Court File Number: F/C/45/11 IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK TRIAL DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FREDERICTON BETWEEN

: ANDRÉ MURRAY Plaintiff, -andTHE CITY OF FREDERICTON, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, CHIEF OF POLICE BARRY MACKNIGHT, SERGEANT MYERS, CONSTABLE MIKE FOX, CONSTABLE PATRICK SMALL, CONSTABLE NANCY RIDEOUT, JOHN DOE 1, TRINA RODGERS NEIL RODGERS CONSTABLE DEBBIE STAFFORD, CONSTABLE MICHAEL SAUNDERS, JOHN DOE 2 Defendants,

AMENDED NOTICE OF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED (FORM 16A)

TO:
(the above-named defendants)

DESTINATAIRE:
(le défendeur susmentionné)

The City of Fredericton
Legal Services Division, Suite 100, 412 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, E3B 4Y7 Phone: (506) 460-2115 Fax: (506) 460-2128

1

TO:

Fredericton Police Force 311 Queen Street Fredericton, N.B. E3B 1B1 Phone: (506) 460 2300 Fax: (506) 460 2316
TO:

Chief of Police Barry MacKnight FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB E3B 1B1 General Information Telephone Number: 506 460 - 2300 Fax Number: (506) 460 – 2316
TO: Sergeant Myers

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Chief of Police Barry MacKnight 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, E3B 1B1 General Information Telephone Number: 506 460 - 2300 Fax Number: (506) 460 – 2316
TO:

Constable Mike Fox FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Chief of Police Barry MacKnight 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, E3B 1B1 General Information Telephone Number: 506 460 - 2300 Fax Number: (506) 460 – 2316

2

TO:

Constable Patrick Small FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Chief of Police Barry MacKnight 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, E3B 1B1 General Information Telephone Number: 506 460 - 2300 Fax Number: (506) 460 – 2316
TO:

Constable Nancy Rideout FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Chief of Police Barry MacKnight 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, E3B 1B1 General Information Telephone Number: 506 460 - 2300 Fax Number: (506) 460 – 2316
TO:

John Doe 1 Address unknown
TO:

Constable Debbie Stafford badge number 358
FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, E3B 1B1 General Information Telephone Number: 506 460 - 2300 Fax Number: (506) 460 – 2316 TO:

Constable Michael Saunders
FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, E3B 1B1 General Information Telephone Number: 506 460 - 2300 Fax Number: (506) 460 – 2316

3

TO:

Neil Rodgers 506-472-9096 15 Fisher Ave Fredericton, NB E3A 4J1 TO: Trina Rodgers 506-472-9096 15 Fisher Ave Fredericton, NB E3A 4J1
TO:

John Doe 2 Address unknown
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU BY FILING THIS NOTICEOF ACTION WITH STATEMENT OF CLAIM ATTACHED. If you wish to defend these proceedings, either you or a New Brunswick lawyer acting on your behalf must prepare your Statement of Defence in the form prescribed by the Rules of Court and serve it on the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s lawyer at the address shown below and, with proof of such service, file it in this Court Office together with the filing fee of $50, (a) if you are served in New Brunswick, WITHIN 20 DAYS after service on you of this Notice of Action With Statement of Claim Attached, or (b) if you are served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America, WITHIN 40 DAYS after such service, or (c) if you are served anywhere else, WITHIN 60 DAYS after such service. PAR LE DÉPÔT DU PRÉSENT AVIS DE POURSUITE ACCOMPAGNÉ D’UN EXPOSÉ DE LA DEMANDE, UNE POURSUITE JUDICIAIRE A ÉTÉ ENGAGÉE CONTRE VOUS. Si vous désirez présenter une défense dans cette instance, vous-même ou un avocat du Nouveau-Brunswick chargé de vous représenter devrez rédiger un exposé de votre défense en la forme prescrite par les Règles de procédure, le signifier au demandeur ou à son avocat à l’adresse indiquée ci-dessous et le déposer au greffe de cette Cour avec un droit de dépôt de $50 et une prevue de sa signification : a) DANS LES 20 JOURS de la signification qui vous sera faite du présent avis de poursuite accompagné d’un exposé de la demande, si elle vous est faite au NouveauBrunswick ou b) DANS LES 40 JOURS de la signification, si elle vous est faite dans une autre région du Canada ou dans les ÉtatsUnis d’Amérique ou c) DANS LES 60 JOURS de la signification, si elle vous est faite ailleurs.

4

If you fail to do so, you may be deemed to have admitted any claim made against you, and without further notice to you, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE. You are advised that: (a) you are entitled to issue documents and present evidence in the proceeding in English or French or both; (b) the plaintiff intends to proceed in English language; and (c) your Statement of Defence must indicate the language in which you intend to proceed

Si vous omettez de le faire, vous pourrez être repute avoir admis toute demande formulée contre vous et, sans autre avis, JUGEMENT POURRA ÊTRE RENDU CONTRE VOUS EN VOTRE ABSENCE. Sachez que : a) vous avez le droit dans la présente instance, d’émettre des documents et de présenter votre preuve en français, en anglais ou dans les deux langues; b) le demandeur a l’intention d’utiliser la langue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ; et c) l’exposé de votre défense doit indiquer la langue que vous avez l’intention d’utiliser.

THIS NOTICE is signed and sealed for the Court of Queen’s Bench by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , Clerk of the Court at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , on the . . . day of . . . . . . . . . . . , 2011

CET AVIS est signé et scellé au nom de la Cour du Banc de la Reine par. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., greffier de la Cour à . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ce . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2011

Court Seal

Sceau de la Cour

............................
Clerk (address of court office)

......................... (greffier).
(adresse du greffe)

5

STATEMENT OF CLAIM Set out in separate, numbered paragraphs the following:

(1) The capacity of all persons who are parties to the proceeding. THE PARTIES:
1. The Plaintiff, André Murray, resides at 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

2. Defendant, The City of Fredericton, place of business ‘City Hall’ is located at 397 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada. 3. Defendant FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada. 4. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. Office is Located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1. 5. Defendant Constable Mike Fox is a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada. 6. Defendant Constable Patrick Small is a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada. 7. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout is a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada 8. Defendant Police Sergeant Myers is a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada. 9. 10. Defendant John Doe 1, address not confirmed. Defendant John Doe 2 address unconfirmed.

11. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford is a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada 12. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders is a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. Head Office is located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton, NB, E3B 1B1 Canada 13. 14.
Defendant, Neil Rodgers, resides at 15 Fisher Ave Fredericton, NB E3A 4J1. Defendant, Trina Rodgers, resides at 15 Fisher Ave Fredericton, NB E3A 4J1.

The capacity of all persons who are parties to the proceeding of the Action as originally Court File Date Stamped 4th day of March 2011 and as AMENDED September 7, 2011.

6

Observations from incidents occurring 5th day of March, 2009 15. Plaintiff André Murray is the victim in this matter; a innocent man on all accounts who was forced to suffer because of criminal negligence and Malice on the part of Members of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE and Malice on the part of witnesses, who while obstructing justice did provide false witness and or evidence, further, who intended to commit unlawful acts and or cause harm to Plaintiff André Murray; moreover, for the herewithin stated reasons Plaintiff André Murray, without any recognizable proper standard of probable cause, for that reason, further at the hands of Members of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE suffered: assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest unlawful detention and False imprisonment, excessive use of force causing harm, transportation against his will, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock , violation of his rights contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms et al., at the hands of the herewithin named Defendants at his residential civic address of 29 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, on the 5th day of March 2009. 16. Defendant, The City Of Fredericton, has vicarious liability as the employer of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE in which numerous members are herein named as Defendants for matters occurring on Date March 5, 2009. 17. John Doe 1 is the unidentified individual or party reportedly, who on the 5th day of March 2009, by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 18. Defendant, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, has vicarious liability, having dispatched on Date March 5, 2009, three members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE who André Murray alleges did conduct themselves unprofessionally, further, in an offensive manner against Plaintiff André Murray; as such these individuals are named Defendants in this matter. 19. Defendant Chief Barry MacKnight of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, in the capacity of ‘Chief of Police’ is vicariously liable, as he is responsible for the professional conduct of his members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as such these individuals are named Defendants in this matter. 20. Defendant Constable Mike Fox (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 5th day of March 2009 was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in the capacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as he was ‘dispatched’ to attend 29-31 Marshall Street in the City of Fredericton the residential address of Plaintiff André Murray. 21. Defendant Constable Patrick Small (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 5th day of March 2009 was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in the capacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as he was ‘dispatched’ to attend 29-31 Marshall Street in the City of Fredericton the residential address of Plaintiff André Murray. 7

22. Defendant Constable Rideout (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 5th day of March 2009 was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in the capacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as she was ‘dispatched’ to attend 29-31 Marshall Street in the City of Fredericton the residential address of Plaintiff André Murray. 23. Defendant Sgt. Myers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 5th day of March 2009, was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in the capacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as supervisor. 24. Defendant, Neil Rodgers in the capacity of a person making representations, regarding Plaintiff André Murray therefore acting as an Informer to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 25. Defendant, Trina Rodgers in the capacity of a person making fraudulent misrepresentations, regarding Plaintiff André Murray therefore acting as an Informer to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE
The capacity of all persons who are parties to 7th day of May 2008 Defendant therefore to be joined in this September 7, 2011, AMENDED Statement of Claim.

