failure to mention the thing becomes grounds for inferring that it was deliberately excluded. Although there is no express exclusion, exclusion is implied." REFERENCES: Dorval v Dorval 2006 SKCA 21 Rodaro v Royal Bank of Canada 2000 OJ 272 Sullivan, R., Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3rd Ed. (Toronto: Butterworths, 1994), page 168 Transpacific Tours Ltd. v. Director of Investigation & Research 25 DLR 4th 202; also at (1986) 2 WWR 34; 24 CCC 3d 103; 8 CPR 3d 325; 20 CRR 337 and 68 BCLR 32

67.

The APPLICANT believes, that, the herewithin above principles of

statutory interpretation are persuasive, especially when considering, that, when certain things are specified in a law, an intention to exclude all others from its operation may be inferred, or to put it another way the intention is a expression of the one thing is the exclusion of the other thing. Because of this expectation, the legislatures failure to mention the limitation of jurisdiction of this Court (regarding Section 66 of Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6), becomes grounds for inferring that it was deliberately not exclusionary, hence for that reason this is an expression of the Honorable Courts jurisdiction to act, therefore, is the exclusion of the possibility, that this Court has limitations of jurisdiction to render decisions, which, may not at first glance, appear to be under the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6.

24

68.

The Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009,

c. R-10.6 specifically designates authority or jurisdiction to a Judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under subsection 66(1) (c) specifically as the Court's power to decide a case or issue and the Court may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge, necessary.

69.

Maxim - Neminem oportet esse sapientiorem legibus. No one ought to

be wiser than the laws. The Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 section 12 lists the Duties of police officer as follow: 12(1) Each police officer is charged with responsibility for (a) maintaining law and order, (b) preventing offences against the law, (c) enforcing penal provisions of the law, (d) escorting and conveying persons in custody to or from a court or other place, (e) serving and executing court process in respect of offences against the law, (f) maintaining order in the courts,

70.

The Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 section 12 lists the Duties of police

officer including performing the Order as requested by the APPLICANT for these reasons would further promote the members of FREDRICTON POLICE FORCE pursuant to The Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2, to be maintaining law and order, preventing offences against the law and to be serving and executing court process in respect of offences against the law.

25

71.

Maxim Nemo est supra leges. No one is above the laws. The Police

Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 does not preclude this Court from making Order as requested by the Applicant, for that reason, the expression of one thing is the exclusion of another, meaning: the Court may issue such an Order, that, which, would in fact be congruent with the mandate of the Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 and would, therefore, be directly aiding the members of FREDRICTON POLICE FORCE in their prescribed Duties of a police officer, according to above section 12.

72.

The APPLICANT submits, that because of Jurisdiction {not reduced or

abrogated in anyway pursuant to the Maxim Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant (Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the contrary, a.k.a. "Last in Time") and affirmed by the Maxim Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all others) }, this Honorable Court can and should (in this matter) render a decision which would provide necessary relief as requested by the APPLICANT, which may clearly determine the nature and degree of the alleged Obstruction of the Police inter alia: 1. Order an investigation to determine is there is substance to the alleged abuse and malicious manipulation of the Fredericton Police Force services. 2. The Investigation shall reveal the excessive volume of `non productive` complaint telephone calls regarding the Applicant and or Applicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2011 3. The Investigation shall reveal the number of non event responses by FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to Investigate the Applicant and or Applicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2011

26

4. Moreover, the Investigation may conclusively reveal the unfounded substance of the telephone reports and complaints to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding the Applicant and or Applicants residence of 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2011.

5. The Investigation may reveal the identity of the telephone reports and determine why the complaints are without substance nevertheless caused suffering of the innocent Applicant by relentless stalking and or surveillance or the Applicants residence of 29 31 Marshall Street occurring regularly over the 6 year period from 20052011. 6. Finally Order full disclosure of same investigation to the Applicant that the Applicant may acquire a Cease and desist Order for the protection of his body and sole.

73.

The Applicant researched CanLii for cases providing examples,

therefore, of a Court of Queens Bench actually Ordering an investigation of a Municipal Police Force furthermore Ordering a Police Force to reveal records as the case may be. The closest two themes of decisions which referred to a court ordered investigation are concerning Business Corporations Act, S.N.B., 1981, c. B-9.1 and Family Services Act (S.N.B. 1980, c. F-2.2).

74.

Business Corporations Act refers to Court of Queens Bench ordering

an investigation into corporate conduct, by checking the corporate records, inter alia, to protect the shareholders of corporations.

