-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
1/17
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
2/17
2
d) Furthermore, in the alternative, to the herein above paragraph c, theappellant asks for an extension of time to issue and serve a Notice of
Appeal in the event that the judge hearing the motion rules that theOrder/Decision is not interlocutory
e) That the INTENDED RESPONDENT pay costs of the within Motion,f) Such further and other relief as to this Honorable Court may appear
just.
The appellants grounds for this appeal are as follows:
Stay of Proceedings
1. A Charter Challenge is a serious matter, the scope of which,reasonably, has wide reaching implications, as in this case, assuring security of
the person to all New Brunswick residents and or non-resident of New
Brunswick, who may be considering doing business within the province of
New Brunswick. Therefore, the effect of the subject impugned prohibition
Order issued by the Learned Trial Judge Madam Justice Judy Clendening,
consequently, in the first instance denies opportunity for Applicant Andre
Murray to obtain remedy, moreover, in the second instance eliminates a
significant opportunity to establish a precedent, that, which will begin the
process of causing New Brunswick legislation to reflect Charter compliance.
2. The Applicant having dedicated himself in a solemn or thoughtfulmanner compiled and filed meritorious substantive material submissions which
deserve careful consideration by a Learned Trial Judge of the New Brunswick
Court of Queens Bench, however, the herein subject of this motion, for leaveto appeal from the Order issued December 17, 2012 Order is the paramount
necessity to overturn, quash, and or dismiss the subject Order as impugned (in
its entirety).
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
3/17
3
3. The subject impugned prohibition Order issued by the Learned TrialJudge Madam Justice Judy Clendening if allowed to stand, will seriously limit
the Applicants access to justice, without good reason or sound judgment.
Please Note the extent of the subject Order issued December 17, 2012, indeed
must be considered severe, if not draconian, as the scope of prohibition is so
wide as to deny any further opportunity to seek remedy, whatsoever, within
New Brunswick Court of Queens Bench Trial Division. Such as is found in
paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7, an excerpt of which is provided herein below:
4. In the interest of not exacerbating the extent of irreparable harm,which must reasonably be evident that Intended Appellant will suffer,
consequences of the herein above mention subject Court Order issued:
December 17, 2012, therefore, these subject Orders must not be permitted to
stand.
5. Furthermore, the Applicant will continue to suffer irreparable harm ifthe herein requested Stay is not granted; please Note the herein mentioned
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
4/17
4
subject Charter Application should have been recognized as the priority issue
(Originating Process; Court File Number: FM/27/12) before the lower Court,
which, therefore, the subject Charter Application is reasonably being
nefariously obfuscated by these subject Motions of the Respondents, which are
frivolous and vexatious in substance; however, unfortunately thereafter, was
negligently (failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would
exercise in like circumstances) entertained (with amusement or enjoyment) by
the Learned Trial Judge.
6. Furthermore, in considering irreparable harm what must be foremostin the minds of any Appellate Judge, is the current uncertain state of the law
regarding the award of damages for a Charter breach, it will in most cases be
impossible for a judge on an interlocutory application to determine whether
adequate compensation could ever be obtained at trial. Therefore, until the law
in this area has developed further, (according to the Supreme Court of
Canada), it is appropriate to assume that the financial damage which will be
suffered by an applicant following a refusal of relief, even though neverthelessincapable of quantification, constitutes irreparable harm. Secondary,
nevertheless not any less significantly harmful to the Applicant is the standing
Court Order completely prohibiting the Applicants access to the Court of
Queens Bench of New Brunswick; this is a province wide prohibition, which
reasonably constitutes irreparable harm, again, that which cannot be quantified
in damages.
7. In this matter the balance of convenience favors the granting of theApplicants request for a Stay of the order (or decision) of Queens Bench Trial
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
5/17
5
Division, Learned Trial Judge, Madame Justice, Judy Clendening, Judicial
District of Fredericton, Dated the 17th day of December, 2012.
8. Furthermore, to the above question of the Balance of Convenience,the Applicant further believes it is critical in the interest of Justice, as in this
case, that the Applicant must be heard,Audi alteram partem hear the other
side for this purpose the Applicant must be allowed to provide argument
relevant to The Charter application, contrary to the standing Orders as found in
paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the subject Orders issued December 17, 2012;
nevertheless absence of any would be litigant to be able to seek remedy in a
timely manner may reasonably be fatal to any Applicants cause, espevially in
matters concerning equity, therefore the subject prohibition Orders will
result in a miscarriage of justice moreover an additional Charter Breach. To put
it bluntly the Applicant asserts that no greater inconvenience could be
experienced by Self Represented Litigant than a complete prohibition from
being able to defend ones interest, and or seek remedy through Court of
Queens Bench Trial Division.
9. Furthermore, on the matter of Balance of Convenience, in additionand or despise the damages each party alleges it will suffer, the interest of the
public must be taken into account. In this case, should the Applicant be
successful on this subject Charter Application, the public will benefit by all
Residential Leasehold Tenants and or home owners no longer fearing being
evicted (thrown out into the Street) by Mortgagees who having established apresident at law may now with confidence circumvent therefore effectively
eviscerate the Charter protected New Brunswick Residential Tenants Rights
by crafty nefarious legal technicalities.
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
6/17
6
10. This Honorable Court in considering the Applicants request forOrders granting a Stay of the subject Orders issued December 17, 2012,
therefore, suspending the enforcement of the subject impugned December 17,
2012 Orders, which if not stayed will bar the Applicant from a meaningful
Hearing of the real matters in dispute, that being the Charter Challenge. Please
Note: The Charter Challenge before the lower Court is a clear case justifying
an interlocutory injunction against the enforcement of a law on grounds of
alleged unconstitutionality. The Applicant argues not only his own private
interest, but also the public interest, will be hurt by this Honorable Court notgranting the herein requested Orders for a stay.
11. The granting of a stay pursuant to Rule 62.26(3)(a) of the Rules ofCourt, therefore, properly exercised will preserve and or restore the status quo.
The granting of a stay will not give the Applicant his remedy; only preserve
the parties standing until the Charter issues are resolved.
12. A judicial stay of proceedings has been recognized as beingappropriate in circumstances, where prejudice to the applicants right to make
full answer and defence cannot be remedied. If the impugned December 17,
2012 Order were to be enforced, prejudice to the applicants right to make full
answer and defence will be reasonably blocked therefore a prejudice which
potential and or realized harm cannot and or could not be remedied.
13. The herein subject matters which are of paramount importance,reasonably must be the issue of New Brunswick Legislation being non-Charter
compliant, therefore, is impugned Legislation, manipulated by Mortgagees to
trample Charter protected Residential Tenants - Tenancy Rights. It is time
New Brunswick Legislation, aligns its Statues according to the Charter,
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
7/17
7
consistent with every other Province in Canada. By granting the Stay as
requested, the parties may proceed through due process. If the Applicants
request for the subject Stay is not granted, consequently, this denial of a
reasonable request in light of the circumstances, will give cause for the public
to realize the innate bias of the circumstances, resulting in obvious irreparable
prejudice to the perceived integrity of the judicial system of New Brunswick;
Once the public loses faith in the Justice system...
Bias Rule
14. The Learned Trial Judge failed to understand the facts and argumentsas presented by the Appellant and instead pursued only the arguments, interests
and assertions as presented by the Respondents, this predisposition of the
Learned Trial Judge toward a particular result, is such that a reasonable
apprehension of bias is raised, furthermore, the learned Trial Judge made
obviously erroneous statements within the decision which are not supported by
Court Filed substantive material evidence, therefore, must represent a bias or
predisposition of the Learned Trial Judge to render a decision not found in fact.
Abuse of Discretion
15. The Appellant asserts, that The Learned Trial judge did display abuseof discretion, which is an adjudicator's failure to exercise sound, reasonable,
legal decision-making. The Learned Trial Judge alternately rendered a decision
which is unsupported by the evidence and clearly based on erroneous findings
of material fact.
16. The learned trial judge erred in law in not keeping with the generaldirection as found expressed in the New Brunswick Rules of court Rule 1.03
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
8/17
8
(2) to secure the just, least expensive and most expeditious determination of
every proceeding on its merits.
17. The claimed findings of fact upon which the Learned Trial Judgebased her decisions stating NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT however upon examination of each of the WHEREAS the substance of
fact is not found there within furthermore, each of the WHEREAS are
followed by the Learned Trial Judges conjecture (Inference or judgment based
on inconclusive or incomplete evidence); moreover of the three WHEREAS
including the AND UPON the substance of which precede NOW
THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT please note there is no
substantive material evidence filed in the Court to support any of the claims
found therewithin, the herein above mentioned subject WHEREAS including
the AND UPON with the exception of the first WHEREAS the
respondents filed Motions seeking to have Andre Murray declared a vexatious
litigant. Please Note that despite there being Motions seeking declaration of a
vexatious litigant-seeking a declaration does not a declaration make, and canhardly be considered a fact worthy of issuing such subject draconian Orders as
we have witnessed, further, and copied herein.
18. The Intended Appellant can show that the subject impugned Ordersare unreasonable, based on a material misapprehension of the evidence, and or
tainted by a failure and or misapprehension of Court filed substantive material
evidence. The effect is significantly unjustified prejudice and or injustice to the
Intended Appellant.
19. The Learned Trial Judge, demonstrated that she did not appreciate theargument or position advanced by the Intended Appellant, consequently failed
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
9/17
9
or refused to understand the legal principles relied on, in support of the
Intended Appellants argument requesting Leave of the Court to therefore
obtained Abridgement of Time, to file and serve Court documents, which,
despite having already been served upon the respective parties to the action
were, according to the rules of Court, technically, exceeding the time
limitations for service by 24 hours. The law has recognized for centuries that a
COURT OF APPEAL would interfere with the exercise of the discretion of a
trial judge when "the trial judge was manifestly wrong" or "substantial
injustice" or "serious injustice would result", which the Applicant claims to be
evident in this case.
20. Manifest Abuse of Discretion is demonstrated when a CourtsDiscretionary Decision is unsupported by the evidence; further, when a Court
alternatively arrives at erroneous finding of material facts, as has occurred in
this subject matter, consequently, the Intended Appellant claims that the
Learned Trail Judge has demonstrated Manifest Abuse of Discretion, by not
granting the Intended Appellants Motion - Leave of the Court for anAbridgement of time to file and serve documents. However, instead the
Learned Trial Judge rendered a decision, which in effect grants the Intended
Respondent the relief they were seeking, denies the Applicant province wide
access to the Court of Queens Bench thereby creates a prejudicial hurtle for
the Self Represented litigant. In these circumstances it would be a disservice to
the administration of justice to allow this decision to stand.
21. The Learned Trail Judges Omissions in reasons for judgment, whichamount to material error because they give rise to the reasoned belief that the
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
10/17
10
trial judge must have forgotten, ignored or simply misconstrued the evidence
in a way that affects the Courts conclusions.
22. Like any other discretionary judicial decision, it may be interferedwith on appeal when it is founded upon an error of law, an error in the
application of the governing principles or a palpable and overriding error in the
assessment of the evidence
Error in law23. The Courts standard of review on pure questions of law must be oneof correctness. Appellate courts require a broad scope of review with respect to
matters of law, because their primary role is to delineate and refine legal rules
and ensure their universal application. Court Orders issued under statutory
authority are valid only when within the scope of authority, however as in this
case, the Trial Court did commit a reversible error. The learned Trial judge did
not base its decision on any recognizable Statute, Rule of Court or legal principle.
24.
The Court record does not contain any substantive material evidenceand or Court filed submissions which may justify the Learned Trial Judge issuing
a Order which Stays the proceedings for six months, inter alia.
Findings of Fact
25. The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot bereversed unless the trial judge has made a palpable and overriding error. A
palpable and overriding error is one that is plainly seen. However, in this case
the Learned Trial Judge evidently based her decision on facts as the Learned
Trial Judge expressed could be found within the first 3 WHEREAS
paragraphs including the AND UPON paragraph, of which in each
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
11/17
11
respective case of the above subject WHEREAS including the AND
UPON the Learned Trial Judge did provide written justification for her
findings of fact. Please see excerpts, thereof, provided below.
26. First whereas: WHEREAS the respondents filed motions seekingAndre Murray declared a vexatious litigant;
The Applicant respectfully asserts this is cannot be considered a
finding of a relevant fact, as there has never been a determination as to
the validity of the Respondents claims, therefore can hardly justify what
has occurred by issuing prohibition Orders consequently in this case
the Applicant is guilty until proven innocent
27. Second whereas: AND WHEREAS the Applicant filed documentswith the Court of Queens Bench on Friday, 14 December 2012 requesting an
adjournment of both his and the respondents Motions;
The Applicant asserts there is no proof thereof, Applicant filed
documents with the Court of Queens Bench on Friday, 14 December
2012 requesting an adjournment is false, therefore this is not decision
based on fact.
28. Third whereas: AND WHEREAS this matter was originally scheduledfor and ready to proceed on 13 July 2012 and was adjourned by the Court do to
a conflict;
The Applicant asserts there is no proof thereof therefore this so called
decision is not based on fact, however if in deed there was a conflictthe Court has never revealed and or advised the Applicant of any
circumstances equivalent to a conflict, nevertheless, an unknown
conflict occurring 13th
of July 2012 can hardly be a fact worthy of
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
12/17
12
denying the Intended Appellant any access to New Brunswick Court of
Queens Bench for 6 months with further outrageous Orders forbidding
any contact between parties.
29. AND UPON the Applicant Notifying the Court on 17 December2012, that because of illness he was unable to appear;
The Applicant asserts there is no proof thereof; the Applicant has
absolutely never notified the Court on, before and or after December
17, 2012, that because of an illness he was unable to appear, therefore
this is not decision based on fact, instead this is a decision based on
falsehoods, misapprehension and or misrepresentations, as found
throughout the subject impugned Order.
30. The Court failed/omitted to write in the Order that the Applicant hadCourt filed Date Stamped May 31, 2012, with Court of Queens Bench Client
Services a Charter Challenge Application, which was originally scheduled to
be heard July 13, 2012, then without explanation rescheduled be heardDecember 17, 2012.
31. The two of three Motions which the Court has referred to, were filedby the Respondents, moreover, were filed late and could reasonably be
recognized as motivated only for the purpose of collaterally attacking the
Charter proceedings, therefore the Respondents have succeeded in another
attrition tactic against the Applicant in their effort to prevent a most significant
matter of a Charter Infringement from being heard in the New Brunswick
Court of Queens Bench.
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
13/17
13
32. Obfuscation of the facts by the Learned Trial Judge is palpable andoverriding as found in the Learned Trial Judge decision - Second WHEREAS
which December 13, 2012 the Applicant notified the Court of the Applicants
unfortunate situation, The Court failed to include in the impugned decision the
fact that the Applicant asked for an adjournment because of a unfortunate
debilitating computer malfunction and consequential loss of integral legal data.
True the situation which was exacerbated by the stressful circumstances of loss
of data due to a computer hard drive failure, which was made abundantly clear
that despite the stressful situation the Applicant was sincerely endeavoring to
file on time despite having to resort to various notes inter alia. Applicant, at
that time of the email, the Applicant was unsure if the appropriate
documentation would be filed on time for the December 17, 2012 scheduled
Hearing, once again any mention of health was only to place emphasis on the
Applicants sincerity and determination to see this thing through. An
adjournment was a obvious short term remedy for the Applicant to recover
data not for health reasons.
33. Please Note that the subject hearing December 17, 2012, wasscheduled to commence at 9:30 AM, it is reasonable to say that by the time all
who are attending the subject Court Hearing have been identified and the
matters to be determined have been declared and or identified nothing less than
10 minutes would have transpired, this would place the actual discovery of the
substance of the matters to reasonably begin to be explored at 9:40,
furthermore, one must remember that the originating process and 3 separate
Motions were at issue, having said this I would bring this honorable Courts
attention to the fact as found as an exhibit within my Affidavit a confirmation
that the Clerk of the Court refused to accept delivery of substantive materials,
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
14/17
14
intended for submission to the relevant Court File, of which is our topic.
Furthermore, the Affidavit Exhibit points to a fact that at precisely 10:56 AM
the Clerk of the Court was already refusing to accept the filing of the
Applicants substantive material submissions. The point the Applicant intends
to make here is the improbability that a Court Order had been printed and or
even signed as early as what reasonably would have to have been 10:30AM. It
has occurred to the Applicant that there may be collaboration between the
Clerk of the Court Craig Carleton and Learned Trial Judge Judy Clendening,
which is insincere for what else could it be to behave in such a manner.
34. The resulting impugned Orders are draconian, oppressive, biased,overbreadth, and if left to stand, will bring New Brunswick administration of
Justice into disrepute.
Conclusion
35. Madam Justice Judy Clendening metaphorically speaking performs,mental gymnastics in that Justice Judy Clendening: finds a means of pole
vaulting over top of the Applicants Originating Process, Court Filed withCourt of Queens Bench, Fredericton , Trial Division, Client Services, thereby,
Date Stamped May 31, 2012,;
please kindly cooperate with the Applicants metaphorical analogy however,
further, as mental gymnasts Judy Clendening hurtles over top of (in this case)
the Originating Process, she actually succeeds to bypass the Originating
Process, consequently, the substance of which Judy Clendening entirely
ignored, subsequently as, upon descending down the other side of (the
metaphorical ) pole vault Madame Justice Judy Clendening is careful to land
on and or address only two of the three Motions, Court filed laid down for
Justice Judy Clendening; nevertheless in considering this subject maneuver of
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
15/17
15
Madame Justice Judy Clendening, it becomes abundantly clear that the subject
two (filed by Respondents) of three Motions were the only Motions
Madame Justice Clendenning intended to consider. However, facts are: an
abuse of Court Discretion has occurred, whereby, the Learned Trial Judge
Madame Justice Clendening did seriously error by not considering the
substance of the Motion filed by the Applicant Andre Murray, found therein
requesting relief - Orders for Leave of the Court and Abridgment of time to
Court file and Serve Court Documents for the previously scheduled December
17, 2012, Court Hearing of a Charter Application. Consequently, the Intended
Appellant asserts that this Court may find ample reason to declare that the
Learned Trial Judge Madame Justice Clendening displays a reasonable
apprehension of Bias when considering matters which concern Andre Murray.
36. The Intended Appellant offers that herein provided analogy of mentalgymnastics is most appropriate; for Madame Justice Clendening to have
necessarily achieved such a obfuscation of the priorities; furthermore, which
however, may not justify abuse of Court process and or jurisprudence byMadame Justice Clendening relying on her inherent discretion.
37. So vivid is the determination and or bias of Justice Judy Clendenning ,against Applicant Andre consequently, therefore, since Justice Judy
Clendenning clearly proceeds to abuse her discretion in deeds not recognizable
within the Rules of Court and nor Jurisprudence, consequently, the Intended
Appellant has found it necessary to resort to analogies such as found
herewithin, which the Applicant is respectfully referring to as mental
gymnastics.
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
16/17
16
38. Furthermore, one can see that Judy Clendening appears to believe thatshe is capable of levitating above and beyond reason. There is no requirement
for as material pole to accomplish the mental gymnastics pole vault over and
therefore, ignore the Applicants Originating Process of Charter Challenge
Application ,that is as in this case when the presiding judge is prepared to
abuse the Courts discretion; moreover, the Applicants Originating Process
was properly Court filed by the Applicant, therefore, requesting the hearing of
a Charter Challenge; instead Judy Clendening simply levitates above and
beyond her worldly obligations, consequently shirks her responsibility to
adhere to well established jurisprudence in these such matters; further it
appears as though Justice Judy Clendening arrogantly relies upon her legal
sentencing which has not to date hypnotized the Intended Appellant, to for that
purpose cause the Intended Appellant loss of consciousness of Andre Murrays
Charter Rights which Madame Justice Clendening continues to whimsically
violate.
39. In summary, please kindly consider, that, the Applicants OriginatingProcess was completely ignored by Madame Justice Clendening, however,
Madame Justice Clendening favored two Court filed Motions, both, of which
are detrimental to the Applicants cause, while at the same time ignoring one of
the Court filed Motions, wherein the Applicant is seeking relief, the Applicant
is seen to be appropriately asking for an Abridgement of Time for Service, of
further substantive material submissions, as the situation may require.
-
7/30/2019 December 27, 2012, Motion for Leave to Appeal from impugned Prohibition Court Order, Dated December 17, 20
17/17