Observations from incidents 7th day of May 2008 26. Plaintiff André Murray is the victim in this matter; a innocent man on all accounts who was forced to suffer because of negligence and Malice on the part of Members of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE and Malice on the part of witnesses, who while obstructing justice did provide false witness and or evidence, further, who intended to commit unlawful acts and or cause harm to Plaintiff André Murray; moreover, for the herewithin stated reasons Plaintiff André Murray, without any recognizable proper standard of probable cause, for that reason, further at the hands of Members of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE suffered: assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest unlawful detention and False imprisonment, excessive use of force causing harm, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock , violation of his rights contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms et al., at the hands of the herewithin named Defendants, Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 07, 2008. 27. Defendant, The City of Fredericton in capacity of principal/agent and or employer has vicarious liability as the employer of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE in which numerous members are herein named as Defendants for matters occurring on the 7th day of May 2008. 28. John Doe 2 is the unidentified individual or party, reportedly, who on the 7th day of May 2008, by telephone communicated advise to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray.

8

29. Defendant, Fredericton Police Force, Defendant, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, has vicarious liability, having on Date 7th day of May 2008, dispatched three members (Defendants in this matter) of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE who allegedly conducted themselves unprofessionally, further in an offensive manner against Plaintiff André Murray. 30. Defendant Chief Barry MacKnight of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, in the capacity of ‘Chief of Police’ is vicariously liable, for the incidents as set out below, occurring the 7th day of May 2008, as he is responsible for the professional conduct of his members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as such his members named Defendants in this matter. 31. Defendant Constable Patrick Small (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 7th day of May 2008, was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in the capacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as he was ‘dispatched’ to attend Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick, a matter regarding Plaintiff André Murray. 32. Defendant Constable Stafford (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 7th day of May 2008, was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in the capacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as he was ‘dispatched’ to attend Two Nations Crossing, north side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, a matter regarding Plaintiff André Murray. 33. Defendant Constable Saunders (for the purposes of this matter) on Date 7th day of May 2008, was acting within the course of employment, 'scope of employment', in the capacity of a Member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, as he was ‘dispatched’ to attend Two Nations Crossing, north side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, a matter regarding Plaintiff André Murray. 34. Defendant, Neil Rodgers in the capacity of a person making certain representations, regarding Plaintiff André Murray, to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE 35. Defendant, Trina Rodgers in the capacity of a person making certain representations, regarding Plaintiff André Murray, to FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE
(2.) The place of residence of the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff ANDRÉ MURRAY Address for service within New Brunswick: 31 Marshall Street Fredericton, N.B. E3A 4J8
(4.) Each allegation of a material fact relied upon to substantiate the claim.

9

36. Plaintiff André Murray, has no warrant(s) for his arrest, has never had an arrest warrant for his arrest, never had a criminal record and is a productive member of society therefore maintaining the peace. 37. Plaintiff André Murray has been a Residential Tenant of 29 -31 Marshall Street Duplex, City of Fredericton for 6 plus years and is known by the neighbours. 5th day of March 2009 38. March 5, 2009, early afternoon, day light hours, Plaintiff André Murray was removing snow by hand shovelling the driveway to his residential Marshall Street Duplex, in the City of Fredericton. Plaintiff André Murray’s facial features and physical body shape was clearly identifiable, as André Murray was wearing only a thin light wool sweater and pants, without wearing coats, hats and or even gloves…. the day was well lit. 39. Having just finished shovelling snow from the driveway, Plaintiff André Murray was now walking back towards his residential house entrance, therefore, past the arbour gated enclosed area. 40. Plaintiff André Murray had earlier removed all heavy/warm winter clothing and was now actively retrieving / collecting and or reassembling the winter clothing & accessories. At this point Plaintiff André Murray was accosted by unidentified people. 41. Plaintiff André Murray now hearing sounds turned around to see what was the commotion and saw someone (since identified as Constable Fox) quickly approaching Plaintiff André Murray at running speed, from the street side of 29 Marshall Street and down the same driveway, from which Plaintiff André Murray had just finished removing the snow. Plaintiff André Murray was surprised by this man in black, because, as of that time André Murray had no prior indication that anyone else was in the area. 42. This unidentified man rapidly approaching Plaintiff André Murray, dressed in black and not wearing a hat, (now known as Constable Mike Fox) was yelling in a manner and speaking quickly that could best be described as verbalizing in a stressed tone and incoherent manner. As Constable Fox rapidly approached Plaintiff André Murray, (who is standing still ) he immediately did and without warning grab Plaintiff André Murray’s right arm, first contact was by Constable Fox seizing the right wrist thereby, immediately inflicting pain to Plaintiff André Murray’s wrist as Constable Mike Fox simultaneously forced and caused Plaintiff André Murray’s right arm to become twisted around and behind Plaintiff André Murray’s back. 43. Constable Fox, now having control of André Murray’s right arm and wrist, did immediately sweep André Murray’s feet out from under him, sending André Murray’s body to the frozen ground, with Constable Fox’s body applying further force against André Murray as they hit the ground, with Constable Fox, now on top of André Murray; now continuing to apply pressure to the wrist and using arm lock techniques, which Constable Fox had without warning initiated and would not relent. Immediately prior to 10

Constable Mike Fox attacking Plaintiff André Murray, Plaintiff André Murray was holding in his hands his usual winter clothing accessories. 44. Despite Plaintiff André Murray’s attempts at reasoning with Constable Mike Fox, (now lying on his stomach face down) Constable Fox continued in the extremely painful application of force, which was disproportional in the situation, unnecessary, and without reason. Plaintiff André Murray was at this point in a awkward position, therefore ‘pinned’ on the ice and had his left arm pinned between his shoulder and face, extended in front of face on the icy snow surface fortunately protecting Plaintiff André Murray’s face from further injury by impacting the ground as Constable Mike Fox was at that point literally, physically on top of Plaintiff André Murray’s back continuing to cause pain by applying extreme force, in various twisted upward motions towards the back direction of his head. 45. At this point Constable Patrick Small arrived on the scene and both he and Constable Mike Fox continued battering, twisting pushing and generally manipulating the Plaintiff’s body into a further submissive position. 46. Further to the application of the above mentioned force used against André Murray, which had by this point in time been extremely disproportional to the situation, absolutely unnecessary, and unreasonable, and unquestionably sufficient to contain the Plaintiff André Murray, (as he is now prostrated on the ground) further, despite the fact that resistance is not occurring, however, Constable Mike Fox instructs Constable Patrick Small to “pepper spray” Plaintiff André Murray directly into the eyes and face despite the fact that both Constable Mike Fox and Constable Patrick Small controlled and held Plaintiff André Murray down on the ground. 47. Plaintiff André Murray experienced knees digging into his back as both of Plaintiff André Murray’s arms were simultaneously being pulled backwards and away from Plaintiff André Murray’s back with great force. 48. The process of handcuffing Plaintiff André Murray wrists involved several extreme and severe repetitions of lifting Plaintiff André Murray arms backwards while preventing Plaintiff André Murray’s body from moving off the surface of the ground, as pressure was applied into Plaintiff André Murray’s back sides. 49. Plaintiff André Murray was subsequentially (after being hand cuffed) physically lifted up off the ground, by Constable Mike Fox and Constable Patrick Small, while the Plaintiff André Murray’s wrists were handcuffed; this lifting of Plaintiff André Murray’s body procedure included being first dragged for a short distance, then literally suspended by using Plaintiff André Murray’s forearms as the fulcrum point (while wrists are hand cuffed) to lift and carry Plaintiff André Murray reasonably nothing less than 30 feet; hereafter, members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Constable Mike Fox and Constable Patrick Small continued to cause Plaintiff André Murray to be suspended through the air by using Plaintiff André Murray’s forearms as the fulcrum point (while wrists are hand cuffed) to finally arrive at a sudden impact with what sounded like the

11

trunk hood of a motor vehicle; please note: as the Plaintiff André Murray at this point was completely blind from having had pepper spray, placed directly into André Murray’s eyes, by Constable Patrick Small from a distance which was approximately less than 2 inches away from Plaintiff André Murray’s eyes. 50. Plaintiff André Murray was subsequentially shoved forward into the back seat compartment area of the motor vehicle which had become ‘forced upon’ unwelcome transportation, causing his head to impact the top edge of (what is believed to be) the door opening as Plaintiff André Murray (not permitted to gain his balance) was shoved into the motor vehicle (a compartment area of a seat less vehicle) which had now become his unwelcome transportation, which did not have seats instead only a hard surface. 51. Plaintiff André Murray was subsequently transported against his will, while still experiencing burning sensations to his eyes including other injuries endured and sustained to his shoulders, arms and wrists during the arrest procedure and pain from the impact to his head, caused by the reckless and careless placement of Plaintiff André Murray into a motor vehicle. 52. Plaintiff André Murray upon arriving at a unknown location, and while still experiencing the blinding effect of the pepper spray in his eyes Plaintiff André Murray was removed from the motor vehicle, which had been unwelcome transportation, then escorted inside a building (what he now knows to be the Fredericton Police Station) where he was allowed to use (what was described to him) by the attending Police Officers, as a Eye Washing Station. 53. Plaintiff André Murray did not have his Miranda rights read to him until sometime after arriving at the Police Station and not until after Sgt. Myers questioned Constable Mike Fox, as to why Constable Mike admitted that he had not read Plaintiff André Murray his rights. 54. Plaintiff André Murray while being illegally detained, was not being permitted to contact a lawyer. 7th day of May 2008 55. Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 6:30 pm Plaintiff André Murray was traveling by bicycle along Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick. 56. Plaintiff André Murray was intercepted and stopped by members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. 57. Constable Stafford of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did accost Plaintiff André Murray, demanding Plaintiff André Murray identify himself, which Plaintiff André Murray did provide a given name and family name to Constable Stafford.