75.

In Catalyst Fund General Partner I Inc. v. Hollinger Inc., 2004 CanLII

66299 (ON SC), Justice C. Campbell J.: stated the following regarding the

27

issues of scope, extent, timing and cost of Court of Queens Bench court ordered investigation. [62] In my endorsement I indicated that an opportunity would be provided to counsel to address the issues of scope, extent, timing and cost of inspection. Some of these issues may be formulated in the following [63] questions that arise from the matters referred to in s. 230(1) of the CBCA: 1. What are the matters to be investigated? 2. What mandate should the inspector have? 3. Who is an appropriate person or persons to conduct the inspection? 4. How will the inspection be carried out? 5. Extent of access the inspector should have, furthermore, access to which type of material in the possession of which parties? 6. Which person or persons should be required to respond to inquiries and should their responses be evidence given by oath? 7. Schedule of timeframe thought to a reasonable estimate for carrying out the inspection? 8. Estimated cost and who should bear that cost? 9. How will the report be provided to the Court? 10. How to avoid disputes between the interests of Parties therefore establishing a credible inspection deserving of respect?

28

76.

As similarly contemplated in Catalyst Fund General Partner I Inc. v.

Hollinger Inc., 2004, the Applicant respectfully suggests the following procedure: 1. What is the criterion to be investigated? The Investigation should reveal the precise volume of complaint calls received by FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE regarding 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2011 The Investigation should reveal the number of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE responses to 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2011 The Investigation should reveal the substance of the telephone reports and complaints of calls to FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE regarding 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2011. The Investigation should reveal the identity of the caller of the subject FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE telephone reports and complaints regarding calls to 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2011. Order disclosure subject investigation to the Applicant. 2. What mandate should the inspector have? Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , at Page 3049 provides the definition of MANDATE: mandate,n. 2. A judicial command directed to an officer of the court to enforce a court order. The investigator for that reason assigned to this case may have the mandate to resolve how it is that so many complaints are unfounded without substance and further solve the questions mistaken identity resulting inter alia in false arrests that which is in public interest to critique and entirely eliminate dangerous practices of the FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE. What are the matters to be investigated?

29

3. Who is an appropriate person or persons to conduct the inspection? The FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE, have designated individuals who conduct investigations on a regular basis. These same individuals would likely be the most experiences and directed individuals to conduct the requested investigation. 4. How will the inspection be carried out? May this please the Honorable Court: Since we live in the days and age of computers, to produce the results from the computers used by The FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE, who reasonably have computerized databases to keep track of such calls (topic of this recitation) which the FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE regularly receive; this computerized search would reasonably take little time at all. It is a matter of typing in key word searches and hit the print button. 5. Type of access the inspector should have to identified material in the possession of which parties? The Fredericton Police Force, investigator would likely only need to conduct a search of the Fredericton Police force computerized databases. 6. Which person or persons should be asked to respond to inquiries? Should there be evidence under oath? Members of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE, would only need to conduct a search of the FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE computerized databases for that reason eliminating any need to question the source of the information. 7. What timeframe is a reasonable estimate for carrying out the inspection? We live in the days and age of computers, to produce the results from the computers used by FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE, who reasonably have computerized databases, would take little to no time at

30

all. It is a matter of typing in key word searches and hit the print button. The time frame to organize in preparation and execute search thereby including accumulation of relevant information would involve no more than an hour or two of time. 8. What is the estimated cost and who should bear that cost? FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE, naturally have individuals designated who for that reason conduct investigations on a regular basis. They are of course already paid to provide investigative Services moreover appear to be victims of Obstruction. 9. How will the inspector report findings? The Investigator should provide a written report first of all for this Honorable Courts consideration, which may be forwarded at the Courts discretion to the Applicant and THE NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION. 10. How will disputes with respect to the conduct of the inspection be dealt with? 77. In R. v. Lam, 2008 BCPC 248 (CanLII), though the requested Order is

different, regarding The issue in this case is whether a Provincial Court judge can order the police to release items seized The Honourable Judge M. F. Giardini, discusses the subject of the Authority of the Court To Make an Order, further the Court states It is possible that a court with inherent jurisdiction may have jurisdiction to make the order sought, from paragraph 35 through to and including paragraph 45 as follows:
Is Authority To Make Order Implied? [35] The next question, in the absence of an express provision allowing this Court to make such an order, is whether such authority is conferred by necessary implication or on some other basis. [36] Mr. Lam brought this application under s. 490(1) and (2) so I will specifically consider whether those subsections give this Court the authority to make the order

