File No.

: 34679 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK) BETWEEN: ANDRE MURRAY APPLICANT APPELLANT AND BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI RESPONDENT RESPONDENT ________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Reply to Response to Application for Leave to Appeal (Rule 28) ________________________________________________________ ANDRE MURRAY APPLICANT Telephone number: Address for service within New Brunswick: 31 Marshall Street Fredericton, N.B. E3A 4J8 E-mail address: RESPONDENT BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI Solicitor for RESPONDENT Betty Rose Danielski E. Thomas Christie, CHRISTIE LAW OFFICE Suite 306, 212 Queen Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada, E3B 1A8

Tel: (506) 472 – 2090 Fax: (506) 472 – 2091 E-Mail:


Table Of Contents
Page Memorandum of Argument (Rule 28) Table Of Contents ____________________________________________ Part I – Memorandum of argument _______________________________ Part II – Table of authorities ____________________________________ Part III – Statutes, regulations, rules, etc. __________________________ i 1 6 7

1 1. Much jurisprudence may surround the words “scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, or abuse of the

process of the Court”, they are nonetheless strong, emotionally charged and derogatory expressions denoting pleading that is patently and flagrantly without merit. Their application should be reserved for the plainest and most egregiously senseless assertions; regrettably the Respondent party has not restrained themselves as is abundantly exhibited therewithin the so called Facts area of the Respondent RESPONSE. 2. The Act does not legislate measures inflicting or intending punishment of Applicants requiring a Continuance of the Action; the Mech. Lien Act does not provide for damages intended to reform or deter Applicants from bringing Motion for Continuance of Action. The word “delay” does not exist within the Act Madame Justice Clendening erroneously based her decision on this notion. Words “extension of time” appear once within the Mech. Lien Act at 31(1) concerns itself only with payment schedules. 3. 4. paragraph (hereafter para.) 5 and 6 are patently frivolous as a Tacit agreement reasonably was/is in However on the topic of Clean Hands Mr. Christie requested of Madame Justice Garnett an place as Mr. Christie has made no formal demand pending further litigation. objectionable recess that Mr. Christie telephone and obtain hearsay material to be used as non affidavit evidence to do so (he did) undermines the integrity of the legal system, moreover the credibility of lawyers as officers of the Court. 5. 6. Para.7, 8 & 10 chronicles’ Court Document Process Service avoidance by Respondent Para.11 obfuscates the matter “not involving the Respondent” this statement is patently false as

Respondent provided affidavit material at subject hearing, which was without Notice subsequent ex parte Orders per request issued same day Ordered Applicant to vacate only 29 Marshall Street. 7. 8. Para.12 obfuscates the fact that Bell, JA refused to hear the requested ‘Residing Orders’ instead Para.13 “seeking an extension of time” is complete misrepresentation as CONTINUANCE is deferred the ‘Residing Orders’ matter back to Court of first instance. requested pursuant to 52.(1)(b) Mechanics Lien Act, moreover Applicant made relentless well in advance requests of Mr Christie for consent to a CONTINUANCE as recovery of substantive material Documentation was being pursued resulting from RBC eviction Order causing conversion of Applicants subject documents. 9. Para.14 Confirms unclean hands of Solicitor Christie “procedural fairness of hearing” who inter alia requested a recess to obtain a objectionable “hearsay” material thereafter submitted same without Affidavit. Mr. Christie undermines the integrity of the legal system, the credibility of lawyers as officers of the Court 10. 11. Para.17 confirms failure of NB Courts to take Judicial Notice a reversible error. Para.18 discretion is not offered in 52.(1)(b) the law never intends a wrong!