12

58. Constable Stafford of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did demand photo I.D. and threatened Plaintiff André Murray, with arrest and or potential fines to pay, if Plaintiff André Murray did not immediately produce photo I.D. 59. Constable Michael Saunders arrived at the scene at this time, in an unmarked car, which appeared to have possibly three (not in uniform) people, observing from within as Constable Saunders departed the unmarked car; Please note Plaintiff André Murray at that time observed sitting in the unmarked car the likeness of Trina Rodgers looking directly at Plaintiff André Murray and reasonably believe that the man sitting in the back seat was Neil Rodgers. 60. Constable Michael Saunders and Constable Stafford proceeded to arrest Plaintiff André Murray. 61. At this time one more marked police car arrived with a single male occupant constable Small, who jumped out of the police patrol car and ran over to join in, therefore, assisting on the arrest of Plaintiff André Murray 62. Plaintiff André Murray was arrested, handcuffed, detained and imprisoned within FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE Marked Police Cruiser, then released without charge, given a written warning for not having a helmet and Constable Stafford claimed to have issued a ticket for not having a bell in the bicycle, but would not provide same unless André Murray agreed to place his signature on the ticket.
(5.) The plaintiff’s claim.

The Plaintiff’s Claim includes the following: Defendant, The City of Fredericton 63. Defendant, The City of Fredericton has vicarious liability for the actions and damages caused by members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE in their negligent behaviour, involving assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, employing excessive use of force, therefore causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray. 64. Defendant, The City of Fredericton has vicarious liability for the actions and damages caused by the subject defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE in the application of force, which was disproportional in the situation, unnecessary, and unreasonable, furthermore, there was a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. 65. The City of Fredericton is also liable to the Plaintiff André Murray for damages under the Police Act, S.N.B. 1977, c. P-9.2, as amended. According to of the Police Act,
section 17(1) “A municipality is liable in respect of a tort committed by a member of the police force in the performance or purported performance of his or her responsibilities under section 12

13

in the same manner as a master is liable, in respect of a tort committed, by the master’s servant in the course of the servant’s employment where (a) a municipality is maintaining a police force, (b) a municipality is contracting under paragraph 4 (c) for the services of a municipal police force, and (c) a municipality has established a board under section 7.” Accordingly The City of Fredericton is liable in respect of a tort committed by a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE in the performance or purported performance of his or her responsibilities.

5th day of March 2009 66. Defendant, The City of Fredericton, has a department called Fredericton Police Force, which, did dispatch three members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to the 29 -31 Marshall Street Fredericton, New Brunswick on March 5, 2009. 7th day of May 2008 67. Defendant, The City of Fredericton, has a department called Fredericton Police Force and did send 3 Fredericton Police Force members to Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick May 07, 2008. Defendant Fredericton Police Force 68. Defendant, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE has vicarious liability for the actions and damages caused by members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE in negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray. 69. Defendant, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE has vicarious liability for the actions and damages caused by members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE in the application of force, which was disproportional to that which determines or that should have been considered in determining a correct course of action, thereby avoiding unnecessary, unreasonable breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. 70. As required by their oath of office, Fredericton City Police officers must act “according to the law”. The law is clear that police officers are not exempt from liability for negligent conduct, and where acting unreasonably they are not entitled to the statutory immunity they could otherwise rely upon. 71. Defendant, Fredericton Police Force members of which have taken this oath:
NEW BRUNSWICK REGULATION 81-18 under the POLICE ACT (O.C. 81-143)

14

OATH OF OFFICE CANADA PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK I, ………………………………… , do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, in the office of police officer for the Province of New Brunswick without favour or affection, malice or illwill and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved and will prevent all offences against the persons and property of Her Majesty’s subjects and against all the laws enforceable in the Province of New Brunswick and that while I continue to hold this office, I will to the best of my skill, ability and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to the law. So help me God.

5th day of March 2009 72. Defendant, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on March 5, 2009, did dispatch three Members, City of Fredericton Police Officers, to attend 29 -31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, who participated in negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, transportation against his will, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray. 73. Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, March 5, 2009, responding to and or attending 29 -31 Marshall Street, Fredericton New Brunswick, should have confined themselves only to acting in a capacity of maintaining the peace and acting in the public’s best interest. Moreover, Defendant Members of the Fredericton Police were under a duty of care regarding maintaining the safety of Plaintiff André Murray and anyone else encountered at civic address 29 -31 Marshall Street, Fredericton. 74. Here within mentioned Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were Negligent in their duty, as they breached a Duty of Care, to take reasonable steps to ensure that in the capacity of City Police Officers, further, City Police Officers who are obliged to Maintain the peace and act in the public’s best interest, further, while in performance of their duty as City Police Officers that their conduct must remain lawful and or legal, moreover, consistent with the circumstances and situation as discovered (in this instance) at the residential duplex of 29 - 31 Marshall Street, in the City of Fredericton, on that subject March 5, 2009, midday afternoon, involving the approach and address of (someone) not observed to be breaking the law, as Plaintiff André Murray was performing an obviously mundane task evidentially not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility, furthermore Plaintiff André Murray’s snow shovelling activities could not possibly be harmful or injurious to the observer; irregardless of the passive, non offensive, state in which Plaintiff André Murray was discovered March 5, 2009, the Defendant Members of the FREDERICTON POLICE

15

FORCE did boldly and aggressively accost Plaintiff André Murray despite observing Plaintiff André Murray maintaining the peace. 75. March 5, 2009 while responding to ‘radio dispatch’ from ‘Headquarters’ here within mentioned Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE further following directions did attend the 29 -31 Marshall Street residential duplex property subsequentially, upon arrival, failed to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate, consequentially, going beyond what is right or proper, the Defendant Police having dispensed with properly identifying the situation Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE immediately (without any preliminary process of first identifying the circumstances, person and situation) and with great prejudice, attacked Plaintiff André Murray inflicting harm and physical injury. 76. The Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE who, March 5, 2009, actually attended 29 -31 Marshall Street residential duplex property, were under a ‘Duty of Care’, to take reasonable steps to ensure that no unlawful or illegal conduct caused injury to the plaintiff André Murray; March 5, 2009 great harm and injury to Plaintiff André Murray occurred, at the hands of the here within mentioned Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, who while attending Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, March 5, 2009 were Negligent in ‘Duty of Care’. 77. The here within mentioned incident occurring at Plaintiff André Murray’s residential address at Marshall Street, Fredericton New Brunswick, March 5, 2009, is prima face evidence of Police mis-conduct, as they interfered with the liberty of law abiding Plaintiff André Murray, who was at that time maintaining the peace; subject Police conduct, as did occur that midday March 5, 2009, is not within the scope of a Police officers duty, although connected with an authorized act, was however though an improper mode, moreover, the conduct of the Defendant Police officers that day, involved an unjustified use of powers not consistent with and outrageously disproportional to the observable circumstances, as was discovered, upon Police arriving (shortly after high noon) at the residential duplex 29-31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, further, as would be associated with that duty. 78. The attending members of Fredericton Police Force, where, also under a ‘Duty of Care’ to act lawfully and legally, while attending the residential duplex 29-31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, March 5, 2009. The first negligent act by attending members of Fredericton, Police Force, was to dispense with any attempt to identify Plaintiff André Murray, instead (upon making visual contact on a bright well light midday) the Police immediately assaulted Plaintiff André Murray while simultaneously verbalizing (shouting) commands of instruction (stop and do not move) Police continued uttering threats of violence and promises of injury, as they actually, without hesitation, seamlessly transitioned to physically attacking Plaintiff André Murray. March 5, 2009 the subject Defendants - members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were Negligent in that ‘DUTY OF CARE’ while uttering threats, simultaneously enforcing illegal battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray.