31

Mr. Lam seeks. In doing so I am guided by the comments and conclusions of Chief Justice McLachlin in R. v. Raponi. In that case the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether a Provincial Court judge had the jurisdiction to order the return of $35,000 which had been seized by police without a warrant and without demonstrating reasonable grounds. The procedure, history and background facts of that case are somewhat convoluted and will not be repeated here. However, the conclusions of the court on the issue of jurisdiction are apposite to the matter before me. [37] The Provincial Court judge in that case made an order returning the money to the applicant. In doing so he held the Code conferred on him the jurisdiction to make an order implicitly, if not expressly. The first question the Supreme Court considered was whether the Provincial Court judge could order improperly seized items returned under s. 490(2). The Supreme Court ruled he could not and stated: ... While the Provincial Court judge acted in a s. 490(2) hearing, that section deals only with extending the time of detention beyond three months. The only question to be considered by the Provincial Court judge is whether continued detention is required by a proceeding that has been instituted or by an investigation. [para. 29] [38] This application is brought by Mr. Lam under s. 490(1) and (2), however, neither of those sections provide a basis for the order sought. Section 490(1) provides for detention of seized materials and for the return of seized materials to the lawful owner or person who is lawfully entitled to possession unless the justice is satisfied the things seized should be detained. In this case a determination under s. 490(1) was made by a justice on January 18, 2008. This subsection does not, in my view, provide a basis to make the order now sought. [39] Section 490(2) provides that things seized cannot be detained more than three months unless proceedings are instituted which may require the things detained or unless a justice is satisfied that continued detention is warranted. As noted in R. v. Raponi the only question to be considered by a Provincial Court judge under this subsection is whether continued detention is warranted. The hearing on that issue is set for January 12, 2009 and is not before me on this application. Accordingly, this subsection does not provide a basis to make the order now sought. [40] Mr. Lam submits that the authority to grant the order sought can be gleaned from s. 490 as a whole and in particular s. 490(1)(b), s. 490(2), s. 490(5). He submits I should give the legislation a fair, large and liberal interpretation pursuant to s. 12 of the Interpretation Act. [41] In my view, the sections of the Code to which I was directed do not support the proposition, by necessary implication, that a Provincial Court judge can order police to place lawfully seized things with the Registrar of the Provincial Court pending the hearing of a contested extension application. My conclusion is strengthened by the fact that s. 490 contains a specific provision (s. 490(4)) regarding

32

the circumstances when a justice shall forward things detained pursuant to s. 490(1), (2) and (3) to the clerk of the court. Is there Authority to Make Order on Other Basis? [42] Mr. Lam argues it is not fair or just for the police to retain possession of the items in question and to continue to deal with them pending the hearing set for January 12, 2009. He says by the time that hearing takes place, the application may well be moot. Given those arguments I have considered whether I have jurisdiction to make the order sought on some other basis. A similar question was raised in R. v. Raponi where the applicant argued the Provincial Court judge had implied powers based on the common law. In that case the court noted: A number of objections can be raised to this position. First, it ignores the fact that before a judge can make any order, there must be a legal substratum or vehicle to support the order. The legal vehicle for the return of goods unlawfully taken or held is the civil action of replevin before the Court of Queen's Bench. Another vehicle might be a Charter application to a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench. Yet other possibilities may exist. The point is simply that a claim must be grounded in a legal cause of action that permits the judge to grant a remedy. Second, even if the difficulty of a proper cause of action or source of law could be met, a Provincial Court judge has no jurisdiction to deal with such an action, since the Provincial Court is a court of statutory not inherent jurisdiction. No remedy was available to Raponi in Provincial Court: any cause of action of which he could have availed himself would have been located in a superior court. I conclude that the Provincial Court judge had no power to order the return of the money outside the Code. Even though it has not been validly challenged and hence stands for the time being, the Provincial Court judge's order for the return of the money to Raponi was made without jurisdiction, and is liable to be set aside in an appropriate proceeding. [paras. 33 to 35] [43] I was not specifically directed to any other basis upon which a Provincial Court judge could make the order sought. It is possible that a court with inherent jurisdiction may have jurisdiction to make the order sought. A similar order appears to have been made by Mr. Justice Legg in R. v. Papalia. However, the basis for making that order is not set out in the decision. The decision simply notes that the order was made. In the circumstances, I can find no other basis upon which the order applied for could be made by this Court. CONCLUSION [44] In this case the application before me was grounded in s. 490 and, in particular in s. 490(1) and s. 490(2), which I have already addressed in these reasons. I have concluded those subsections do not provide express authority to make the order sought. Further, express authority is not found in s. 490 as a whole, neither

33

could I find such authority by necessary explanation. Additionally, I was not directed to any other basis upon which the order could be made by this Court. [45] Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that as a Provincial Court judge I do not have jurisdiction to make the order sought by Mr. Lam that the police forward the seized items in question to the Registrar of this Court. ______________________________ The Honourable Judge M. F. Giardini Provincial Court of British Columbia

78.