2 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Para.19 reasonably attributable to small population of New Brunswick. Para.20 Applicant affirms as true Para.21 Applicant affirms as true first sentence only and dismisses rest as incoherent. Para.22 Irrelevant as Respondent has history Court Document Process Service Avoidance Para.23 Irrelevant as extension of time was not requested pursuant to Mechanic Lien Act reasonable Para.24 confirms abuse of discretion is a reversible error especially in absence of Judicial Notice. Para.25, 26and 27 to date Mr Christie has provided nothing in the way of meritorious substantive

because subject Act and legislation only provides for Continuance of Action

material throughout the many Court Hearings as is indicative of this miserably inadequate and inappropriate 8 page RESPONSE instead has disrespectfully relied on obfuscation of the pertinent matters, and or is reasonably seen to be severely challenged to comprehend subject legislation as Mr Christie has herein documented furthermore Mr Christie has throughout this matter refused to provide on demand substantive materials as requested by Applicant therefore an obstruction of justice. Effect of this Decision / Public Importance 19. A matter of great public importance is subject decision. Public must be able to rely on Courts to support a plain-meaning interpretation thereafter correctly apply Mechanics Lien Act (hereafter subject Act) legislation. in New Brunswick (hereafter NB) that misapprehension of subject Act persists by impugned president established year 2004 whereby Justice Grant arbitrarily applied discretion where the applicable subject Act does not grant discretion. Discretion taken under statutory authority is valid only if it is within the scope of that authority, in this case it was not. It is a matter of great public importance when Statues are misinterpreted as in this case not equally applied by the Courts contrary to intention of Parliament and Legislatures, therefore constitutes a section 15(1) violation of the Applicant’s Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (hereafter Charter). Applicant’s Charter s 7: rights and freedoms to liberty and security of the person have been violated by forcing the Applicant to defend his home and security before two lower Courts, a Leave to Appeal Appellant Judge, two Courts of Appeal and forcing the Applicant to devote countless hours to preparing for these Hearings and causing him to bear costs of $6500 erroneously awarded against him, when the Courts had a duty to correctly apply the Law. See Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2011 BCSC 656 (CanLII) Para. 218 – 335, 239 and 295, also, in R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417, Justice La Forest J. para. 15 to 23 “this Court has made it clear… The function of the Charter, …is to provide ... for the unremitting protection of individual rights and liberties". This decision if allowed to stand would bring the administration of justice into disrepute

3 Facts 20. The Respondent’s counsel has a duty under s.5(a-b) of The Law Society Act 1996, SNB, to protect the public, to uphold justice and to protect the rights and freedoms of “all persons” and, since he is therefore an instrument of public legislation, he is also bound by the Charter. Failing to provide such facts to the Courts is a violation of the Applicant’s section 15(1) and 7 Charter rights and freedoms. See New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), 1999 653 (SCC) Para 56 – 109. Previous persuasive precedent 21. In J.K. Dineen v. Morris Music, 2004 NBQB 43 (CanLII),when Justice Grant (hereafter Grant), presiding over a Motion for a Continuance, under the Act, stated that he would consider the reasons for the delay as well as whether there is any prejudice to the Defendant, he did so arbitrarily, without the Act requiring or contemplating “delay” or discretion. The specific criteria which he stated are not a part of the Act. However since the Continuance was granted the Decision was unchallenged, but unfortunately established a persuasive precedent legacy, now afflicting every lien claimant including the Applicant. In my case of Murray v. Danielski, 2011 NBQB 173 (CanLII) Justice Clendening (hereafter Clendening) considered and applied the subject persuasive precedent established by Grant at paragraph 9. These criteria are not present in the act, but now judicial process has created the case law to persuade Court of Queens Bench Judges to follow this erroneous path. See Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (S.C.C.), [1995], para. 92. “… it is appropriate for the courts to make… revisions to the common law as may be necessary to have it comply with the values enunciated in the Charter.” 22. J. L. Clendening, J.C.Q.B. decision of Date: 20110624 see egregious misinterpretation

Paragraph 14: “extension of time”…“condone his delay”… general impugned compliance issues. Now Binding Precedent 23. The repercussions of Grant’s decision, to arbitrarily state criteria for a Court to consider, created a persuasive precedent, followed by both Lower Court Judges (Garnett and Clendening). The Applicant had attempted to challenge this arbitrary decision before the Court of Appeal of NB, urging that Court consider and Apply only the Act, so as to establish a positive Binding Precedent, which would overcome the arbitrary conditions created by Grant, that unjustly apply when a Lien Claimant requires a Continuance of an Action to enforce a Lien, which is in fact a right granted by the Act. This Court has made it clear in cases as M. (A.) v. Ryan, 1997 CanLII 403 (S.C.C.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157, para 22-23 “that the common law must develop in accordance with Charter values.”

4 24. The Court of Appeal of NB, at paragraph 5 of decision intends to impose an impugned binding

precedent, upholding erroneous lower Court findings and impugned decision involving misapprehension unilaterally exercising Discretion when discretion is not availed by the Act, furthermore, unilaterally deciding Continuance of an Action under the Act is synonymous with an extension of time. Unless overturned by the Supreme Court, every lien claimant will from here forward will suffer these arbitrary criteria not intended by the Legislative Assembly of NB. This is no longer a persuasive precedent erroneously conceived but now becomes a binding precedent erroneously established, impugned and reasonably therefore evidentially contrary to the intentions of Legislative Assembly of NB. 25. The Supreme Court of Canada may make a ruling, which it is binding on Appellate Courts and all lower Courts, this is an opportunity to exercise it’s Judicial Function and correct this train wreck of a interpretation, and save NB Lien Claimants from superfluous, unintended and difficult criteria to fulfill despite the fact that reasons are not required by this subject legislation, nevertheless Applicants in this case, was a victim of conversion of his substantive material contractual documents, if reasons are required they are reasonable cause for a Continuance. See MacDonald v. Montreal (City), supra, at para. 145 Reversible error 26. In Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 235, para 7 -37, this Court provided the standard of review. In this case the NB Court of Appeal failed to correctly interpret the Act, asserting that the Act contemplated a level of discretion not present in the language of the Act. Action taken under statutory authority is valid only if it is within the scope of that authority, in this case it was not. The Court of Appeal did commit reversible error in not correcting this erroneous application of the Law enforcing a discretionary decision when there was not one to make. Pure questions of law on these issues are: must the matter be set down for trial within one year? - No. Did the Applicant adhere to the ML Act requirements? – Yes. Should the Applicant have been granted the continuance as a right? – Yes. Did the Court have discretion to grant or refuse a Continuance? – No. 27. The Trial Judge and Court of Appeal exercised discretion regarding costs in a way that is clearly against logic and evidence. See Slaight communications inc. v. Davidson, 1989 CanLII 92 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1038. ‘The law will not intend a wrong’., Bacon's Maxims (17, reg. 3). This decision is capricious, it is so unreasonable as to shock the sense of justice and indicate lack of fair and careful consideration. An improvident exercise of discretion or Manifest Abuse of Discretion is an error of law and grounds for reversing a decision on appeal. The Applicant without exception adhered to the Rules of Court in pursuance of the Act. Respondent for six months avoided Court Service and conspired with RBC to instigate vacant

5 possession, succeeded in separating the Applicant from essential evidentiary documents and further refused to produce documents when compelled by the Act, and finally denied four requests of Consent to a Continuance, and despite all this uncooperative prejudicial behavior, Defendant was awarded Costs. 28. The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. The facts are: the Trial Judge incorrectly claimed the Applicant did not set the matter down for trial as required by the act; the property is no longer in the name of the Respondent –; the Court referenced the involvement of a Mortgagee which is irrelevant to granting a Continuance –which all the above is a palpable error. A Court Order barring the Applicant from his essential evidentiary documents provides “reasonable, coherent, or compelling evidence to explain why he has failed to move the file forward” to not grant this fact the consideration it deserves - is an error in law. Charter violations 29. This proceeding has negatively consumed a large part of the Applicant’s life, time and resources, when the Continuance should have been granted through due process as a right, this is contrary to s.7 of the Charter. The Act does not grant any special privileges to Mortgagees or offer exemption clauses to disallow a continuance when there is a Mortgagee’s involvement, the Court is favouring the rights of Mortgagees, even as in this case when they do not apply, showing differential treatment to Mortgagees contrary to s.15(1) of the Charter. First Court of Appeal disregarded motion to adduce further evidence and motion for costs against respondent for violations of the Rules of Court and not following the Law society code of conduct when representing a party. That Court actually broke from customary practice of cost follow cause and refused to award costs to the successful Applicant, displaying inequality under the law, contrary to s.15(1) of the Charter. The Applicant submitted well researched and extensive submissions and carefully prepared oral presentations to the Court of first instance and Court of Appeal, to which the Respondent failed to provide valid lawful argument or rebuttal, the Court improperly argued their defence, further, awarding cost in Defendants favour shows differential treatment to a self represented litigant, contrary to s.15(1) of the Charter. 30. Justice Clendening failed to pay Judicial Notice to Rule 6.01(1)(a-e), 6.01(2) and 6.01(3)(3) of the Rules of Court which offers opportunity to consolidate the matters in the interests of Justice, violated Applicants s.15(1) Charter rights to equality in and before the law, to equal benefit and protection of the law. See Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 675 (S.C.C.) para. 21 to 88. ALL OF THIS respectfully submitted this 2nd day of April 2012 ________________________ André Murray – Applicant

6 Part II – Table of authorities Alphabetical Paragraph 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995 CanLII 59 (S.C.C.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 (S.C.C.), ______________________________________ Housen v. Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 33 (CanLII), [2002] 2 SCR 235 _________________ J.K. Dineen v. Morris Music, 2004 NBQB 43 (CanLII) _________________________ Law v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 675 (S.C.C.), _________________________________________ M. (A.) v. Ryan, 1997 CanLII 403 (S.C.C.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 157, __________ MacDonald v. City of Montreal, 1986 CanLII 65 (SCC), _________________ New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G. (J.), 1999 CanLII 653 (SCC) ___________________________________________ Pratten v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2011 BCSC 656 (CanLII)___ R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417, __________________________________

21 26 21 30 23 25 20 19 19

Slaight communications inc. v. Davidson, 1989 CanLII 92 (SCC), [1989] 1 SCR 1038 ________________________________________________ 27

7 Part III – Legislation New Brunswick Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 17 Every Act and regulation and every provision thereof shall be deemed remedial, and shall receive such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of the object of the Act, regulation or provision. Mechanics’ Lien Act 52.1(1) An action to enforce a lien shall be deemed to be discontinued one year after the action is commenced unless (a) the action has been set down for trial, or (b) an application has been made to a judge of The Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick for an order continuing the action and a copy of the notice of application has been served on the defendant to the action. 52.1(2) In ordering the continuance of an action, the judge may impose such terms and conditions and give such directions as the judge considers appropriate for the continuation of the action. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Legal Rights Life, liberty and security of person 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. Loi d’interprétation (L.R.N.-B. 1973, ch. I-13) 17 Toute loi, tout règlement et toute disposition de ceux-ci sont réputés réparateurs et doivent faire l’objet de l’interprétation large, juste et libérale, la plus propre à assurer la réalisation de leurs objets. Loi sur le privilège des constructeurs et des fournisseurs de matériaux 52.1(1) Une action visant l’exercice d’un privilège est réputée être abandonnée un an après son introduction, sauf si a) l’action a été mise au rôle, ou b) une requête a été présentée à un juge de la Cour du Banc de la Reine du Nouveau-Brunswick pour obtenir une ordonnance de reprise de l’action et si une copie de l’avis de la requête a été signifiée au défendeur à l’action. 52.1(2) En rendant l’ordonnance de reprise d’une action, le juge peut imposer les conditions et donner les instructions qu’il estime justes pour la reprise de l’action. Charte canadienne des droits et libertés Garanties juridiques Vie, liberté et sécurité 7. Chacun a droit à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut être porté atteinte à ce droit qu'en conformité avec les principes de justice fondamentale. Fouilles, perquisitions ou saisies

8 Equality Rights Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15.(1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Droits à l'égalité Égalité devant la loi, égalité de bénéfice et protection égale de la loi 15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de personne et s'applique également à tous, et tous ont droit à la même protection et au même bénéfice de la loi, indépendamment de toute discrimination, notamment des discriminations fondées sur la race, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, l'âge ou les déficiences mentales ou physiques

Since ‘The law will not intend a wrong’., Bacon's Maxims (17, reg. 3 LAW SOCIETY ACT, 1996 S.N.B. 1996, chapter 89
Assented to April 25, 1996 As amended by SN B. 2009, chapter 25

LOI DE 1996 SUR LE BARREAU L.N.-B. 1996, chapitre 89
Sanctionnée Ic 25 avril 1996 Mod~fiéepar L.N.-B. 2009, chapitre 25



5 It is the object and duty of the Society (a) to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice, (b) to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms of all persons, (c) to ensure the independence, integrity and honor of its members, (d) to establish standards for the education, professional responsibility and competence of its members and applicants for membership, and (e) to regulate the legal profession. (f) Repealed (July 1, 2009)

5 Le Barreau a pour mission: a) de défendre et de proteger l’intérét public dans l’administration de lajustice; b) de preserver et de protéger les droits et libertés de la personne; c) de sauvegarder l’independance, l’intégrité et l’honneur de ses membres; d) d’établir des normes pour Ia formation, Ia responsabilite professionnelle et Ia competence de ses membres et des personnes qui demandent l’admission; e) de reglementer Ia profession juridique. f) Abroge (1er juillet 2009)

9 Compliance of Acts of the Legislature with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, An Act Respecting SNB 1983, c.4 and Compliance of the Laws of the Province with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1985, An Act Respecting SNB 1985, c.41
PARTIES AND JOINDER RULE 6 CONSOLIDATION OR TRIAL OR HEARING TOGETHER 6.01 Where Order May Be Made (1) Where two or more proceedings are pending and it appears to the court that (a) they have a question of law or fact in common, (b) the relief claimed in them arises out of the same transaction or occurrence or series of transactions or occurrences, or (c) for any other reason an order ought to be made under this rule, the court may order that (d) the proceedings be consolidated, or tried or heard at the same time or one immediately after the other, or (e) any of the proceedings be (i) stayed until after the determination of any other of them, or (ii) asserted by way of counterclaim in any other of them. (2) In an order under paragraph (1), the court may give directions to avoid unnecessary costs or delay and, for that purpose, the court may dispense with service of a notice of trial and may vary the procedure for setting an action down for trial. (3) An order for the trial or hearing together of two or more proceedings, or for the trial or hearing of one immediately after the other, is subject to the discretion of the trial judge.

Concordance certaines Lois de la Législature avec la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, Loi mettant en LN-B de 1983, ch. 4 Concordance certaines lois de la province avec la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, Loi de 1985 mettant en LN-B de 1985, ch. 41
PARTIES ET JONCTIONS RÈGLE 6 FUSION OU RÉUNION D’ACTIONS OU D’AUDITIONS 6.01 Cas où une ordonnance peut être rendue (1) Lorsque plusieurs actions sont en cours et qu’il apparaît à la cour a) qu’elles ont en commun une question de droit ou de fait, b) que les mesures de redressement y réclamées proviennent de la même opération ou du même événement ou de la même série d’opérations ou d’événements, ou c) qu’il est nécessaire, pour tout autre motif, de render une ordonnance en application de la présente règle, la cour peut ordonner d) la fusion des instances, soit leur instruction ou audition simultanée ou consécutive, ou e) que l’une de ces instances (i) soit suspendue jusqu’à la résolution d’une des autres actions, ou (ii) fasse l’objet d’une demande reconventionnelle dans l’une des autres instances. (2) Dans une ordonnance rendue en vertu du paragraphe (1), la cour peut inclure des directives tendant à éviter des frais ou des retards inutiles. À cette fin, elle peut dispenser de la signification d’un avis de procès et modifier la procédure à suivre pour mettre une action au rôle. (3) Toute ordonnance prescrivant la réunion de plusieurs actions ou auditions ou l’instruction d’une action ou audition à la suite de l’autre est sujette à la discretion du juge du procès.