16

79. The subject Defendant Fredericton City Police officers breached the ‘DUTY OF CARE’ they owed the plaintiff and were negligent. Their negligence resulted in Plaintiff André Murray suffering injury. Defendant Fredericton City Police officers did cause a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. The subject Fredericton City Police officers are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for their tortuous actions demonstrating malice an intent to commit unlawful acts and or cause harm to Plaintiff André Murray without legal justification or excuse. 80. The subject Defendant Fredericton City Police officers where acting unlawfully, in the negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray. Defendant Fredericton City Police officers where Negligent in the execution of their duties and that in all the here within related circumstances, the police conduct constitutes unjustifiable interference with the individual liberty of Plaintiff André Murray. 7th day of May 2008 81. Wednesday, May 07, 2008 at 6:30 pm Plaintiff André Murray was traveling by bicycle along Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick. 82. Defendant, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, May 07, 2008, did dispatch three City of Fredericton Police Officers to attend Two Nations Crossing, on the north side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, who participated in negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, for that reason inexplicably using excessive force, causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray. 83. Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, May 07, 2008, responding to and or attending Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, should have confined themselves, only, to acting in a capacity of maintaining the peace and acting in the public’s best interest, additionally, Defendant Members of the Fredericton Police were under a duty of care regarding maintaining the safety of Plaintiff André Murray. 84. Here within mentioned Defendant Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were Negligent in their duty as they breached a Duty of Care to take reasonable steps to ensure that in the capacity of City Police Officers, furthermore, as City Police Officers who are obliged to Maintain the peace and act in the public’s best interest, further, while in performance of their duty as City Police Officers that their conduct must remain lawful and or legal, moreover, consistent with the circumstances and situation as discovered (in this particular instance) at Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 07, 2008 at or about 6:30 pm involving the approach

17

and address of (someone) not observed to be breaking the law as Plaintiff André Murray was only performing a obviously mundane task of travelling by bicycle, as such therefore, not likely to give offense or to arouse strong feelings or hostility, furthermore Plaintiff André Murray’s peaceful travelling activities could not possibly be harmful or injurious to the observer; moreover and despite the passive non offensive state in which Plaintiff André Murray was first encountered by the herein named Defendants/Members of Fredericton Police Force, however, nevertheless and despite the evident passive nature of Plaintiff André Murray he was boldly and aggressively accosted. 85. May 07, 2008 while responding to ‘radio dispatch’ from Fredericton Police Force ‘Headquarters’ here within mentioned Defendant Members of Fredericton Police Force, further, following directions did attend Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick subsequentially, upon arrival, failed to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate, consequentially, going beyond what is right or proper, the Defendant Police having dispensed with properly identifying the situation, Defendant Members of Fredericton Police Force did despite having Plaintiff André Murray identify himself, continue with great prejudice, to attack Plaintiff André Murray thereby inflicting harm and physical injury. 86. The Defendant Members of Fredericton Police Force, who, May 07, 2008, actually attended Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, where under a ‘Duty of Care’, to take reasonable steps to ensure that no unlawful or illegal conduct caused injury to the plaintiff André Murray. May 07, 2008, despite a ‘Duty of Care’harm and injury did befall to Plaintiff André Murray and occurred, at the hands of the here within mentioned Defendant Members of Fredericton Police Force, who while attending Two Nations Crossing, on the North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 07, 2008, Fredericton Police Force were Negligent in ‘Duty of Care’. 87. The here within mentioned Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 07, 2008, incident of Police prima facie serious misconduct, initially refers to the matter of interference with Plaintiff André Murray’s liberty. Subject conduct, as did occur at or about 6:30 pm May 07, 2008, is within the scope of employment and or within the course of employment of Police officers duty, althought in this particular case an improper mode in performing said duties occurred; moreover, the conduct of the Defendant Police officers that day, involved an unjustified use of powers not consistent with and outrageously disproportional to the observable circumstances, as was discovered, upon Police arriving (at or about 6:30 pm) Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick, 88. The attending members of Fredericton Police Force where also under a ‘Duty of Care’ to act lawfully and legally, while attending Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 07, 2008. The first negligent act by the attending members of Fredericton Police Force was to, despite having identified Plaintiff André Murray, assaulted Plaintiff André Murray verbalizing (shouting) commands of instruction (stop and do not move) as they actually without hesitation seamlessly transitioned to physically

18

attacking battering Plaintiff André Murray. Furthermore, the subject Defendants members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were Negligent in that ‘DUTY OF CARE’ uttering threats, illegally enforcing battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray. 89. Defendant named members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE were negligent and breached the ‘DUTY OF CARE’ they owed the plaintiff. Their negligence resulted in plaintiff André Murray suffering injury. Defendant; named members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE did cause a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. Subject Fredericton City Police officers are jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for their actions. 90. Defendant named members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE where acting unlawfully, in the negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray. Defendant named members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE where Negligent in the execution of their duties and that in all the here within related circumstances, the police conduct constitutes unjustifiable interference with the individual liberty of Plaintiff André Murray. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight 5th day of March 2009 91. Defendant Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police on the 5th day of March 2009, is responsible for the dispatch of three members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, to therefore, attend the residential duplex at 29 – 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Police officers who upon arriving at 29 – 31 Marshall Street did discover a law abiding and peaceful Plaintiff André Murray. Regardless of the peaceful circumstances which existed, the attending Defendant Police officers negligently and with apparent prejudice and entirely without probable cause did assault, then unlawfully and illegally dispensed a prolonged physical beating on Plaintiff André Murray, including inhumanely spraying of PEPPER SPRAY directly into Plaintiff André Murray eyes while he was pinned down on the ground. Violence disproportionate to the circumstances, which was morally unwarranted, a physical battery of plaintiff André Murray, which was absolutely unnecessary as Plaintiff André Murray had not yet been observed or identified as breaking the law and was not, nor had any intention to avoid questioning or arrest, this was a most significant part of the wrongful / false arrest and subsequent false imprisonment, involving excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock upon Plaintiff André Murray as he was transported against his will on the 5th day of March 2009, please note, physical injuries which continue to plague Plaintiff André Murray till this day.

19

92. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police has vicarious liability for the actions and damages caused by the here within named Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE who in their negligence did assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and falsely imprison, Plaintiff André Murray using therefore, excessive use of force, causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray while attending a peaceful law-abiding man at his residential civic address of 29 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, on the 5th day of March 2009. 93. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight was negligent in the performance of his duties, particularly in his failure to properly supervise Defendant Constable Mike Fox Badge number: 346, Defendant Constable Patrick Small Badge number: 355, Defendant Constable Rideout Badge number: 320 and Defendant Sgt. Myers Badge number: 281. who was on duty as supervisor at the Police station. 94. Defendant Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police was negligent in the performance of his duties, particularly in his failure to properly instruct Constable Mike Fox, Defendant Constable Patrick Small, Defendant Constable Rideout and Defendant Sgt. Myers about the sanctity of one's home. The sanctity of one's home is of fundamental importance in a free and democratic society. It is constitutionally recognized in our country. Everyone must not only be secure, but feel, secure in their residence. A society that tolerates significant criminal intrusions into the privacy of one's home is a society that forces it citizens to resort to self-help to protect themselves against such wrongs. Absent effective responses from the judiciary, the alternative is for citizens to arm themselves in anticipation of a need to defend themselves against such criminal enterprises. A society like that is not ours today, has not been ours in the past, and hopefully will not become ours in the future. The obligation of the Court is to give proper recognition to the sanctity of the home, to protect all citizens against such intrusions, and to preserve the public's confidence in the administration of justice. 95. For the here within named Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to violate the sanctity of one's home and threaten to enter into their dwelling house to accost the Plaintiff is considered as an aggravating circumstances, the fact that the dwelling-house would have been occupied at the time of the promised commission of the offence and that the person in committing the offence, were aware, knew that, or was reckless as to, whether the dwelling-house was occupied, and used violence or threats of violence to a person or property is especially egregious. The presence of the occupants of their home, with the violation of their sense of sanctity and security in that place, and the attendant exposure to the threat (express or implied) of physical or psychological harm, that sets the home invasion apart from other offences committed in relation to a home. 7th day of May 2008 96. Defendant Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police May 07, 2008, is responsible for the dispatch of the here within named Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to attend Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Police