Honorable Justice M. F. Giardini stated is possible that a court with

inherent jurisdiction may have jurisdiction to make the order sought. This Court does have inherent jurisdiction by way of the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 section 9(1) which states as follows: 9(1) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of this or any other Act or the Rules of Court, the Trial Division shall have and exercise general and original jurisdiction in all causes and matters including jurisdiction in the following matters, namely: 79. This Court is not restricted by the criminal Code of Canada, and further

has Jurisdiction granted and enforceable in pursuance with the following acts and rules of Court: Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 Rules of Court of new Brunswick 1.02 Application, 1.03 Interpretation (1) (2) and 1.08 Orders on Terms Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 section 17 Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 Section 2 and Section 66 The Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 section 12

34

80.

Furthermore, the Honorable Court will be acting in furtherance of the

spirit of Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, by granting the Order as requested by the Applicant.

81.

FORM 1 REFERRAL FORM 1 REFERRAL (Right to Information and Protection of

Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c.R- 10.6, s.65(1)(a)) pursuant to Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-10.6 does not contain a location which is designated for an APPLICANT to provide the detail by which the Honorable Court (c) may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge, necessary 82. FORM 1 REFERRAL is unlike Rule 37.03 of the Rules of Court which

states clearly the requirements that should be present on the face of a Notice of Motion. 37.03 Content of Notice of Motion or Preliminary Motion A Notice of Motion or Preliminary Motion shall (a) state the precise order sought, (b) state the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or rule to be relied on, and (c) list the documentary evidence to be used at the hearing of the motion 83. Furthermore, FORM 1 REFERRAL is unlike Rule 38.04 of the Rules

of Court which states clearly the requirements that should be present on the face of a Notice of Application. 38.04 Content of Notice A Notice of Application shall (a) state the precise order sought, (b) state the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or rule to be relied on, and

35

(c) list the documentary evidence to be used at the hearing of the application. 84. Therefore, no obligation existed compelling the APPLICANT to

provide a written notice of the relief which the APPLICANT was requesting of this Court on the FORM 1 REFERRAL. Closing 85. When considering Section 2 of the Right to Information and Protection

of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 as it relates to the Applicant, provides as follows: Purposes of this Act 2 The purposes of this Act are (a) to allow any person a right of access to records in the custody or under the control of public bodies, subject to the limited and specific exceptions set out in this Act, (c) to allow individuals a right of access to records containing personal information about themselves in the custody or under the control of public bodies, subject to the limited and specific exceptions set out in this Act, 86. Furthermore, Section 66 of the Right to Information and Protection of

Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 provides for the following Decision of The Court of Queens Bench 66(1) (c)If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under subsection 65(1), the judge shall hold a hearing and, (a) where the matter is referred by an applicant, (i) if the head of a public body denied a request for information in whole or in part, may order the head of the public body to grant the request in whole or in part, and

36

(c) may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge, necessary 87. Furthermore applicable Rules of Court of New Brunswick: 1.02 Application These rules apply to all proceedings in the Court of Queens Bench and the Court of Appeal unless some other procedure is provided under an Act. 1.03 Interpretation (1) Except where a contrary intention appears, the Interpretation Act and the interpretation section of the Judicature Act apply to these rules. (2) These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, least expensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits. 1.08 Orders on Terms When making an order under these rules, the court may impose such terms and give such directions as are just. 88. Furthermore, interpretation of the three relevant statues namely: Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-10.6 Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 section 17

89.

A label of absurdity may be attached to interpretations which defeat the

purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile; the Applicant is requesting this Honorable Court provide the remedies as

37

contemplated by the drafters of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6.

90.

The following is found at legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com at the

following internet web address provided below: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/audi+alteram+partem audi alteram partem [Latin, hear the other side.] It embodies the concept in Criminal Law that no person should be condemned unheard; it is akin to due process. The notion that an individual, whose life, liberty, or property are in legal jeopardy, has the right to confront the evidence against him or her in a fair hearing is one of the fundamental principles of Constitutional Law in the United States and England. 91. It is ironic, that, if the Applicant was actually a criminal then according

to natural Justice the Applicant would have the right to confront the evidence against him in a fair hearing, which is one of the fundamental principles Justice adhered to in Canada. However the Applicant is in fact not a criminal and the Applicant is requesting of the Courts assistance to take this alternative route, as contemplated by the drafters of Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, to gain the information necessary for his safety inter alia

92.

The remedy found herein requested is in accordance with the Rules of

Court, the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R10.6, the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 and the Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2.

93.

Furthermore the Applicant has argued why this Honorable Court does

in fact have the Jurisdiction to grant the relief sought according to Rules of

38

Court, the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R10.6, and the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2.

94.

In closing let us review The New Brunswick Interpretation Act,

R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13, section 17 which states: 17 Every Act and regulation and every provision thereof shall be deemed remedial, and shall receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of the object of the Act, regulation or provision. The Applicant believes that in fulfillment of these stated goals, this Court should grant the Applicants Order as requested, which would in the Applicants view be Justice, which by the Applicants definition is the fair and proper administration of laws. NOTE 95. The Solicitor acquired by the NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION, has not been hired to represent the interests of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, therefore there is no reason for this Court to receive representations from the Solicitor who is acting in the interest of the NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION, regarding this issue of an investigation into the abuse and malicious manipulation of the Fredericton Police Force services, regarding the volume and substance of the telephone reports and complaints containing erroneous and provocative allegations against Andr Murray (Applicant In this matter) and most importantly an order disclosure of same investigation to the Applicant. ALL OF THIS respectfully submitted this ______day of ____________2011.

____________ Andr Murray

39

PART III ORDERS SOUGHT 1. Order an investigation to determine is there is substance to the alleged abuse and malicious manipulation of the Fredericton Police Force services. 2. The Investigation shall reveal the excessive volume of `non productive` complaint telephone calls regarding the Applicant and or Applicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2011 3. The Investigation shall reveal the number of non event responses by FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to Investigate the Applicant and or Applicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2011 4. Moreover, the Investigation may conclusively reveal the unfounded substance of the telephone reports and complaints to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding the Applicant and or Applicants residence of 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from 2005-2011.

5. The Investigation may reveal the identity of the telephone reports and determine why the complaints are without substance nevertheless caused suffering of the innocent Applicant by relentless stalking and or surveillance or the Applicants residence of 29 31 Marshall Street occurring regularly over the 6 year period from 20052011. 6. Finally Order full disclosure of same investigation to the Applicant that the Applicant may acquire a Cease and desist Order for the protection of his body and sole.

Schedule A - A list of authorities in the order referred to in the Submission; and 1. Reference: Maxim - Neminem laedit qui jure suo utitur. A person who exercises his own rights injures no one.

40

2. Reference: there is the underlying consideration of doing justice between the parties (Grewal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration (1986), 63 N.R. 106 (F.C.A.), as summed up by Mr. Justice Strayer).

3. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines Justice, at Page 2527 2528

4. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines unjust as at Page 4775

5. Definition of fair is found at Merriam Webster online at the following: address: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair

6. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines fair, at Page 1788

7. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines Justice, at Page 2527 2528

8. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) defines merits at Page 3136

9. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) defines Construe at Page 947

41

10. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) defines Just at Page 2526

11. Reference: Merriam-webster.com defines merit at the following address (http://mw4.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/merits)

12. Reference: on the merits is defined by legal-dictionary.com at the following address: http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+merits on the merits

13. Reference: Daly v. Petro-Canada, 1995 CanLII 6205 (NB Q.B.) Justice H. H. McLellan stated his view regarding the discretion of the Trial Judge and also his view that the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that matters of civil procedure should be decided on their substance and merits, May it please the Honorable Court found at page 9 to page 17

14. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B, at Page 5294: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

15. Reference: definition of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius may be found at the following website (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclus ioAlterius.aspx )

42

16. Reference: definition of opinion may be found at the following website (http://www.merriam_webster.com/dictionary/opinion)

17. Reference: definition of opinion may be found at the following website (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/opinion)

18. Reference: definition of DISCRETION is provided by Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 1405 and 1406

19. Reference: definition of NECESSARY AND PROPER is provided by Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 3273

20. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B at Page 5327: Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Subsequent laws repeal prior conflicting ones. 21. Reference: definition of the Maxim Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant is provided at the Legal Dictionary website at the following URL at (http://legaldictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Leges+posteriores+priores+contrarias +abrogant)

22. Reference: definition of Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant is provided by Wikipedia, at the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_repeal 23. Reference: definition of notwithstanding is provided from: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/Notwithstanding.aspx

43

24. Reference: definition of notwithstanding is from Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004),at Page 3378

25. Reference: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 559 Justice IACOBUCCI J

26. Reference: explanation of Statutory interpretation is provided at Wikipedia located at the following URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation 27. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B, at Page 5294 :Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

28. Reference: definition of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius may be found at the following website (http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclus ioAlterius.aspx )

29. Reference: Maxim - Neminem oportet esse sapientiorem legibus. No one ought to be wiser than the laws.

30. Reference: Maxim Nemo est supra leges. No one is above the laws

31. Reference: In Catalyst Fund General Partner I Inc. v. Hollinger Inc., 2004 CanLII 66299 (ON SC), Justice C. Campbell J.: stated the

44

following regarding the issues of scope, extent, timing and cost of Court of Queens Bench court ordered investigation.

32. Reference: In R. v. Lam, 2008 BCPC 248 (CanLII), from paragraph 35 through to and including paragraph 45 as follows

Schedule B - The text of all relevant provisions of Statutes or Regulations (or copies of the complete Statute or Regulation may be filed and served with the Submission). Rules of Court 1.02 Application These rules apply to all proceedings in the Court of Queens Bench and the Court of Appeal unless some other procedure is provided under an Act. 1.03 Interpretation (1) Except where a contrary intention appears, the Interpretation Act and the interpretation section of the Judicature Act apply to these rules. (2) These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, least expensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits. 37.03 Content of Notice of Motion or Preliminary Motion A Notice of Motion or Preliminary Motion shall (a) state the precise order sought, (b) state the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or rule to be relied on, and (c) list the documentary evidence to be used at the hearing of the motion 38.04 Content of Notice

45

A Notice of Application shall (a) state the precise order sought, (b) state the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any statutory provision or rule to be relied on, and (c) list the documentary evidence to be used at the hearing of the application. 59.01 Authority of the Court (1) Subject to any Act and these rules, the costs of a proceeding or a step in a proceeding are in the discretion of the court and the court may determine by whom and to what extent costs shall be paid. Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 9(1) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of this or any other Act or the Rules of Court, the Trial Division shall have and exercise general and original jurisdiction in all causes and matters including jurisdiction in the following matters, namely: (a) all causes and matters, civil and criminal, that were within the exclusive cognizance of the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original common law jurisdiction, before the commencement of the Judicature Act, 1909; (b) all causes and matters that prior to July 1, 1966, were assigned to or cognizable by the Chancery Division; (c) all causes and matters that prior to September 4, 1979, were within the jurisdiction of the County Court of New Brunswick; and all causes and matters that prior to September 4, 1979, were within the jurisdiction of the Queens Bench Division of the Supreme Court

Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 17 Every Act and regulation and every provision thereof shall be deemed remedial, and shall receive such fair, large and liberal

46

construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of the object of the Act, regulation or provision. Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 Purposes of this Act 2 The purposes of this Act are (a) to allow any person a right of access to records in the custody or under the control of public bodies, subject to the limited and specific exceptions set out in this Act, (c) to allow individuals a right of access to records containing personal information about themselves in the custody or under the control of public bodies, subject to the limited and specific exceptions set out in this Act, Decision of The Court of Queens Bench 66(1) (c)If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under subsection 65(1), the judge shall hold a hearing and, (a) where the matter is referred by an applicant, (i) if the head of a public body denied a request for information in whole or in part, may order the head of the public body to grant the request in whole or in part, and (c) may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge, necessary Costs 76(1) If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under subsection 65(1) or appealed to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under section 75, the judge shall award costs in favour of the person who referred or appealed the matter (a) where the person is successful, and

47

(b) where the person is not successful, if the judge considers it to be in the public interest. 76(2) Despite subsection (1), a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick may award costs in favour of the public body if the judge considers that the matter for review or appeal is frivolous or vexatious or amounts to an abuse of the right to access. Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 12(1) Each police officer is charged with responsibility for (a) maintaining law and order, (b) preventing offences against the law, (c) enforcing penal provisions of the law, (d) escorting and conveying persons in custody to or from a court or other place, (e) serving and executing court process in respect of offences against the law, (f) maintaining order in the courts,

48