This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
March 21,2012 To. The Canadian Judicial Council, cc: Marie-Claude Blais, Attorney General and Minister for Justice NB, Ch. J. Earnest Drapeau, Chief Justice, for the Province of New Brunswick, Clerk of Court Craig Carleton Formal Complaint re: Honorable Madam Justice Paulette Garnett. Court of the Queen's Bench of New Brunswick L June 10,2010, Madam Justice Paulette Garnett dismissed a motion for a
Continuance of an Action pursuant to Section 52.1 (1) (b) of the Mechanics' Lien Act, Madam Justice Paulette Garnett without allowing a self represented litigant opportunity to. be heard regarding this within mentioned matter. Furthermore, Madam Justice Paulette Garnett not only outright rejected the orders without a pro.per hearing of the matters and or any subsequent consideration, incidentally Madam Justice Paulette Garnett opposed to. hearing the Plaintiff, instead therefore alternatively instructed the Solicitor for the Defendants to. leave the Court RDDm, Madam Justice Paulette Garnett recessed the Hearing for that purpose that the Solicitor for the Defendant may leave then return, within one hour or thereabouts, that as instructed by the Learned Trial Judge the Solicitor for the Defendant must leave for the purpose of correspondence by telephone Dr whatevermeans
convenient to.thereby obtain specific information , what must reasonably be called "HEARS AY", Evidence. Howeverdifficult it is to' believe thja a learned
judge would conduct a Court Hearing in such a manner, nevertheles ,this did as confirmed by a Transcript ofsaid subject Motion, provided for those whom it may concern to. evaluate. Upon examination of the subject Transcript, it is actually realized that Madam Justice Paulette Garnett assures Solicitor Thomas Christie for the Defendant that should Solicitor Thomas Christie return with this subject "HEARSAY" material that which may be similar, as per Madam Justice Paulette Garnett's earlier hypothesis, consequentially, Solicitor Thomas Christie for the Defendant would receive the decision most beneficial to' his client's interests; in
fact this is exactly what did finally occur which was part of the reason I am sure Court of Appeal did over tum this decision, because my right to be heard was violated inter alia. This for the reasons herein
stated above is a complaint regarding the conduct of the Learned Trial Judge Madam Justice Paulette Garnett, which did occur to the extreme prejudice of the Self Represented Litigant Andre Murray. Factual background 2. I Andre Murray, Plaintiff on April 20, 2010, filed an Amended Motion, May
31, 2010, with Court of Queen's Bench Fredericton Trial Division (heard June 10, 2010), for orders: a) That, pursuant to section 52.1 (1) (b) of the Mechanics' Lien Act, this action be continued until October 21, 2010 or further Order of this Court, b) That the Court grant a Extension of time pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Court, c) That the Defendant pay costs of the within Motion, d) Such further and other relief as to this Honorable Court may appear just. 3. Honorable Madam Justice Paulette Garnett presiding over the Court Hearing
of the subject aforementioned Motion, would not allow the following listed Order to become part of the Court Record: a) That, pursuant to section 52.1 (1) (b) of the Mechanics' Lien Act, this action be continued until October 21, 2010 or further Order of this Court, 4. The granting of such an Order pursuantto section 52.1 (1) (b) of the
Mechanics' Lien Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-6, is not a discretionary decision, it is right granted to a Mechanics Lien Claimant, as long as the ClaimantIPlaintiff,: (1) files a Motion for a Continuance within one year and (2) serves same upon the other party. The discretionary aspect of any judge having heard such a matter thereafter rendering a decision reasonably is confined to only, that discretion which when granting the Order, the court may agree with the respective parties as to the conditions that which may be just, mutually beneficial for all concerned and
therefore reasonably dependent upon the particular circumstances necessary that the parties may realize remedy. 5. June 10, 2009, a Motion, filed by Plaintiff Andre Murray, scheduled for a liz
day hearing Madame Justice Paulette Garnett was assigned to preside over this subject Court Hearing which had an actual duration of 9 minutes before the first Court session was recessed, returning same day approximately one hour later for the second and final Court Hearing session on this matter - a duration of 11 minutes during which Learned Trial Judge continually interrupted Plaintiff Andre Murray denying his only opportunity to be heard, as in the middle of Plaintiff Andre Murray's words Madame Justice Paulette Garnett stood up verbalized words:"The end" as Madame Justice Paulette Garnett walked out of the Courtrooml
The Plaintiff expecting a cordially crafted Order, from Honorable Madam
Justice Paulette Garnett including a comprehensive decision, instead sent back a photo copy of Plaintiff's RECORD ON MOTION cover page, bearing, what appears to be elongated square circular hand drawn shape, heading diagonally left and up across centre of page with hand written words inside stating nothing more than "Motion dismissed No cost. PCG JunelOl10. "
The learned Trial Judge, as above, has never provided a 'Decision' or
reasoning attributed to the words "Motion dismissed" inter alia. No Reasons - no further Decision has ever been provided.
8. Rather than allowing any of the voluminous evidentiary affidavit material filed with the Honorable Court onto the Court record, and or without allowing argument from the parties to the 'Motion' the Court announced a Recess for 15 minutes (became one hour) Solicitor for Defendant, as directed by the Court left the Court Hearing to search by telephone for answers to Madame Justice's 'leading' questions. Please note; prior to "recess" only 9 minutes into the Hearing
of the Motion, (originally scheduled for a Y2day) Madame Justice Paulette Garnett dominated, the initial 9 minute hearing, all entries on the Court record were those of Madam Justice except for replies to Madam Justice questions. No arguments from Plaintiffs or Defendants were allowed. 9. The learned trial Judge displayed reasonable apprehension of bias, when the
Defendant's Solicitor was instructed by the Court to 'take leave', to then, as directed, contact by telephone: two parties known adversarial to Plaintiff Andre Murray's beneficial final outcome. Moreover, the incredulous and or implausibility, that, upon returning from the assigned subject antecedent 'telephone' mission, the resultant answers could not possibly be unbiased, independently meritorious and or admissible substantive material before the Court.
10. The leamed trial Judge's conduct, demonstrated lack of integrity, which is capable of undermining public respect and confidence, Ordering a 15 minute recess of a Hearing (which is a serious error in the proceeding). Subject irrelevant 'hearsay' may be collected, then placed onto Court Record not 'SWORN TO' by Affidavit. 'Hearsay' treated as substantive evidence is an irregularity of a magnitude great enough to be considered objectionable to such a degree as to be self evident that the environment was being set for an unfair Hearing.
11. Honorable Madam Justice Paulette Garnett has not been diligent in the performance of adjudicative duties, such as striving for impartial and even-handed application of the law, thoroughness, and the prevention of abuse of the process and or improper treatment of witnesses and litigants. The Court did create prejudice, to the Plaintiff, by raising issues not argued by either party, moreover, conversely the learned trial Judge avoided consideration of all meritorious pleadings, and or substantive material previously filed with Court of Queens Bench; as was filed by parties to the Motion for orders including the Plaintiff's: pursuant to section 52.1 (l) (b) ofthe Mechanics' Lien Act, the mechanics Lien Action be continued until October 21, 2010 or further Order of this Court.
12. The Honorable Madame Justice assured all parties to the action (please see provided transcript: Page 2 - Line 16 excerpt: THE COURT: "Let the record show that I have read all of the documents that have beenjiled ..... '') initially the Honorable Court tacitly assures the Plaintiff "Let the record show that I have read all of the documents that have been filed ..... " although contrary to what one might therefore expect, the opposite thereafter occurs during the hearing of the Plaintiffs subject AMENDED NOTICE OF MOTION (FORM 37A) Filed with
COURT OF QUEENS BENCH, FREDERICTON TRIAL DIVISION, as received and Court File Date Stamped I MAY 31 2010, despite being clearly listed, as first and foremost - the order sought, as was listed and is provided for consideration, as provided below, is completely ignored, not addressed, instead it is bypassed by the Learned Judge in an apparent preference of Order: b) as requested; a) That, pursuant to section 52.1 (1) (b) of the Mechanics' Lien Act, the mechanics Lien Action be continued until October 21, 2010 or further Order of this Court. 13. The learned Trial Judge instead appeared and did entirely neglect to address the aforementioned requested order and instead addressed only the next order as listed. b) That the Court grant a Extension of time pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Court, 14. I Andre Murray at the Motion Hearing on the 10th day of June, 2010, was not permitted to speak or counter claim as Madame Justice dominates the entire subject Motion Hearing, thereby speaking on behalf of both parties: the Plaintiff and named Defendant to the Motion and is heard to be addressing only the second Order as requested, further, listed and found, within the Motion, moreover, the learned Judge is entirely avoiding the primary, first listed Order found respectively within the subject Motion and listed as: a) That, pursuant to section 52.1 (1) (b) of the Mechanics' Lien Act, the Mechanics Lien Action be continued until October 21,2010 or further Order of this Court.
15. Madame Justice has made inappropriate comments, improper remarks and unjustified reprimands, which has undermined the appearance of impartiality and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias. The learned trial Judge erred in law in not adhering with the Rule 39.01 (l)"On a motion or application evidence may be given by affidavit unless directed otherwise by these rules or by order. " The learned trial Judge made the pivotal decision in hearing of the said Motion 10th day of June, 2010, of whether to "allow" a Extension of time pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Court, learned trial Judge erred in law by arriving at the impugned decision by relying on inadmissible hearsay information. 16. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has not, while presiding over matters before the court, treated a self represented litigant Plaintiff Andre Murray with common courtesy and equality, and I believe I Andre Murray have been discriminated against. The learned trial Judge did not recognize the principal oflaw expressed in the Maxim Audi Alteram Partem (Latin; literally 'hear the other side'). I interpret the above listed maxim to mean: that in the Honorable Courts of New Brunswick no person shall be condemned punished or have any property or legal right compromised by the Court of Law without having first heard that person. The learned trial Judge in the matter to be considered before this Honorable Court of Appeal, would not allow the Appellant to be heard and nor was the Appellant permitted to address the Court, therefore potentially counter/reply/object, as, to
why the Honorable Court should not-make decisions based on the new information as obtained by hearsay. Opportunity to argue, as to why the foregoing and reasoning was flawed, was denied to the Appellant. The merit of facts found within documents previously filed as Affidavit and found within the file intended to be reviewed and considered by the Honorable Motion Trail Judge was also denied during the very case before the Honorable Court. 17. Madame Justice should be, and appear to be impartial at all times, but regrettably has not. The learned trial Judge erred in law in not recognizing the principal of law expressed in the Maxim Audi Alteram Partem, ('hear the other
side'), in not considering documents filed by the Appellant to address the fact that the tentative purchaser, 501376 N.B. Ltd, a body corporate at the 'Power of Sale' Mortgagee Deed Auction Sale, had caused a contract to be signed, BIDDING PAPERS AND TERMS OF SALE Agreement to Purchase Dated: July 16,2009, which, specifically stated that the purchasers would honor all Liens in full on the date of delivery of the Deed to subject purchaser, furthermore since the Appellant was not permitted to speak to these matters.
18. A judge must be impartial when hearing anyone's case, be respectful and courteous throughout the proceedings, and maintain a high standard of integrity as in these matters Madame Justice Paulette Garnett was none of those. By not allowing the Plaintiff to draw the learned trial Judge's attention to the fact that the source of the pivotal information which the Madame Justice had essentially custom ordered (by instruction of her requirements to the Solicitor Thomas Christie) then shortly thereafter Madame Justice Paulette Garnett accepted, as substantive evidentiary material, which finally was relied upon by the learned Judge, to render a final decision to the matter being heard that day; at this point of the hearing any reasonable person must have realized that the conduct of Madame Justice Paulette Garnett was existing only as the product of her unchecked imagination as the learned trial judge was first requesting the 'hearsay' thereafter not requiring the 'hearsay' to be Sworn to under Oath, and most conspicuously bad or offensive was Madame Justice Paulette Garnett knowingly requested the subject 'hearsay' information be sourced as requested from two Solicitors both with potential and blatantly evident conflicts of interest, this was setting a new standard of a violation of the Plaintiff's right to be heard: (Please see transcript: a Motion heard before Honorable Madame Justice Paulette Garnet on the lOthday of June, 2010 as prepared by Peggy Blackwell a certified Court reporter; please read transcript: page 8 beginning line 16 continue through to page 9 ending at including line 15).
Allegedly Mr. Christie spoke with (ambiguously identified) "council for the Royal Bank" (transcript: page 9 line 4) of Canada vendor ofthe Investment Instrument 'Mortgagee Deed' registered against subject property. (even further ambiguous: please see transcript: page 9 line 10) "who have advised me". This same interest was sold at Auction to Solicitor Hugh Cameron acting as Agent for Purchaser: 501376 N.R Ltd, a body corporate. transcript: page 9 line 5 through to line 10)
Allegedly Mr. Christie spoke with Solicitor Hugh J. Cameron acting as Agent for Purchaser, 501376 N.R Ltd, a body corporate, who therefore signed 'BIDDING PAPERS AND TERMS OF SALE' Agreement to Purchase Dated: July 16,2009, regarding the very same property, which said agreement stated as follows: "the purchaser agrees to pay any outstanding ..... " Liens, , as found at paragraph 10 and reproduced for consideration by this Honorable Court of Appeal in full and below: "10. All real property taxes, water rates. liens, charges and/or local assessments, if any, shall be for the account of the purchaser and the purchaser agrees to pay any outstanding real property taxes, water rates, liens, charges and lor local assessments in full on the date of delivery of the Deed to such purchaser. "
19. The learned Trial Judge did not, reasonably does not, recognize the principal of law expressed in the maxim nemo judex in causa sua debet esse which underlies the doctrine of "reasonable apprehension of bias". These actions must therefore have created in the mind of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person an impression of a lack of impartiality. I contends that a question of reasonable apprehension of bias occurred when the learned Trial Judge announced requisite information, that will cause the Honorable Court to arrive at a predictable decision, then the Honorable Court charged Solicitor Thomas Christie with a task to collect that vary same information, during a 15 minute recess (became one hour) then upon the return of Solicitor Christie hearsay was accepted without
validation according to Rules of Court requiring Affidavit evidence consequently reducing the reliability of same.
20. The trial Judge has in my opinion (as a result offirst hand experience) not conducted herself in a way that will sustain and contribute to public respect and confidence in their integrity, impartiality and good judgment by admitting as evidence, hearsay statements by Solicitor Thomas Christie for the Defendant offered to the Honorable Court regarding the outstanding amount owing to RBC the vendors of the Investment Instrument "Mortgagee Deed" following a 'Notice of Mortgage Sale' affecting the Property Sale. The information source was the Solicitor for the tentative purchaser of the "Mortgagee Deed" whose answer could have been made in error, possibly incorrectly heard over the telephone and or may have alluded to the advantage of his client. The circumstances surrounding the making of the impugned entries On Record did not have the "guarantee of trustworthiness" necessary to allow their admission.
21. The learned trial Judge has made inappropriate comments, improper remarks and unjustified reprimands, which has undermined the appearance of impartiality and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias, furthermore, in arriving at a decision, which was not based on argument, not raised or offered by either party, not submitted by affidavit evidence by either the Plaintiff or Defendant, furthermore, and had departed from the matters in question regarding the actual matter of the Notice of Motion which is a required Continuance of the Action that the matters between the parties may find remedy.
22. The learned trial Judge has not exhibited high standards of conduct, so as to reinforce public confidence in law, by demonstrating prejudice, deciding that the Motion and orders requested and found listed, within same subject Motion would not be entirely considered, as, Madame Justice was seen to only permit/allow for review of certain predetermined criteria, which was therefore, being advanced by the learned Trial Judge, moreover, addressing only one ofthe requested orders and
proceedings not based on or permitting argument offered by either party to the action. Nor was the above, aforementioned, here within requested orders Judged on the merits of all documents submitted and filed with Court of Queen's Bench, which were intended to be used as argument by the Plaintiff, in that Motion and the said denial of Plaintiff's request to plead to the matters, by the learned Trial Judge was consequentially , to the prejudice of the Plaintiff.
23. The trial Judge erred in law in not Ordering an adjournment of sufficient time, that the answers to prescribed questions, as was requested by Madame Justice, would or could be properly obtained, subsequently, Filed with the Honorable Court by affidavit then properly served on the affected parties according to Rules of Court, Rule 39.04 Service of Affidavits: "Except for the person giving Notice of Application or Notice of Motion, any person who intends to give affidavit evidence at the hearing shall serve a copy of such affidavit (a) on the person giving the notice, and (b) on each person served with the notice, at least 4 days prior to the date set for the hearing. " 24. Without that confidence the system cannot command the respect and acceptance that are essential to its effective operation. The trial Judge Madame Justice Paulette Garnett's actions affect not only myself but public confidence in the judiciary generally, and such matters bring the administration of justice into disrepute, is damaging to the judge, the judiciary as a whole and the good administration of justice, such as first of all not considering the Order requesting the Granting of a Continuance based on the merits of submitted Affidavit evidence revealing the circumstances of the case. The duty of the court is to ensure, as much as is possible, that justice is done, it is most unfair to deprive the Plaintiff of a opportunity to plead on the record to the facts of the case on its merits. 25. Please find that the following documents in respect of the above complaint will be forwarded forthwith for your consideration:
• • •
a comprehensive Motion I filed to the Court of the Queen's Bench of New Brunswick in respect of a matter of a Continuance pursuant to the Mechanics Lien Act; multiple Affidavits; Transcript of June 10, 2010; Court of Appeal decision;
26. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett gave no grounds or explanation whatsoever for her arbitrary dismissal of my motion and I am forced to conclude that she had no lawful or just grounds to dismiss the matters I brought before the Court. Her conduct in dismissing the motion and evidence without hearing them first demonstrated apparent bias against me. This constitutes apparent bias therefore, a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of Madame Justice Paulette Garnett against me and confirms that she simply refused to allow me any opportunity to state my case to the Court. Such bias and arbitrary application of the law and Rules of Court are a violation of my section 15(1) Charter Right and Freedom to equality in and before the law and to equal benefit and protection of the law. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett's conduct further violates my section 7 Charter Right and Freedom to liberty and security of the person, since Madame Justice Paulette Garnett's failure to hear the matters, rejection of unchallenged evidence and decision to penalize me with unjustified, unmerited and arbitrarily awarded costs is actively preventing me from resolving long-standing, unpleasant, very distressing matters that are affecting the very quality of my life and freedom to choose how to spend my time and material resources.
27. No judge can preside when a complaint has been submitted about them to the CJC. Since Madame Justice Paulette Garnett will obviously have been made aware of the complaint that both you and the court administration received on this day, please confirm that Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has therefore a duty to decline to preside over my affairs thereafter. Please follow due diligence and confirm to me which it is.
28. Please also consider the following:
29. As a Canadian I have a right to an independent judiciary.
30. I believe the Canadian Judicial Council should proceed with consideration of this complaint, on the basis, that the public interest and the due administration of justice require it.
31. I believe Madame Justice Paulette Garnett's conduct was improper during the subject Hearing of a Motion, this type of questionable conduct by judges will erode public confidence and in this instance it has removed my confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.
32. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett's conduct which demonstrates a reasonable apprehension of bias and intolerance towards me, moreover, she has criticised me unfairly and insulted me, she continues to interrupt me therefore has not let me be heard and has not allowed me to present my information and or argument at each of the subject Hearings according to as I had anticipated and prepared. I believe that Madame Justice Paulette Garnett's behaviour is of serious concern, therefore such conduct renders a judge unfit to sit on the bench.
33. A judge must be impartial when hearing anyone's case, be respectful and courteous throughout the proceedings, and maintain a high standard of integrity as in these matters Madame Justice Paulette Garnett was none of those. From the comments in the courtroom, body language and actions, Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has demonstrated bias towards me.
34. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has in my opinion (as a result of close observation and first hand experience) not conducted herself in a way that will sustain and contribute to public respect and confidence in their integrity, impartiality and good judgment. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has not exhibited high standards of conduct, so as to reinforce public confidence.
35. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has not, while presiding over matters before the court; treated me with common courtesy and equality, and I believe I have been discriminated against. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has verbalized comments.expressions, physical gestures and behaviour which may be interpreted
as showing insensitivity or disrespect towards me.
36. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett should be, and appear to be impartial at all times, but regrettably has not. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has made inappropriate comments, improper remarks and unjustified reprimands, which has undermined the appearance of impartiality and demonstrated a reasonable apprehension of bias.
37. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has made unjustified reprimands of myself, insulting and improper remarks about my witnesses, these statements have evidenced prejudgment and intemperate and impatient behaviour which has the effect of destroying the appearance of impartiality.
38. These actions must therefore have created in the mind of a reasonable, fair minded and informed person an impression of a lack of impartiality. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett's actions affect not only myself but public confidence in the judiciary generally, and such matters bring the administration of justice into disrepute, is damaging to the judge, the judiciary as a whole and the good administration of justice. Without that confidence the system cannot command the respect and acceptance that are essential to its effective operation.
39. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has not been diligent in the performance of adjudicative duties, such as striving for impartial and even-handed application of the law, thoroughness, decisiveness, promptness and the prevention of abuse of the process and improper treatment of witnesses and litigants. The Constitution and a variety of statutes enshrine a strong commitment to equality before and under the
law and equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination, that of which I have not been afforded. I am entitled to the equal worth and human dignity afforded all persons. Furthermore, Canadian law recognizes that discrimination is concerned not only with intent, but with effects. Fair and equal treatment has long been regarded as an essential attribute of justice, because equality is at the core of justice according to law.
40. The conduct of Madame Justice Paulette Garnett has the effect of removing public confidence in, and respect for, the judiciary as a whole, which are essential to an effective judicial system and ultimately, to democracy founded on the rule of law. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett's actions and conduct over the subject four Court Hearings of various matters concerning my affairs have demonstrated a lack of integrity, which is capable of undermining public respect and confidence.
41. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett should have conducted herself in a way that will sustain and contribute to public respect and confidence in their integrity, impartiality and good judgment, unfortunately for all of us she has not.
42. Madame Justice Paulette Garnett's conduct is likely to diminish respect for the judiciary in the minds of the community and myself, moreover, has created a perception which is likely to lessen respect for judges or the judiciary as a whole. This impugned conduct must reflect upon the central components of the judge's ability to do the job.
43. As Shaman put it,"...he ultimate standard for judicial conduct must be t conduct which constantly reaffirms fitness for the high responsibilities of judicial office." The judge should exhibit respect for the law, and generally avoid the appearance of impropriety.
44. Please confirm to me if you are going to find any reason now, to not investigate my complaint.
45. Please treat this complaint with the urgency it deserves, since, I have not received a fair hearing. I do consider that a reasonable person, properly informed and viewing the circumstances realistically and practically, would conclude that Madame Justice Paulette Garnett might well be prone to bias regarding all matters related to my affairs. It would therefore be prudent for Madame Justice Paulette Garnett to recuse herself in such Circumst~ces, particularly if this can be done in advance of a scheduled hearing date. Mo over, on the question as to whether the specific circumstances of this case give ri e to a reasonable apprehension of bias, I am convinced that this is the case. Justice as been denied and my Charter Rights
and Freedoms have been compromised an will continue until Madame Justice Paulette Garnett recuses herself from any f my affairs currently before Court of Queens Bench.
Sincerely without malice, aforethought, ill will, vexation,
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?