20

officers who upon arriving at Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick did discover a law abiding and peaceful Plaintiff André Murray. Regardless of the peaceful circumstances, the attending Defendant Police officers negligently with apparent prejudice and entirely without probable cause did assault, than unlawfully and illegally dispensed a prolonged physical beating on Plaintiff André Murray. Violence disproportionate to the circumstances, a physical battery of plaintiff André Murray, which was absolutely unnecessary as Plaintiff André Murray had not yet been observed or identified as breaking the law. The wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, involving excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock upon Plaintiff André Murray May 07, 2008, caused physical injuries to Plaintiff André Murray with lingering psychological mental aguish. 97. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police has vicarious liability for the actions and damages caused by the here within named Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE who in their negligence did assault, commit battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, using therefore excessive use of force, causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray while attending Two Nations Crossing, North side of Fredericton, New Brunswick, May 07, 2008. 98. Defendant Chief of Police Barry MacKnight was negligent in the performance of his duties, particularly in his failure to properly supervise Defendant Constable Stafford badge number: 358, Defendant Constable Saunders, (badge number refused), and Defendant Constable Small Badge number: 355. 99. Defendant Barry MacKnight as Chief of Police was negligent in the performance of his duties, particularly in his failure to properly instruct Defendants: Constable Stafford, Police badge number 358, Defendant Constable Saunders, ( Police badge number refused when requested by victim André Murray), and Defendant Constable Small, Police Badge number 355; regarding the principle of a presumption of innocence as set out in Section 11 (d) of the Charter Rights and Freedoms. The principle of the presumption of innocence is of fundamental importance in a free and democratic society. It is constitutionally recognized in our country. For the here within named Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to violate the principle of the presumption of innocence as set out in Section 11 (d) of the Charter Rights and Freedoms, who did accost the Plaintiff and used random violence and or threats of violence against a reasonably innocent person is especially egregious. The presumption of innocence requiring therefore an investigation of the circumstances, as they may have appeared to attending members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE was in this matter denied Plaintiff André Murray. The efforts of governments and Courts to uphold these fundamental rights of a democratic society must never cease. These rights are entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Defendant Constable Mike Fox

21

100. Defendant Constable Mike Fox of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on the 5th day of March 2009, negligently initiated a assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, using excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray at 29 -31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick as the Plaintiff André Murray was finally transported against his will and conscience to places unknown. 101. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009, owed plaintiff André Murray a duty of care, as a professional, on duty Police Officer, in the treatment of Plaintiff André Murray; Defendant Constable Mike Fox was negligent in that duty. Defendant Constable Mike Fox did not take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which Defendant Constable Mike Fox could reasonably foresee, would for that reason likely cause harm or injury to Plaintiff André Murray. 102. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009, was negligent in not taking reasonable steps to investigate the identity of Plaintiff André Murray. 103. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009, was negligent in falsely asserting that the identity of plaintiff André Murray was known to him. 104. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009, used unnecessary and excessive force when arresting and detaining innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 105. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009 did cause a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. 106. Defendant Constable Mike Fox 5th day of March, 2009, did illegally and unlawfully assault Plaintiff André Murray, first by uttering illegal and unlawful commands, while simultaneously battering Plaintiff André Murray. Defendant Constable Mike Fox while he tortured Plaintiff André Murray uttered continuous ultimatums – impossible to comply with commands, that Plaintiff André Murray must move his (at that moment) pined down to the ground body into a impossible contortion position, which if Plaintiff André Murray did not comply immediately Defendant Constable Mike Fox was threatening to inflict further pain and consequentially did inflict the pain which he had initially threatened. Note: for André Murray to have been able to comply with the commands of Defendant Constable Mike Fox while being physically restrained (as he was) would have required that Plaintiff André Murray be physically double jointed and or have rare abilities to contort twist or bend his body out of its normal shape. 107. Defendant Constable Mike Fox did without provocation initiate and did wilfully commit Battery against Plaintiff André Murray, furthermore, Defendant Constable Mike Fox without warning attacked Plaintiff André Murray, possibly inflicting injury of a permanent nature upon Plaintiff André Murray’s right wrist; as of this date André Murray still attends physiotherapy treatment in an attempt to reduce pain and regain full

22

mobility of André Murray’s right wrist arm and shoulder; furthermore, Defendant Constable Mike Fox without provocation and or probable cause did cause Plaintiff André Murray’s legs to be without warning swept out from under Plaintiff André Murray thereby intentionally causing a painful and damaging fall onto the knees and upper body. Defendant Constable Mike Fox further applied excessive and unnecessary application of pressure to plaintiff André Murray’s right wrist, Defendant Constable Mike Fox did encourage, thereby instruct Constable Small to participate in an act of pepper spraying of plaintiff André Murray’s face. Constable Mike Fox did participate in lifting plaintiff André Murray up and off the ground therefore carrying plaintiff André Murray by the handcuffed wrists thereby creating a fulcrum point in a manner distributing and focusing all plaintiff André Murray’s body weight causing further injury to plaintiff André Murray’s shoulders and wrists, Defendant Constable Mike Fox did forcibly shove plaintiff André Murray face first onto one of the Police vehicles, Defendant Constable Mike Fox did push plaintiff André Murray into a seat less compartment of the Police vehicles causing plaintiff André Murray to bang his heard onto the Police vehicles door frame. 108. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March, 2009, evidentially having no intention to maintain the peace and or act in the best interest of a law abiding André Murray, did accost an innocent Plaintiff André Murray, for that reason did unlawfully and illegally, arrest and detain an innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 109. Defendant Constable Mike Fox did on the 5th day of March, 2009, intentionally conduct himself so as to cause infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock by the flagrant and or outrageous conduct of Constable Mike Fox’s use of excessive force against Plaintiff André Murray. Defendant Constable Mike Fox committed a deliberate or reckless act which was the use of excessive force in the arrest of an innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 110. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March, 2009, observed André Murray maintaining the peace, despite the following Defendant Constable Mike Fox choose not to maintain the peace and or act in the best interest of André Murray regardless of the fact Defendant Constable Mike Fox did not have an arrest warrant for Plaintiff André Murray. 111. Defendant Constable Mike Fox on the 5th day of March 2009 did not observe Plaintiff André Murray committing a crime and or disturbing the peace, as such, Defendant Constable Mike Fox did not have probable cause to accost and or arrest Plaintiff André Murray. 112. Defendant Constable Mike Fox as he was transporting Plaintiff André Murray against his will further on that date of 5th day of March 2009, verbalized to Plaintiff André Murray (now handcuffed in the back compartment of the Police Vehicle, further visually blinded by pepper spray a captured audience so to speak)was forced to listen to the confession of Defendant Constable Mike Fox about how that he had accessed Plaintiff André Murray’s unlisted home phone number the year before, further that he

23

Defendant Constable Mike Fox had anonymously telephoned André Murray threatening to break into Plaintiff André Murray’s house to “get you” …. Defendant Constable Mike Fox continued to boast (while illegally transporting handcuffed, pepper sprayed, Plaintiff André Murray to the Fredericton Police station) confirming that he Constable Mike Fox had further verbalized certain threats during that earlier herewithin mentioned anonymous unsolicited telephone call “I will get you” further Constable Mike Fox continued to brag or boast that he had now done exactly that. Defendant Constable Mike Fox was aware of the effect of his conduct on Plaintiff André Murray and purposefully continued in that conduct; consequentially Plaintiff André Murray has been psychologically injured. Defendant Constable Patrick Small 113. Defendant Constable Patrick Small of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on the 5th day of March 2009, participated in the negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, therefore using excessive use of force, causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray. 114. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 5th day of March 2009, owed Plaintiff André Murray a duty of care as a professional on duty Police Officer in the treatment of Plaintiff André Murray; Defendant Constable Patrick Small was negligent in that duty. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did not take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which Defendant Constable Patrick Small could reasonably foresee, would likely cause harm or injury to Plaintiff André Murray. 115. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 5th day of March 2009, was negligent in not taking reasonable steps to investigate the identity of innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 116. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 5th day of March 2009, used unnecessary and excessive force when, without probable cause, was arresting and detaining an innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 117. Defendant Constable Patrick Small, on the 5th day of March 2009, did cause a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. 118. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 5th day of March 2009, assault innocent Plaintiff André Murray by uttering threats, for that reason, illegal and unlawful commands, including ultimatums to comply or suffer further violence and injury, please note this unprovoked aggressive behaviour victimizing Plaintiff André Murray was occurring, relentlessly, throughout the subject arrest procedure. 119. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 5th day of March 2009, did inter alia commit Battery against plaintiff André Murray, for that reason pepper spraying the eyes and face of Plaintiff André Murray.

24

120. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 5th day of March 2009, participate in, lifting/suspending plaintiff André Murray using the victims forearms as fulcrum point while having previously handcuffed Plaintiff André Murray’s wrists, subsequentially carrying Plaintiff André Murray a distance, suspended, consequentially causing extensive injury to plaintiff André Murray’s shoulders, arms and wrists, Defendant Constable Patrick Small did subsequentially participate in causing Plaintiff André Murray to be forcibly shoved face first onto one of the Police motor vehicles, followed by Defendant Constable Patrick Small paticipating in pushing Plaintiff André Murray into the (enclosed area) of Police motor vehicle thereby causing Plaintiff André Murray to bang his heard onto the car door frame. 121. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 5th day of March 2009, unlawfully and illegally arrest and detain Plaintiff André Murray. 122. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 5th day of March 2009, commit intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock by the flagrant and or outrageous conduct of Defendant Constable Patrick Small by his use of excessive force against Plaintiff André Murray, which had not been provoked. Defendant Constable Patrick Small committed a deliberate or reckless act, which was the use of excessive force in the arrest of innocent Plaintiff André Murray without warrant for his arrest, also having not witnessed a crime in progress, thereby committing a illegal attack upon a innocent man ‘Plaintiff André Murray’ who was maintaining the peace. 123. On the 5th day of March 2009, Defendant Constable Patrick Small did conduct himself for the purpose of injuring Plaintiff André Murray, furthermore, Defendant Constable Patrick Small was aware of the effect of his conduct used against Plaintiff André Murray and continued in that abusive conduct; consequentially a result of violence used against Plaintiff André Murray injury resulted in the commission of this subject illegal and unlawful arrest of innocent André Murray. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout 124. Defendant Constable Rideout of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on the 5th day of March 2009, did negligently participate in the assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive use of force, causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of including contributing to the transportation of a innocent man against his will and or conscience, that being Plaintiff André Murray. 125. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009, owed plaintiff André Murray as a professional ‘on duty’ Police Officer ‘a duty of care’ in the treatment of Plaintiff André Murray; Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout was negligent in that ‘duty of care’. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout did not take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout could reasonably foresee, would for that reason cause harm or injury to Plaintiff André Murray. Instead choose to be complicit and further involved herself with other Defendant Members of

25

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE in an illegal activity and or wrong doing by arresting an innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 126. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009, was negligent in not taking reasonable steps to investigate the identity of Plaintiff André Murray. 127. Defendant Constable Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009, participated in the arrest involving unnecessary and excessive force while arresting and detaining innocent
Plaintiff André Murray.

128. Defendant Constable Rideout did on the 5th day of March 2009, did cause a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. 129. Defendant Constable Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009, did wilfully participate to assault Plaintiff André Murray by uttering illegal and unlawful commands, followed by ultimatums requiring compliance or suffer further violence and injury during the arrest procedure. 130. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009 did wilfully participate to commit Battery against Plaintiff André Murray, inter alia, wilfully participating in the pepper spraying of plaintiff André Murray, which ultimately led to plaintiff André Murray being harmfully and injuriously lifted and suspended in the air by using his handcuffed wrists as a fulcrum point for that reason causing further extensive injury to plaintiff André Murray’s shoulders and wrists, Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout did assist with an unlawful arrest in which included causing Plaintiff André Murray to be shoved face first onto the body of one of the Police motor vehicles, Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout was for these reasons an accomplice to the pushing of Plaintiff André Murray into the back compartment Police motor vehicles causing plaintiff André Murray to bang his head onto the Police motor vehicle door frame. 131. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009 did without probable cause, thereby, unlawfully participate in the illegal arrest and detainment of an innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 132. Defendant Constable Rideout on the 5th day of March 2009 did participate to commit intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock by the flagrant and or outrageous use of excessive force against innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 133. Defendant Constable Nancy Rideout acted negligently on the 5th day of March 2009 in her behaviour towards Plaintiff André Murray, therefore, deliberately committed recklessly violent acts against innocent Plaintiff André Murray which subject negligence is evidentially confirmed by the arrest of an innocent André Murray. Moreover, Constable Rideout having never witnessed Plaintiff in an illegal act, and or committing a crime, furthermore, having no reasonable probable cause to believe that Plaintiff André

26

Murray is guilty of a crime, nevertheless proceeded with extreme prejudice against innocent Plaintiff André Murray. Defendant Sergeant Myers 134. Defendant Police Sergeant Myers of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on the 5th day of March 2009 was supervisor in charge and responsible for managing all operations on that ‘shift of duty’ as such, the handling and processing of Plaintiff André Murray was negligent, first of all allowing for the dispatch of the Members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE and the subsequent illegal arrest of André Murray followed by André Murray’s illegal imprisonment, which was further exasperated by Defendant Police Sergeant Myers not permitting Plaintiff André Murray access to a lawyer; Plaintiff André Murray was made to suffer interrogation further delaying a release of innocent Plaintiff André Murray; Defendant Police Sergeant Myers having had more than sufficient time to assess the situation since reasonable he would have over sight on the dispatch of the herein named Defendant Police the day of the false arrest and subsequentially confirmed at the Police station located at 311 Queen Street, Fredericton. Defendant Constable Stafford 135. Defendant Constable Stafford a member of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on the 7th day of May 2008, participated in the negligent assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and false imprisonment, for that purpose did use excessive force, causing intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray. 136. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford the 7th day of May 2008, owed plaintiff André Murray a duty of care as a professional ‘on duty’ Police Officer in the treatment of Plaintiff André Murray; Defendant Constable Stafford was negligent in that duty ‘of care’ Defendant Constable Stafford did not take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford could reasonably foresee, would likely cause harm or injury to Plaintiff André Murray. 137. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford, May 07, 2008, was negligent in not maintaining the peace while acting as a Peace Officer, thereby acting in the public’s best interest in particular (for our purposes) towards Plaintiff André Murray. 138. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford May 07, 2008, was negligent in falsely asserting that innocent Plaintiff André Murray was required by law to produce photographic identification. 139. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford May 07, 2008, used unnecessary and excessive force when arresting and detaining innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 140. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford May 07, 2008, did cause a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious

27

denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. 141. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford May 07, 2008, did illegally and unlawfully assault Plaintiff André Murray by uttering illegal and unlawful commands, while simultaneously transitioning to physical battering of Plaintiff André Murray; impossible commands that Plaintiff André Murray must move his body one way then the other, evidentially, since Plaintiff André Murray’s body was not malleable sufficient to the satisfaction of arresting Police Constable Debbie Stafford, Plaintiff André Murray was further subjected to utterances of a threatening nature spoken by Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford who was promising to and who did actually nevertheless inflict further pain. 142. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford did May 07, 2008, commit assault and battery against Plaintiff André Murray. 143. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford without warning to Plaintiff André Murray did secure Plaintiff André Murray’s right arm, thereby pulling his arm behind Plaintiff André Murray’s back and at the same time pulling Plaintiff André Murray’s body off balance, so as to drag Plaintiff André Murray off of his bicycle, consequentially, (considering the resulting momentum) causing the slamming of Plaintiff André Murray’s body, and face thereby colliding with great force onto the automobile trunk (rear end) of the ‘Police’ marked vehicle. 144. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford on the 7th day of May 2008, did unlawfully and illegally arrest and detain a peaceful law abiding Plaintiff André Murray. 145. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford did the 7th day of May 2008, commit intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock by the flagrant and or outrageous conduct of Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford’s use of excessive force against Plaintiff André Murray. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford committed and or deliberately contributed to further reckless acts therefore further victimizing Plaintiff André Murray which included use of excessive force. 146. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford the 7th day of May 2008, had no warrant for arrest of Plaintiff André Murray. 147. Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford the 7th day of May 2008, did not observe Plaintiff André Murray committing a crime or disturbing the peace and as such Defendant Constable Debbie Stafford did not have probable cause to arrest or even to accost Plaintiff André Murray . Defendant Constable Saunders 148. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, the 7th day of May 2008 participated in negligent, assault, battery, wrongful / false arrest and

28

false imprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock, by these means inflicted upon and for this reason victimized Plaintiff André Murray of 29 -31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick 149. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders as a professional on duty Police Officer the 7th day of May 2008, owed plaintiff André Murray a duty of care in the treatment of Plaintiff André Murray; Constable Michael Saunders was negligent in that duty. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders did not take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which Defendant Constable Michael Saunders could reasonably foresee, would reasonably cause harm or injury to Plaintiff André Murray. 150. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders on the 7th day of May 2008, used unnecessary and excessive force when arresting and detaining an innocent Plaintiff André
Murray.

151. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders did the 7th day of May 2008, cause a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. 152. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders did the 7th day of May 2008, assault innocent Plaintiff André Murray by uttering threatening commands, followed by ultimatums of comply or suffer further violence and injury throughout the subsequent illegal and unlawful subject arrest procedure which followed. 153. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders on the 7th day of May 2008, did commit Battery against Plaintiff André Murray, by participating in a arrest procedure, which was illegal and unlawful furthermore, can not be sanctioned by our laws or customs, further, Defendant Constable Michael Saunders in this matter arrested an innocent Plaintiff André Murray under circumstances which were absolutely unprovoked and for that reason unnecessary. 154. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders the 7th day of May 2008, did illegally/unlawfully arrest and detain Plaintiff André Murray. 155. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders on the 7th day of May 2008, did commit intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock upon an innocent André Murray (Plaintiff) by Defendant Constable Patrick Small’s flagrant and or outrageous conduct in his use of excessive force against Plaintiff André Murray; furthermore, Defendant Constable Patrick Small committed deliberate or reckless acts, which inter alia included the use of excessive force in the arrest of innocent Plaintiff André Murray, who was lacking an arrest warrant for André Murray, had not witnessed Plaintiff André Murray in progress of a crime. 156. Defendant Constable Michael Saunders, on the 7th day of May 2008, did transport civilians in his ‘unmarked’ (not identifiable as official Police property) a matter of questionable Police protocol, where a unmarked car and himself not in uniform did attend 29

the questionable incident scene of the following matter elaborated heretofore, furthermore, said civilians, who for these reasons became witnesses, consequently, inter alia, violating Plaintiff André Murray’s right to privacy. Plaintiff André Murray has good reason to believe that Plaintiff André Murray recognized two civilians, sitting in the ‘unmarked’ car driven by Defendant Constable Michael Saunders the 7th day of May 2008, furthermore, Plaintiff André Murray recognized Trina Rodgers and reasonably believe that a man sitting in the back was appropriate for the known description of Neil Rodgers. Defendant Constable Patrick Small 157. Defendant Constable Patrick Small of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, the 7th day of May, 2008, participated in the negligent, assault, battery, detainment/ false arrest and false imprisonment, excessive use of force, intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock of Plaintiff André Murray. 158. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 7th day of May 2008, owed plaintiff André Murray a duty of care, as a professional ‘on duty’ Police Officer in the treatment of Plaintiff André Murray; Defendant Constable Patrick Small was negligent in that duty. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did not take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions, which Defendant Constable Patrick Small could reasonably foresee, would likely cause harm or injury to Plaintiff André Murray. 159. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 7th day of May 2008, used unnecessary and excessive force when arresting and detaining an innocent Plaintiff André Murray at
Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton.

160. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 7th day of May 2008, cause a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. 161. Defendant Constable Patrick Small did on the 7th day of May 2008, without probable cause assault innocent Plaintiff André Murray by uttering illegal and unlawful commands, followed by ultimatums of complying or suffer further violence and injury throughout the subject arrest procedure. 162. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 7th day of May 2008, did commit Battery against Plaintiff André Murray, by participating in the unnecessary arrest of innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 163. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 7th day of May 2008 did unlawfully arrest and detain Plaintiff André Murray. 164. Defendant Constable Patrick Small on the 7th day of May 2008, did commit intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock by his flagrant and or outrageous conduct, furthermore, by his use of excessive force against Plaintiff André 30

Murray. Defendant Constable Patrick Small committed a deliberate or reckless act, which was the use of excessive force in the arrest of innocent Plaintiff André Murray, without warrant for arrest of Plaintiff André Murray, also having not witnessed a crime in progress, and or committed by Plaintiff André Murray. JOHN DOE 1 165. John Doe 1 is the unidentified individual who reportedly contacted FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE by telephone, resulting in members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE being dispatched, therefore, arriving at 29 – 31 Marshall Street, City of Fredericton, New Brunswick the 5th day of March 2009, (possibly same as John Doe 2) is unknown to the Plaintiff and is (once again) believed to be responsible for instigating incidents provided here within, in that connection or relation, did instigate the circumstances leading up to an innocent Plaintiff André Murray, thereby, suffering offensive acts against and causing harm and or injury to Plaintiff André Murray. John Doe 2 or 1 (as the case may be) reportedly initiated, caused to occur, by purposely falsely accusing innocent Plaintiff André Murray, John Doe 1 or 2, did bare false witness against innocent Plaintiff André Murray and or as the case may be found to be, John Doe 1 or 2 reportedly identified by telephone to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray, resulting in members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, being dispatched, to the location of this subject incident, subsequently occurring at Plaintiff André Murray’s residential duplex 29 – 31 Marshall Street, City of Fredericton, New Brunswick, on the 5th day of March 2009, The entire complicity of John Doe 1 (possibly same person as John Doe 2) in causing the subject incident to occur it not at this time fully known. 166. Defendant John Doe 1 "wilfully obstructs a public officer" evidently committed Fraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 167. Defendant John Doe 1 is engaged in the tort of abuse of process by utilising the Policing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly Defendant John Doe 2 "wilfully obstructs a public officer" has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 5th day of March 2010, a definite act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff André Murray which is not a legitimate use of the process. JOHN DOE 2 168. John Doe 2 who "wilfully obstructs a public officer" is the unidentified individual who reportedly contacted FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE by telephone, resulting in members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE arriving at Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick, the 7th day of May 2008, (possibly same as John Doe 1) is unknown to the Plaintiff and is (once again) believed to be responsible for causing, (incidents as found provided here within), in that connection or relation, instigated offensive acts against an innocent Plaintiff André Murray, thereby, victimizing and causing harm and or injury to Plaintiff André Murray. John Doe 2 or 1 ( as the case may

31

be) reportedly initiated, caused to occur, by purposely falsely accusing innocent Plaintiff André Murray, therefore, did bare false witness against innocent Plaintiff André Murray and or as the case may be found to be, John Doe 2 or 1 reportedly identified by telephone to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray, resulting in members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, being dispatched, to the location of this subject incident, subsequently occurring at Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick, on the 7th day of May 2008, The entire complicity of John Doe 2 (possibly same person as John Doe 1) in causing the subject incident to occur it not at this time fully known. 169. Defendant John Doe 2 committed Fraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray. 170. Defendant John Doe 2 was engaged in the tort of abuse of process by utilising the Policing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly Defendant John Doe 2 has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 7th day of May 2008 a definite act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff André Murray which is not a legitimate use of the process.
Defendant, Neil Rodgers

171. Defendant, Neil Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or party reportedly, who "wilfully obstructs a public officer" on the 5th day of March 2009, by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray, Defendant, Neil Rodgers who was therefore, intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray. Neil Rogers committed Fraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray 172. Defendant, Neil Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or party, who "wilfully obstructs a public officer" further who reportedly on the 7th day of May 2008, by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray, Defendant, Neil Rodgers who was intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray. Neil Rogers committed Fraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray 173. Defendant Neil Rodgers is engaged in the tort of ‘abuse of process’, by utilising the Policing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly Defendant Neil Rodgers has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 5th day of March 2009, a definite act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff André Murray, which is not a legitimate use of the process. 174. Defendant Neil Rodgers is engaged in the tort of abuse of process by utilising the Policing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly Defendant Neil Rodgers has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 7th day of May 2008, a definite

32

act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff André Murray which is not a legitimate use of the process.
Defendant, Trina Rodgers

175. Defendant, Trina Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or party reportedly, who "wilfully obstructs a public officer" on the 5th day of March 2009, by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray the intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray. Trina Rogers committed Fraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray 176. Defendant, Trina Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or party reportedly, who "wilfully obstructs a public officer" on the 7th day of May 2008, by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray who was intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray. Trina Rogers committed Fraudulent Misrepresentations thereby intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray 177. Defendant Trina Rodgers is engaged in the tort of abuse of process by utilising the Policing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly Defendant Trina Rodgers has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 5th day of March 2009. a definite act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff André Murray which is not a legitimate use of the process. 178. Defendant Trina Rodgers is engaged in the tort of abuse of process by utilising the Policing Mechanism, for a collateral and improper purpose, and secondly Defendant Trina Rodgers has called the Fredericton Police Force on the 7th day of May 2008 a definite act in furtherance of a purpose of harassing and harming the Plaintiff André Murray which is not a legitimate use of the process. Motor Vehicle Act 179. Plaintiff André Murray claims that as a man travelling on a conveyance, in a non commercial endeavour capacity, is and was not subject to the Motor Vehicle Act, as the application of the Motor Vehicle Act is defined by the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-17. As a consequence of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-17 not applying to Plaintiff André Murray in the capacity of a man travelling on a conveyance, in a non commercial endeavour, FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE had no jurisdiction or authority to stop, accost, assault, batter, arrest, detain, imprison, and issue citations to Plaintiff André Murray. 180. Ignorance of the law is no excuse and as such, the CITY OF FREDERICTON, & FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, & POLICE CHIEF BARRY MACKNIGHT, &

33

CONSTABLE STAFFORD, & CONSTABLE SAUNDERS, & CONSTABLE PATRICK SMALL, are responsible and fully liable for their damaging tortuous actions. RELIEF 181. Plaintiff André Murray seeks a Declaration of the Court which recognizes the inapplicability of the Motor Vehicle Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-17 to a man travelling on a human propelled non-motorized conveyance, in a non commercial endeavour capacity. Rules Relied Upon 182. The Plaintiff André Murray relies on the Limitation of Actions Act, SNB 2009, c L-8.5, regarding Claims added to proceedings Section 21 (a).
183. The Plaintiff André Murray relies on Rules of Court governing Persons who may be joined as Defendants, Rules of Court 5.01 (1) and (2), Rules of Court 5.02 (2), Rules of Court 5.03 (1) (a), (b) and (c) further, Rules of Court 5.03 (2) (a), (b) (c) and (d). 184. The Plaintiff André Murray relies on Rules of Court governing Amendment of Pleadings, Rule 27.10, 1 and 2 (a), (b) and or (c). 185. The Plaintiff André Murray relies on Rules of Court: Rule 5.02, 2 and 3, Required Joinder of Necessary Parties; Rule 5.03 2 (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), Multiple Defendants or Respondents.

DAMAGES 186. Defendant, Neil Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or party who reportedly, on the 5th day of March 2009, by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray, for that reason the fraudulent misrepresentations of Neil Rogers, further constituted committing abuse of process and who , for that reason and purpose, intended to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray and is liable for damages. 187. Defendant, Neil Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or party reportedly, who on the 7th day of May 2008, by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray therefore alleges Neil Rogers committed abuse of process and fraudulent misrepresentations, who for that reason and purpose, intended to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray and is liable for damages. 188. Defendant, Trina Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or party reportedly, who on the 5th day of March 2009, by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray, for that reason the fraudulent misrepresentations of Trina Rogers further constituted committing abuse of process and fraudulent misrepresentations, who

34

for that reason and purpose, intended to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray and is liable for damages. 189. Defendant, Trina Rodgers is believed to be the unidentified individual or party, who reportedly, on the 7th day of May 2008, by telephone communicated advice to members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the location of innocent Plaintiff André Murray, therefore Plaintiff André Murray alleges Trina Rogers committed abuse of process and fraudulent misrepresentations, for that reason and purpose, intending to bring harm and or injury to innocent Plaintiff André Murray and is consequently liable for damages. As a result of the actions of the subject named Defendant members of Fredericton Police Force, on the 5th day of March 2009, the Plaintiff suffered numerous bruises, cuts and abrasions, pulled muscles, painfully stretched tendons and joints, a damaged back, and a permanent injury to the Plaintiff’s right wrist, which results in limited use of the Plaintiff’s right wrist for short durations and continuous pain in both shoulders and lack of feelings in both arms.
190.

As a result of the negligent behaviour, actions of the subject named Defendant members of Fredericton Police Force, on the 7th day of May 2008, for that reason, thereby. inflicted upon Plaintiff André Murray, numerous bruises, cuts and abrasions, pulled muscles, painfully stretched tendons and joints, a damaged back, injury to the Plaintiff’s right wrist, which has resulted in limited mobility of the Plaintiff’s wrists for that reason reduced to short durations of activity.
191.

The Plaintiff as an Artist is consequentially suffering, limitation of mobility of the his right wrist (results of this subject attack by members of Fredericton Police Force) further, continuous pain in both shoulders and reduction of nerve ending sensitivity in both arms, has resulted in a loss of quality of life for the Plaintiff and limited earning capacity.
192.

193. Plaintiff André Murray claims damages for negligence. 194. Plaintiff André Murray claims damages for assault. 195. Plaintiff André Murray claims damages for battery. 196. Plaintiff André Murray claims damages for wrongful / false arrest. 197. Plaintiff André Murray claims damages for wrongful / false imprisonment. 198. Plaintiff André Murray claims damages for excessive use of force. 199. Plaintiff André Murray claims damages for intentional infliction of mental suffering and or nervous shock.

35

200. Plaintiff André Murray claims damages for suffering transportation against his will and conscience. 5th day of March 2009 201. Plaintiff André Murray claims that on the 5th day of March 2009, the herein named Defendant members of Fredericton Police Force inter alia, used unnecessary and excessive force when they illegally and or unlawfully arrested and detained innocent Plaintiff André Murray. The application of force was disproportional in the circumstances, as Plaintiff André Murray was maintaining the peace, consequently members of Fredericton Police Force used unnecessary, and unreasonable force, did cause a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. 202. The herewithin named Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE March 05, 2009, used excessive force during the incident as conveyed here within, thereby victimizing innocent Plaintiff André Murray, amounted to a violation of the Plaintiff’s right to life, liberty and security of the person, under s. 7 of the Charter, further, this was a threat to the security of Plaintiff André Murray’s person, moreover was not in accordance with any principle of fundamental justice.
203. Plaintiff André Murray claims that on the 5th day of March 2009, herewithin named

Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE used excessive force and are therefore liable for damages for assault and battery.
204. The Plaintiff claims, as a victim, general damages, loss of income and punitive damages for injuries sustained as a result of, and consequential to the herewithin alleged incidents of unnecessary and excessive force inflicted against an innocent Plaintiff André Murray at the hands of herewithin named Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE.

205. As a result of the herewithin listed incidents of herewithin named Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE negligence, on the 5th day of March 2009, for that reason did illegally and unlawfully arrest Plaintiff André Murray thereby, using unreasonably disproportional force, the Plaintiff has consequently sustained, and will continue to suffer currently debilitating, likely prolonged and or permanent personal injury including but not limited to:
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) Feeling of humiliation, loss of self-esteem and selfconfidence. Anxiety. Depression. Emotional trauma. Limited use of the Plaintiffs right wrist Recurring pain to the Plaintiffs right wrist

36

(g) (h) 206.

Recurring pain, soreness and aching in both the Plaintiffs shoulders. Recurring numbness the Plaintiffs both arms.

The Plaintiff also claims damages because of his demeaning and humiliating treatment, by herewithin named Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE on the 5th day of March 2009, was sufficiently traumatic, for that reason, every time he sees the City of Fredericton Police Agents, he now experiences feelings of pain, humiliation and fear. 7th day of May 2008 207. Plaintiff André Murray claims damages that on the 7th day of May 2008, the herewithin named defendant members of Fredericton Police Force used unnecessary and excessive force when they arrested and detained innocent Plaintiff André Murray. The application of force was disproportional in the circumstances, unnecessary, and unreasonable and that did cause a breach of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under sections 7, 9 and 12 especially the most egregious denial of Plaintiff André Murray’s Charter rights under section 11(d) the presumption of innocence. 208. The Defendant members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, on the 7th day of May 2008, used excessive force, an incident as conveyed herewithin, consequently victimizing innocent Plaintiff André Murray, a violation of the Plaintiff’s right to life, liberty and security of the person, under s. 7 of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, further, not in accordance with any principle of fundamental justice.
209. Plaintiff André Murray claims that on the 7th day of May 2008 to have suffered at

the hands of herewithin named members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, who used excessive force and are therefore liable for damages for assault and battery.
210. The Plaintiff claims, as a victim, general damages, loss of income and punitive damages for injuries sustained as a result of, as alleged herewithin was a unprovoked, therefore unnecessary and excessive use of force inflicted against Plaintiff André Murray at the hands of members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE.

211. As a result of negligence of the herewithin listed Defendants, on the 7th day of May 2008, actions involving illegal and unlawful arrest of the Plaintiff thereby using unreasonably disproportional force, the Plaintiff has sustained, and will continue to suffer currently debilitating, likely prolonged and or permanent personal injury including but not limited to:
(a) (b) (c) Feeling of humiliation, loss of self-esteem and selfconfidence. Anxiety. Depression.

37

(d) 212.

Emotional trauma.

The Plaintiff claims damages because of demeaning and humiliating treatment suffered, on the 7th day of May 2008, traumatically sufficient that every time he sees the City of Fredericton Police Agents he experiences feelings of pain, humiliation and fear. Damages Continued The Plaintiff claims general damages for mental anguish and injury to his dignity and self-respect. These have been referred to as damages for "hurt and humiliation".
213. 214. 215.

The Plaintiff claims damages for loss of wages: past, current and future.

Finally Plaintiff claims damages for punitive and or aggravated damages in order to "send a message" to the Defendants that conduct of this sort will not and or cannot be tolerated in our society. The Plaintiff claims special damages for assault and battery. Plaintiff claims general damages for the injuries he suffered as a resulting from the following, as well as for damages for the psychological injuries associated with unlawful and illegal or false imprisonment including transportation against ones will and or conscience. The Plaintiff André Murray is claiming punitive and exemplary damages with respect to all causes of action found or realized within.
216.

The Plaintiff claims damages for unlawful confinement/imprisonment, occurring on the 5th day of March, 2009, from the time he was arrested at his residential duplex 29 -31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, until released from Fredericton City Police Station.
217.

The Plaintiff claims damages for unlawful confinement/imprisonment, on the 7th day of May 2008, from the time he was arrested at Two Nations Crossing, Fredericton, New Brunswick.
218. 219.

The Plaintiff André Murray seeks compensation payable to Plaintiff André Murray and, in particular, for the quantum of the Plaintiff’s: I. hurt and humiliation; II. general damages; III. exemplary damages; IV. aggravated damages; V. punitive damages; VI. special damages;

38

VII. any other monetary compensation that he may be entitled to; and The Plaintiff claims that the Defendants should pay the costs of the herewithin Notice of Action and any subsequent Notices of Motion’s as are required.
220. DATED at Fredericton N.B., this 4th day of March, 2011. AMENDED at . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , this . . . . .day of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 2011.
_______________________________________

FAIT à. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2011
Avocat du demandeur (ou demandeur, s’il n’est pas représenté par un avocat)

Plaintiff: ANDRÉ MURRAY Name of plaintiff: ANDRÉ MURRAY Address for service within New Brunswick:

31 Marshall Street Fredericton, N.B. E3A 4J8

Nom du demandeur :. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Adresse aux fins de signification au Nouveau- Brunswick :

39

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful