Download - Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
1/50
Court File Number: F/M/1/11F/M/22/11
IN THE COURT OF QUEENS BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK
TRIAL DIVISION
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FREDERICTON
BETWEEN:
ANDRE MURRAYApplicant,
-and-
THE NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION
Respondent,
_____________________________________________________________________
The Applicants Post-Hearing Brief Rules of Court, Rule 38.06.1
For joint Hearing regarding Court File Number: F/M/1/11 and F/M/22/11Filed by the Self Represented Applicant Andr Murray
_____________________________________________________________________
Andr MurrayThe Applicant
31 Marshall Street,Fredericton,New Brunswick,E3A 4J8Telephone Number:
E-mail address:[email protected]
Debora M. LamontStewart McKelveyBarristers, Solicitorsand Trademark AgentsSuite 600 Frederick Square 77Westmorland StreetP.O. Box 730Fredericton NBE3B 5B4Direct Dial:
506.443.0125Main Tel:
506.458.1970Fax: 506.444.8974Email:[email protected]
Debora M. LamontSolicitor for Respondent
The New Brunswick Police Commission / 435 King Street,Suite 202 / 435,Fredericton NBE3B 1E5Tel.(506) 453-2632Fax.(506) 457-3542
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
2/50
ii
PART 1 INDEX
The Plaintiffs Post-Hearing Brief PAGE
A. PART I INDEX ____________________________________ ii
B. PART II - ISSUES ____________________________________ 1
1. 1.02 Application______________________________________ 4
1.03 Interpretation ______________________________________ 5
Jurisdiction____________________________________________14
FORM 1 REFERRAL __________________________________ 35
Closing ______________________________________________ 36
NOTE _______________________________________________ 39
C. PART III ORDERS SOUGHT ________________________ 40 {(d) a concise statement of the relief sought by the party.}
D. Schedule A - A list of authorities in the order referred to in the Post Hearing Brief; _______________________________ 40
D. Schedule B - The text of all relevant provisions of Statutes orRegulations ___________________________________________45
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
3/50
1
PART II - ISSUES
1. Maxim - Neminem laedit qui jure suo utitur . A person who exercises his
own rights injures no one. If as in this case the Applicant was actually
Defending a criminal matter then according to natural Justice a alleged
Defendant in a criminal matter would have the right to confront all
evidence intended for use in a fair hearing (therefore all substantive
information/material would have been revealed), which is one of the
fundamental principles of Justice adhered to in Canada. One of the
fundamental principles of justice is that no accusation be allowed to stand
unless there is sufficient evidence to support the allegation, however, the
Applicant in this matter has suffered injury and harm by judgment without
trial, experienced by arrest without warrant, therefore in the interest of
preventing further injustice, the Applicant to gain the information
necessary for his safety inter alia, is requesting of the Courts assistance to
take this alternative route, as contemplated by the drafters of Right to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6,.
2. The Applicant claims this Court has the power to order an investigation
at the behest of the alleged matters herewithin alluded to, (this is such a case)
when it is in the interest of the public good.
3. The Applicants request is believed to be meritorious requiring
therefore consideration of alleged substantive matters, as distinguished from
procedural issues in a case, furthermore Section 66 of the Right to Information
and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, provides this Courtwith the appropriate procedure and therefore jurisdiction to make the
requested Order.
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
4/50
2
4. The Applicant believes that (pursuant to section 12 (1) (e) of the Police
Act) each police officer of the Fredericton Police Force is charged with
responsibility for serving and executing court process in respect of offences
against the law,
5. The purposes of this Right to Information and Protection of Privacy
Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 pursuant to section 2 (a ) is to allow any person a
right of access to records in the custody or under the control of public bodies,
subject to the limited and specific exceptions set out in this Act,
6. The Applicant believes that this subject request is: Necessary for the Applicants protection, safety and wellbeing.
Legally right; lawful; equitable
Congruent with fair and proper administration of laws.
Appropriate and well adapted to fulfilling intended objectivesas found drafted and issued therewithin the Right toInformation and Protection of Privacy Act.
Congruent with application of judicial discretion, that beingexercise of judgment by a judge or court based on what is fairunder circumstances and guided by rules and principles of law
7. The Applicant believes this subject request is not frivolous or
vexatious nor amounts to an abuse of the right to access as contemplated by
the drafters of Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B.2009, c. R-10.6.
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
5/50
3
8. The Applicant believes that without this Honorable Courts
intervention, the applicant will continue to be harassed, harmed, and injured,
furthermore, it is plain and obvious after 6 years of this abuse at the hands of
members of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE (three separate arrests without
charge, including and or in some cases involving several illegal entries and
searches of the Applicants Residential Marshall Street Property) that the
Fredericton Police Force have no intention to uphold their Duty, to act to
protect the Applicant.
9. To assist this Honorable Court to come to a decision regarding theCourts Jurisdiction and Discretion to grant APPLICANTS requested Order,
as alleged herewithin, requiring for that reason an investigation into abuse and
malicious manipulation of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE services,
further, determining the volume and substance of telephone reports and
complaints containing erroneous and provocative allegations against Andr
Murray (Applicant in this matter) and further and most importantly that this
Honorable Court Order disclosure of same investigation to the APPLICANT.
10. The APPLICANT will review and define the relevant sections of the
law as the APPLICANT understands them as follows:
Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 Rules of Court of new Brunswick 1.02 Application, 1.03
Interpretation (1) (2) and 1.08 Orders on Terms Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 section 17 Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B.
2009, c. R-10.6 Section 2 and Section 66 The Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 section 12 Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius definition: Latin: the
expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
6/50
4
Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Latin:Subsequent laws repeal prior conflicting ones.
1.02 Application
11. 1.02 Application
These rules apply to all proceedings in the Court of Queens Bench andthe Court of Appeal unless some other procedure is provided under anAct.
12. Reference there is the underlying consideration of doing justice
between the parties (Grewal v. Minister of Employment and Immigration
(1986), 63 N.R. 106 (F.C.A.), as summed up by Mr. Justice Strayer ).
13. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines Justice, at Page 2527
2528 as follows:
JUSTICE justice. 1. The fair and proper administration of laws.
14. The following definition of fair is found at Merriam Webster online at
the following: address: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair
Main Entry: 1fair 6 a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest,prejudice, or favoritism b (1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed
(2) : consonant with merit or importance : due c : open to legitimate pursuit, attack, or ridicule
15. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines fair, at Page 1788 as
follows
FAIRfair,adj.1. Impartial; just; equitable; disinterested
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
7/50
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
8/50
6
19. 1.03 Interpretation
(1) Except where a contrary intention appears, the Interpretation Act andthe interpretation section of the Judicature Act apply to these rules.
(2) These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, leastexpensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on itsmerits.
20. As stated in section 1.03 (1) Except where a contrary intention appears,
(in this case there is none) the Interpretation Act and the interpretation section
of the Judicature Act apply to these rules
21. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines Justice, at Page 2527
2528 as follows:
JUSTICE justice. 1. The fair and proper administration of laws.
22. Furthermore, regarding the New Brunswick Rules of court, Rule
1.03(2) to secure the just, least expensive and most expeditious determination
of every proceeding on its merits, it is my understanding that Judgment onthe merits is a judgment made after consideration of the substantive, as
distinguished from procedural issues in a case. Further to this point please find
the following definition of Merits.
23. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) at Page 3136 May it please the
Honorable Court the defines merits as the following:
MERITS
merits. 1. The elements or grounds of a claim or defense; thesubstantive considerations to be taken into account in deciding a case,as opposed to extraneous or technical points, esp. of procedure .
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
9/50
7
2.EQUITY(3) .
24. The rules of Court 1.03 (2) states These rules shall be liberally
construed ; may it please the Honorable Court the please find the following
definition of Construed.
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) at Page 947 defines Construe asfollows:
CONSTRUEconstrue (kn-stroo), vb. To analyze and explain themeaning of (a sentence or passage) .
Furthermore: May it please the Honorable Court the
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) at Page 2526 defines Just as follows:
JUST just, adj. Legally right; lawful; equitable
25. When viewed in the here within above language, the defined words arefollowed by bracketed definitions, the Rule 1.03 (2) reads: These rules shall
be liberally construed (analyzed and the meaning of explained ) to secure the
just (Legally right; lawful; equitable), least expensive and most expeditious
determination of every proceeding on its merits (The elements or grounds of a
claim or defense; the substantive considerations to be taken into account in
deciding a case, as opposed to extraneous or technical points, esp. of
procedure).
26. Furthermore, May it please the Honorable Court the Merriam-
webster.com defines merit at the following address
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
10/50
8
(http://mw4.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/merits) as follows:
Main Entry: 1merit1 a obsolete : reward or punishment due b : the qualities or actions thatconstitute the basis of one's deserts c : a praiseworthy quality : virtue d: character or conduct deserving reward, honor, or esteem; also :achievement2 : spiritual credit held to be earned by performance of righteous actsand to ensure future benefits3 a plural : the substance of a legal case apart from matters of
jurisdiction, procedure, or form b : individual significance or justification
27. The APPLICANT, requests that the Court keep with the general
direction contained in the New Brunswick Rules of court Rule 1.03(2). to
secure a fair, just and balanced determination, based on the MERITS. There is
a need to protect against rigid compliance with the rules taking precedence
over resolving the dispute and furthermore, securing a just and meritorious
determination. In this case the rules of Court grant this Court the jurisdiction
and discretion to grant the relief sought by the APPLICANT, so there is no
procedural hang up in issue.
28. The APPLICANT justly seeks a fair opportunity to have this
Honorable Court make an Order which may resolve the issues which the
APPLICANT is requesting relief, and this Court has the discretion to grant this
requested Order.
29. In Daly v. Petro-Canada, 1995 CanLII 6205 (NB Q.B.) Justice H. H.McLellan stated his view regarding the discretion of the Trial Judge and also
his view that the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed that matters of civil
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
11/50
9
procedure should be decided on their substance and merits, May it please the
Honorable Court found at page 9 to page 17 as, follows:
It seems to me to be worthy particular emphasis that thephrase "should not be granted except for the most compellingreasons" are not found in the Rules of Court. Those wordsappear to me to be inconsistent with both the letter and the spiritof the Rules and the Judicature Act, which, for example, in s.26(3) uses words such as "as to the Court seems just".
30. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B at Page 5327
provided the following excerpt:Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Subsequent lawsrepeal prior conflicting ones. [Cases: Statutes 159, 162. C.J.S.Statutes 287, 294.]
31. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B, at Page 5294
provide the following excerpt:
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is theexclusion of another.
32. The definition of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius may be found
at the following website
(http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclusioAlteri
us.aspx ) and is reproduced below for convenience:
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius definition:Latin: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.
In Rodaro, Justice, at 856, defined the Latin maxim expressio uniusest exclusio alterius as follows:"... a maxim of interpretation meaning that the expression of one thingis the exclusion of the other. When certain persons or things arespecified in a law, contract or will, an intention to exclude all others
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
12/50
10
from its operation may be inferred. In this case, the reference to theassignment to a financial institution excludes assignment to any other
entity."
In Dorval, Justice Cameron expressed it as:"... to express one thing is to exclude another."
33. Rule 59.01 of the Rules of Court, state that the costs of a proceeding
are in the discretion of the Court, subject to any Act and these rules of Court,
Rule 59.01 of the Rule so of Court is reproduced as follows:
59.01 Authority of the Court(1) Subject to any Act and these rules, the costs of a proceeding or astep in a proceeding are in the discretion of the court and the court maydetermine by whom and to what extent costs shall be paid.
34. Rule 59.01 of the Rules of Court, specifically expresses the courts
discretion when awarding Costs to Parties. Rule 59.01 recognized that the
discretion regarding cost is subject to the Acts of New Brunswick as well as
any Rules of Court to the contrary. Section 76 of the Right to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 is just such a Rule, the
Maxim Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant (Subsequent lawsrepeal those before enacted to the contrary, a.k.a. "Last in Time") and affirmed
by the Maxim Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius (The express mention
of one thing excludes all others) }, which limits the discretion of the Court,
when deciding Costs on a Referral Hearing.
35. Section 76 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 provides the following
Costs76(1) If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of Queens Benchof New Brunswick under subsection 65(1) or appealed to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under section 75, the
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
13/50
11
judge shall award costs in favour of the person who referred orappealed the matter
(a ) where the person is successful, and
(b) where the person is not successful, if the judge considers it to be inthe public interest.
76(2) Despite subsection (1), a judge of The Court of Queens Benchof New Brunswick may award costs in favour of the public body if the
judge considers that the matter for review or appeal is frivolous orvexatious or amounts to an abuse of the right to access.
36. Section 76 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 according to the Maxim to express one thing is to
exclude another makes its interpretation clear, specifically regarding costs
that The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick may award costs in
favour of the public body only if the judge considers that the matter for review
or appeal is frivolous or vexatious or amounts to an abuse of the right to
access. In comparison Section 66 of RTIPPA not so limited.
37. Section 66 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 states the following
Decision of The Court of Queens Bench66(1) If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of Queens Benchof New Brunswick under subsection 65(1), the judge shall hold ahearing and,
(c) may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge,necessary.
38. Section 76 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 is restrictive regarding the Order as to Costs that this
Court may make, probably because the Right to Information and Protection of
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
14/50
12
Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 is a tool to be used by the people and for
the peoples benefit. The idea of the publics tax dollars being used to fund a
legal council hired thereby to advise the executive head of a public body
(funded by public tax dollars) who for that reason will fight a Taxpayer in the
Honorable Court of Queens Bench; moreover a Tax payer who is attempting
to retrieve information the Taxpayer believes he is entitled to. Section 76 of
the Right to Information and Protection appears to be legislation issued as a
governor on the throttle, so as to limit the harm imposed on the public.
39. Section 66 is in the alternative is expansive, allowing this Court thediscretion to make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge,
necessary to provide relief to the public, and allow for the Court to be creative,
in areas where the drafters of the Right to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, left out possible just relief.
40. The definition of opinion may be found at the following website
(http://www.merriam_webster.com/dictionary/opinion) and is reproduced
below for convenience:
Definition of OPINION1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about aparticular matter
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positiveknowledgeb : a generally held view
41. The definition of opinion may be found at the following website
(http://www.thefreedictionary.com/opinion) and is reproduced below for
convenience:
opinion [??p?nj?n] n
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
15/50
13
1. judgment or belief not founded on certainty or proof 2. the prevailing or popular feeling or view public opinion
3. evaluation, impression, or estimation of the value or worth of aperson or thing
42. The definition of DISCRETION is provided by Black's Law Dictionary
(8th ed. 2004), at Page 1405 and 1406
DISCRETIONdiscretion (di-skresh-n).1. Wise conduct and management;cautious discernment; prudence.
2. Individual judgment; the power of free decision-making.sole discretion. An individual's power to make decisions withoutanyone else's advice or consent.
4. A public official's power or right to act in certain circumstancesaccording to personal judgment and conscience, often in an official orrepresentative capacity. Also termed discretionary power.
administrative discretion.A public official's or agency's power toexercise judgment in the discharge of its duties. [Cases: AdministrativeLaw and Procedure 324, 754. C.J.S. Public Administrative Law and
Procedure 60, 206, 223.] judicial discretion. The exercise of judgment by a judge or court basedon what is fair under the circumstances and guided by the rules andprinciples of law; a court's power to act or not act when a litigant is notentitled to demand the act as a matter of right. Also termed legaldiscretion. [Cases: Courts 26. C.J.S. Courts 3, 6465, 67.]
43. The definition of NECESSARY AND PROPER is provided by Black's
Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 3273
NECESSARY AND PROPERnecessary and proper,adj. Being appropriate and well adapted tofulfilling an objective.
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
16/50
14
44. When read in the above referenced language, bold words are defined
with the following brackets, section 66(1) ( c) reads as follows the Court may
make any other order that is, in the opinion ( judgment, or appraisal formed in
the mind about a particular matter) of the judge, necessary (Being appropriate
and well adapted to fulfilling an objective.). This is congruent with the
definition of judicial discretion, which is the exercise of judgment by a judge
or court based on what is fair under the circumstances and guided by the rules
and principles of law.
45. The Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009,c. R-10.6, 66(1) ( c), states the jurisdiction and the discretion of this Honorable
Court as follows (Honorable Court) may make any other order (jurisdiction
stated) that is, in the opinion (discretion) of the judge, necessary (Being
appropriate and well adapted to fulfilling an objective.). The APPLICANT
believes that this statement is most similar to the definition of judicial
discretion found in blacks Law Dictionary, which reads The exercise of
judgment by a judge or court based on what is fair under the circumstancesand guided by the rules and principles of law; a court's power to act or not act
when a litigant is not entitled to demand the act as a matter of right .
Jurisdiction
46. In determining if this Honorable Court has Jurisdiction to make an
order, which would Order the Fredericton Police Force to conduct an
investigation as requested by the APPLICANT, may require the interpretation
of three statues namely:
Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, cR-10.6
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
17/50
15
Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2
Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2
47. Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 claims that the Act is
notwithstanding any other Act, which would of course include Right to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-10.6 and the
Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2.
48. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B at Page 5327
provided the following excerpt:
Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Subsequent lawsrepeal prior conflicting ones. [Cases: Statutes 159, 162. C.J.S.Statutes 287, 294.]
49. The definition of the Maxim Leges posteriores priores contrarias
abrogant is provided at the Legal Dictionary website at the following URL at
(http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Leges+posteriores+priores+contrarias+abrogant)
Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Subsequent laws
repeal those before enacted to the contrary. 2 Rol. R. 410; 11 Co.
626, 630. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws
of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.
50. The definition of Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant is
provided by Wikipedia, at the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_repeal
Implied repeal
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
18/50
16
The doctrine of implied repeal is a concept in English
constitutional theory which states that where an Act of Parliamentconflicts with an earlier one, the later Act takes precedence and theconflicting parts of the earlier Act are repealed (i.e. no longer law).This doctrine is expressed in the Latin phrase "leges posteriorespriores contrarias abrogant".
51. Leges Posteriores Priores Contrarias Abrogant: This method of
statutory construction in this case, could apply to:
Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009,
c R-10.6 and, Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2. and, Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2,
but it does not , because there is not conflicting portions or sections . The
concept of this maxim is the newer statute later abrogates a prior statute only
where the two are manifestly inconsistent with and repugnant to each other.
The rationale for this form of construction is that the newer statute more
accurately depicts the current societal mood or more appropriately applies
Jurisdiction to a given subject.
52. The subject section of the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 which
includes notwithstanding is reproduced below as follows:
9(1) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of this or any otherAct or the Rules of Court, the Trial Division shall have and exercisegeneral and original jurisdiction in all causes and matters including
jurisdiction in the following matters, namely:
(a) all causes and matters, civil and criminal, that were within theexclusive cognizance of the Supreme Court in the exercise of itsoriginal common law jurisdiction, before the commencement of theJudicature Act, 1909;
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
19/50
17
(b) all causes and matters that prior to July 1, 1966, were assigned toor cognizable by the Chancery Division;
(c) all causes and matters that prior to September 4, 1979, were withinthe jurisdiction of the County Court of New Brunswick; and
(d) all causes and matters that prior to September 4, 1979, were withinthe jurisdiction of the Queens Bench Division of the SupremeCourt.
53. For the benefit of the Court, the following definition of
notwithstanding is provided from:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/Notwithstanding.aspxNotwithstandingIn spite of, even if, without regard to or impediment by other things.
In spite of, even if, without regard to or impediment by other things asstated.
54. Additionally, the following definition of notwithstanding is from
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004),at Page 3378 as follows:
NOTWITHSTANDINGnotwithstanding, prep. Despite; in spite of .
55. To understand the use of the term and meaning of notwithstanding
requires that we interpret the subject statutes. The interpretation of a statute is
a question of law, and correctness is the standard of review applicable in this
case. Statutory interpretation should be approached with the following
analytical framework set out in Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., 1998 CanLII
837 (S.C.C.), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27, at pages 40 and 41:
Although much has been written about the interpretation of legislation. . ., Elmer Driedger in Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983) best
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
20/50
18
encapsulates the approach upon which I prefer to rely. He recognizesthat statutory interpretation cannot be founded on the wording of the
legislation alone. At p. 87 he states:
Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of anAct are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical andordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
56. In Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2
S.C.R. 559 Justice IACOBUCCI J., provided the following insight into the
Principles of Statutory Interpretation:
Today there is only one principle or approach; namely, thewords of an Act are to be read in their entire context and intheir grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with thescheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.
provides that every enactment is deemed remedial, and shallbe given such fair, large and liberal construction andinterpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects.
words, like people, take their colour from their surroundings.This being the case, where the provision under consideration isfound in an Act that is itself a component of a larger statutoryscheme, the surroundings that colour the words and the schemeof the Act are more expansive.., as the principle of interpretation that presumes a harmony, coherence, andconsistency between statutes dealing with the same subjectmatter.
Other principles of interpretation such as the strictconstruction of penal statutes and the Charter valuespresumption only receive application where there isambiguity as to the meaning of a provision.
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
21/50
19
What, then, in law is an ambiguity? It is only when genuineambiguity arises between two or more plausible readings, each
equally in accordance with the intentions of the statute, that thecourts need to resort to external interpretive aids (emphasisadded), to which I would add, including other principles of interpretation.
57. For comparison, let us review The New Brunswick Interpretation Act,
R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 which states:
17 Every Act and regulation and every provision thereof shall bedeemed remedial, and shall receive such fair, large and liberal
construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of theobject of the Act, regulation or provision.
58. It is a well established principle of statutory interpretation that the
legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences. According to
Ct, supra , an interpretation can be considered absurd if it leads to ridiculous
or frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable or inequitable, if it
is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatible with other provisions or with
the object of the legislative enactment. Sullivan echoes these comments notingthat a label of absurdity can be attached to interpretations which defeat the
purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile.
59. The Applicant will refer to and rely on the well established principle of
statutory interpretation, that:
the legislature does not intend to produce absurd consequences.
an interpretation may be considered absurd, if it leads to ridiculousor frivolous consequences, if it is extremely unreasonable orinequitable, if it is illogical or incoherent, or if it is incompatiblewith other provisions or with the object of the legislative enactment
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
22/50
20
a label of absurdity may be attached to interpretations which defeat
the purpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless orfutile.
60. APPLICANT in this matter, argues that a label of absurdity may be
attached to interpretations of the Right to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, that, which may defeat the purpose of a statute or render some
aspect of it pointless or futile.
61. In applying this principle it is instructive to look at the objectives set
out in section 9(1) of the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2, which provides
the Trial Division shall have and exercise general and original jurisdiction in
all causes and matters , while at the same time, section 66 (1) (c) of the Right
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-10.6 clearly
reiterates the jurisdiction of a Judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New
Brunswick in relation to matters governed by Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6. The Applicant reasonably submits that
the legislation in question, Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 is not by any means ambiguous, and the intention is to
make abundantly clear the relationship, role and jurisdiction of Judges of The
Court of Queens Bench Trail Division of New Brunswick.
62. Section 66 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,
S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 provides the following
Decision of The Court of Queens Bench66(1) (c)If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of QueensBench of New Brunswick under subsection 65(1), the judge shall holda hearing and,
(a ) where the matter is referred by an applicant,
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
23/50
21
(i) if the head of a public body denied a request for information
in whole or in part, may order the head of the public body togrant the request in whole or in part, and
(c) may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge,
necessary
63. The following explanation of Statutory interpretation is provided at
Wikipedia located at the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation
Conflicts between sources of law
Where legislation and case law are in conflict, there is a presumptionthat legislation takes precedence insofar as there is any inconsistency.In the United Kingdom this principle is known as ParliamentarySovereignty. In Australia and in the United States, the courts haveconsistently stated that the text of the statute is used first, and it is readas it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute.
U.S. Supreme Court: "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should
always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. . . .[C]ourtsmust presume that a legislature says in a statute what it meansand means in a statute what it says there." Connecticut Nat'lBank v. Germain, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992). Indeed, "whenthe words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon isalso the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.'" 503 U.S. 249, 254.
Supreme Court of Virginia: "A fundamental rule of statutoryconstruction requires that every part of a statute be presumed tohave some effect, and not be treated as meaningless unlessabsolutely necessary." Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher, 153 Va.332, 149 S.E. 541 (1929).
Supreme Court of Alaska: "In assessing statutory language,unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to beconstrued in accordance with their common usage." Muller v.
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
24/50
22
BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc., 923 P.2d 783, 787-88 (Alaska1996);
64. An analysis of the principle in Re Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd., supra,
can also be buttressed by the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6
clearly defines the role of a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New
Brunswick, in relation to matters governed by the Right to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6. In section 66 (1)(c) of the
Act, Section 66(1) (c) reaffirms the jurisdiction of a Judge of The Court of
Queens Bench of New Brunswick to act and in that capacity. If the legislation
within the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c.
R-10.6, intended that a Judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New
Brunswick shall not have unlimited jurisdiction already granted by Section
9(1) of the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2, then there would have been
a need to include conditions on how a judge of The Court of Queens
Bench of New Brunswick has jurisdiction to act and in what capacity ,
(example Section 76 of the same Act) which has the effect of excluding whilelimiting the already granted jurisdiction of the Court as per the maxim
expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
65. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B, at Page 5294
provide the following excerpt:
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one thing is theexclusion of another. Also termed Inclusio unius est exclusio alteriusor enumeratio unius est exclusio alteriu. [Cases: Contracts 152;Statutes 195. C.J.S. Contracts 307, 318322, 327, 331; Statutes 323.]
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
25/50
23
66. The definition of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius may be found
at the following website
(http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclusioAlteri
us.aspx ) and is reproduced below for convenience:
Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius definition:Latin: the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other.
Sometimes referred to in short form as expressio unius.
In Rodaro, Justice, at 856, defined the Latin maxim expressio unius
est exclusio alterius as follows:"... a maxim of interpretation meaning that the expression of one thingis the exclusion of the other. When certain persons or things arespecified in a law, contract or will, an intention to exclude all othersfrom its operation may be inferred. In this case, the reference to theassignment to a financial institution excludes assignment to any otherentity."
In Dorval, Justice Cameron expressed it as:"... to express one thing is to exclude another."
In Transpacific, Justice Lysyk described it as follows:"The principle ... expressio unius est exclusio alterius: the expressmention of one or more things of a particular class may be regarded asimpliedly excluding others."
Although the doctrine is useful in determining the extents of contracts,it is also an important principle in the construction of statutes. In herbook on the topic, jurist Ruth Sullivan wrote:
"One of the so-called maxims of statutory interpretation is expressiounius est exclusio alterius: to express one thing is to exclude another.
"The maxim reflects a form of reasoning that is widespread andimportant in interpretation .... the a contrario argument ... negativeimplication ..implied exclusion ...
"An implied exclusion argument lies whenever there is reason to
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
26/50
24
believe that if the legislature had meant to include a particular thingwithin the ambit of its legislation, it would have referred to that thing
expressly. Because of this expectation, the legislatures failure tomention the thing becomes grounds for inferring that it wasdeliberately excluded. Although there is no express exclusion,exclusion is implied."
REFERENCES:Dorval v Dorval 2006 SKCA 21Rodaro v Royal Bank of Canada 2000 OJ 272Sullivan, R., Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3rd Ed.(Toronto: Butterworths, 1994), page 168Transpacific Tours Ltd. v. Director of Investigation & Research 25
DLR 4th 202; also at (1986) 2 WWR 34; 24 CCC 3d 103; 8 CPR 3d325; 20 CRR 337 and 68 BCLR 32
67. The APPLICANT believes, that, the herewithin above principles of
statutory interpretation are persuasive, especially when considering, that, when
certain things are specified in a law, an intention to exclude all others from its
operation may be inferred, or to put it another way the intention is a
expression of the one thing is the exclusion of the other thing. Because of
this expectation, the legislatures failure to mention the limitation of
jurisdiction of this Court (regarding Section 66 of Right to Information and
Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6), becomes grounds for
inferring that it was deliberately not exclusionary, hence for that reason this is
an expression of the Honorable Courts jurisdiction to act, therefore, is the
exclusion of the possibility, that this Court has limitations of jurisdiction to
render decisions, which, may not at first glance, appear to be under the Right
to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6.
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
27/50
25
68. The Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009,
c. R-10.6 specifically designates authority or jurisdiction to a Judge of The
Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under subsection 66(1) (c)
specifically as the Court's power to decide a case or issue and the Court may
make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge, necessary.
69. Maxim - Neminem oportet esse sapientiorem legibus . No one ought to
be wiser than the laws. The Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 section 12 lists the
Duties of police officer as follow:
12(1) Each police officer is charged with responsibility for
(a) maintaining law and order,
(b) preventing offences against the law,
(c) enforcing penal provisions of the law,
(d) escorting and conveying persons in custody to orfrom a court or other place,
(e) serving and executing court process in respect of offences against the law,
(f) maintaining order in the courts,
70. The Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 section 12 lists the Duties of police
officer including performing the Order as requested by the APPLICANT for
these reasons would further promote the members of FREDRICTON POLICE
FORCE pursuant to The Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2, to be maintaining lawand order, preventing offences against the law and to be serving and executing
court process in respect of offences against the law.
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
28/50
26
71. Maxim Nemo est supra leges. No one is above the laws. The Police
Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 does not preclude this Court from making Order as
requested by the Applicant, for that reason, the expression of one thing is the
exclusion of another, meaning: the Court may issue such an Order, that,
which, would in fact be congruent with the mandate of the Police Act, SNB
1977, c P-9.2 and would, therefore, be directly aiding the members of
FREDRICTON POLICE FORCE in their prescribed Duties of a police officer,
according to above section 12.
72. The APPLICANT submits, that because of Jurisdiction {not reduced orabrogated in anyway pursuant to the Maxim Leges posteriores priores
contrarias abrogant (Subsequent laws repeal those before enacted to the
contrary, a.k.a. "Last in Time") and affirmed by the Maxim Expressio Unius
Est Exclusio Alterius (The express mention of one thing excludes all
others) }, this Honorable Court can and should (in this matter) render a
decision which would provide necessary relief as requested by the
APPLICANT, which may clearly determine the nature and degree of thealleged Obstruction of the Police inter alia:
1. Order an investigation to determine is there is substance to thealleged abuse and malicious manipulation of the Fredericton PoliceForce services.
2. The Investigation shall reveal the excessive volume of `nonproductive` complaint telephone calls regarding the Applicant and orApplicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year periodfrom 2005-2011
3. The Investigation shall reveal the number of non eventresponses by FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to Investigate theApplicant and or Applicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street overthe 6 year period from 2005-2011
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
29/50
27
4. Moreover, the Investigation may conclusively reveal the
unfounded substance of the telephone reports and complaints toFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding the Applicant and orApplicants residence of 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year periodfrom 2005-2011.
5. The Investigation may reveal the identity of the telephonereports and determine why the complaints are without substancenevertheless caused suffering of the innocent Applicant by relentlessstalking and or surveillance or the Applicants residence of 29 31Marshall Street occurring regularly over the 6 year period from 2005-
2011.
6. Finally Order full disclosure of same investigation to theApplicant that the Applicant may acquire a Cease and desist Order forthe protection of his body and sole.
73. The Applicant researched CanLii for cases providing examples,
therefore, of a Court of Queens Bench actually Ordering an investigation of a
Municipal Police Force furthermore Ordering a Police Force to reveal records
as the case may be. The closest two themes of decisions which referred to acourt ordered investigation are concerning Business Corporations Act,
S.N.B., 1981, c. B-9.1 and Family Services Act (S.N.B. 1980, c. F-2.2).
74. Business Corporations Act refers to Court of Queens Bench ordering
an investigation into corporate conduct, by checking the corporate records,
inter alia, to protect the shareholders of corporations.
75. In Catalyst Fund General Partner I Inc. v. Hollinger Inc., 2004 CanLII
66299 (ON SC), Justice C. Campbell J.: stated the following regarding the
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
30/50
28
issues of scope, extent, timing and cost of Court of Queens Bench court
ordered investigation.
[62] In my endorsement I indicated that an opportunity would beprovided to counsel to address the issues of scope, extent, timing andcost of inspection.
[63] Some of these issues may be formulated in the followingquestions that arise from the matters referred to in s. 230(1) of theCBCA :
1. What are the matters to be investigated?
2. What mandate should the inspector have?
3. Who is an appropriate person or persons to conduct theinspection?
4. How will the inspection be carried out?
5. Extent of access the inspector should have, furthermore, accessto which type of material in the possession of which parties?
6. Which person or persons should be required to respond toinquiries and should their responses be evidence given byoath?
7. Schedule of timeframe thought to a reasonable estimate forcarrying out the inspection?
8. Estimated cost and who should bear that cost?
9. How will the report be provided to the Court?
10. How to avoid disputes between the interests of Partiestherefore establishing a credible inspection deserving of respect?
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
31/50
29
76. As similarly contemplated in Catalyst Fund General Partner I Inc. v.
Hollinger Inc., 2004, the Applicant respectfully suggests the following
procedure:
1. What is the criterion to be investigated?
The Investigation should reveal the precise volume of complaintcalls received by FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCEregarding 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year period from2005-2011
The Investigation should reveal the number of FREDERICTONCITY POLICE FORCE responses to 29 31 Marshall Street overthe 6 year period from 2005-2011
The Investigation should reveal the substance of the telephonereports and complaints of calls to FREDERICTON CITY POLICEFORCE regarding 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year periodfrom 2005-2011.
The Investigation should reveal the identity of the caller of thesubject FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE telephone reportsand complaints regarding calls to 29 31 Marshall Street over the6 year period from 2005-2011.
Order disclosure subject investigation to the Applicant.
2. What mandate should the inspector have?
Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , at Page 3049 provides thedefinition of MANDATE:
mandate,n. 2. A judicial command directed to an officer of thecourt to enforce a court order.
The investigator for that reason assigned to this case may have themandate to resolve how it is that so many complaints are unfoundedwithout substance and further solve the questions mistaken identity
resulting inter alia in false arrests that which is in public interest tocritique and entirely eliminate dangerous practices of theFREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE. What are the matters to beinvestigated?
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
32/50
30
3. Who is an appropriate person or persons to conduct theinspection?
The FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE, have designatedindividuals who conduct investigations on a regular basis. These sameindividuals would likely be the most experiences and directedindividuals to conduct the requested investigation.
4. How will the inspection be carried out?
May this please the Honorable Court: Since we live in the days and ageof computers, to produce the results from the computers used by TheFREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE, who reasonably have
computerized databases to keep track of such calls (topic of thisrecitation) which the FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCEregularly receive; this computerized search would reasonably take littletime at all. It is a matter of typing in key word searches and hit theprint button.
5. Type of access the inspector should have to identified materialin the possession of which parties?
The Fredericton Police Force, investigator would likely only need toconduct a search of the Fredericton Police force computerized
databases.
6. Which person or persons should be asked to respond toinquiries? Should there be evidence under oath?
Members of FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE, would onlyneed to conduct a search of the FREDERICTON CITY POLICEFORCE computerized databases for that reason eliminating any needto question the source of the information.
7. What timeframe is a reasonable estimate for carrying out the
inspection?
We live in the days and age of computers, to produce the results fromthe computers used by FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE, whoreasonably have computerized databases, would take little to no time at
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
33/50
31
all. It is a matter of typing in key word searches and hit the printbutton. The time frame to organize in preparation and execute search
thereby including accumulation of relevant information would involveno more than an hour or two of time.
8. What is the estimated cost and who should bear that cost?
FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE, naturally have individualsdesignated who for that reason conduct investigations on a regularbasis. They are of course already paid to provide investigativeServices moreover appear to be victims of Obstruction.
9. How will the inspector report findings?
The Investigator should provide a written report first of all for thisHonorable Courts consideration, which may be forwarded at theCourts discretion to the Applicant and THE NEW BRUNSWICKPOLICE COMMISSION.
10. How will disputes with respect to the conduct of theinspection be dealt with?
77. In R. v. Lam, 2008 BCPC 248 (CanLII), though the requested Order is
different, regarding The issue in this case is whether a Provincial Court
judge can order the police to release items seized The Honourable Judge M.
F. Giardini, discusses the subject of the Authority of the Court To Make an
Order, further the Court states It is possible that a court with inherent
jurisdiction may have jurisdiction to make the order sought , from paragraph
35 through to and including paragraph 45 as follows:
Is Authority To Make Order Implied?
[35] The next question, in the absence of an express provision allowing this Courtto make such an order, is whether such authority is conferred by necessaryimplication or on some other basis.
[36] Mr. Lam brought this application under s. 490(1) and (2) so I will specificallyconsider whether those subsections give this Court the authority to make the order
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
34/50
32
Mr. Lam seeks. In doing so I am guided by the comments and conclusions of Chief Justice McLachlin in R. v. Raponi . In that case the Supreme Court of Canadaconsidered whether a Provincial Court judge had the jurisdiction to order the returnof $35,000 which had been seized by police without a warrant and withoutdemonstrating reasonable grounds. The procedure, history and background facts of that case are somewhat convoluted and will not be repeated here. However, theconclusions of the court on the issue of jurisdiction are apposite to the matter beforeme.
[37] The Provincial Court judge in that case made an order returning the money tothe applicant. In doing so he held the Code conferred on him the jurisdiction to makean order implicitly, if not expressly. The first question the Supreme Courtconsidered was whether the Provincial Court judge could order improperly seizeditems returned under s. 490(2). The Supreme Court ruled he could not and stated:
... While the Provincial Court judge acted in a s. 490(2) hearing, that section dealsonly with extending the time of detention beyond three months. The only question tobe considered by the Provincial Court judge is whether continued detention isrequired by a proceeding that has been instituted or by an investigation. [para. 29]
[38] This application is brought by Mr. Lam under s. 490(1) and (2), however,neither of those sections provide a basis for the order sought. Section 490(1)provides for detention of seized materials and for the return of seized materials to thelawful owner or person who is lawfully entitled to possession unless the justice issatisfied the things seized should be detained. In this case a determination under s.490(1) was made by a justice on January 18, 2008. This subsection does not, in myview, provide a basis to make the order now sought.
[39] Section 490(2) provides that things seized cannot be detained more than threemonths unless proceedings are instituted which may require the things detained orunless a justice is satisfied that continued detention is warranted. As noted in R. v.
Raponi the only question to be considered by a Provincial Court judge under thissubsection is whether continued detention is warranted. The hearing on that issue isset for January 12, 2009 and is not before me on this application. Accordingly, thissubsection does not provide a basis to make the order now sought.
[40] Mr. Lam submits that the authority to grant the order sought can be gleanedfrom s. 490 as a whole and in particular s. 490(1)(b), s. 490(2), s. 490(5). He submitsI should give the legislation a fair, large and liberal interpretation pursuant to s. 12 of the Interpretation Act .
[41] In my view, the sections of the Code to which I was directed do not supportthe proposition, by necessary implication, that a Provincial Court judge can orderpolice to place lawfully seized things with the Registrar of the Provincial Courtpending the hearing of a contested extension application. My conclusion isstrengthened by the fact that s. 490 contains a specific provision (s. 490(4)) regarding
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
35/50
33
the circumstances when a justice shall forward things detained pursuant to s.490(1), (2) and (3) to the clerk of the court.
Is there Authority to Make Order on Other Basis?
[42] Mr. Lam argues it is not fair or just for the police to retain possession of theitems in question and to continue to deal with them pending the hearing set forJanuary 12, 2009. He says by the time that hearing takes place, the application maywell be moot. Given those arguments I have considered whether I have jurisdictionto make the order sought on some other basis. A similar question was raised in R. v.
Raponi where the applicant argued the Provincial Court judge had implied powersbased on the common law. In that case the court noted:
A number of objections can be raised to this position. First, it ignores the fact thatbefore a judge can make any order, there must be a legal substratum or vehicle to
support the order. The legal vehicle for the return of goods unlawfully taken or heldis the civil action of replevin before the Court of Queen's Bench. Another vehiclemight be a Charter application to a judge of the Court of Queen's Bench. Yet otherpossibilities may exist. The point is simply that a claim must be grounded in a legalcause of action that permits the judge to grant a remedy.
Second, even if the difficulty of a proper cause of action or source of law could bemet, a Provincial Court judge has no jurisdiction to deal with such an action, sincethe Provincial Court is a court of statutory not inherent jurisdiction. No remedy wasavailable to Raponi in Provincial Court: any cause of action of which he could haveavailed himself would have been located in a superior court.
I conclude that the Provincial Court judge had no power to order the return of the
money outside the Code. Even though it has not been validly challenged and hencestands for the time being, the Provincial Court judge's order for the return of themoney to Raponi was made without jurisdiction, and is liable to be set aside in anappropriate proceeding. [paras. 33 to 35]
[43] I was not specifically directed to any other basis upon which a ProvincialCourt judge could make the order sought. It is possible that a court with inherent
jurisdiction may have jurisdiction to make the order sought. A similar order appearsto have been made by Mr. Justice Legg in R. v. Papalia . However, the basis formaking that order is not set out in the decision. The decision simply notes that theorder was made. In the circumstances, I can find no other basis upon which the orderapplied for could be made by this Court.
CONCLUSION
[44] In this case the application before me was grounded in s. 490 and, inparticular in s. 490(1) and s. 490(2), which I have already addressed in these reasons.I have concluded those subsections do not provide express authority to make theorder sought. Further, express authority is not found in s. 490 as a whole, neither
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
36/50
34
could I find such authority by necessary explanation. Additionally, I was not directedto any other basis upon which the order could be made by this Court.
[45] Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, I conclude that as a ProvincialCourt judge I do not have jurisdiction to make the order sought by Mr. Lam that thepolice forward the seized items in question to the Registrar of this Court.
______________________________
The Honourable Judge M. F. Giardini
Provincial Court of British Columbia
78. Honorable Justice M. F. Giardini stated is possible that a court withinherent jurisdiction may have jurisdiction to make the order sought . This
Court does have inherent jurisdiction by way of the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B.
1973, c. J-2 section 9(1) which states as follows:
9(1) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of this or any otherAct or the Rules of Court, the Trial Division shall have and exercisegeneral and original jurisdiction in all causes and matters including
jurisdiction in the following matters, namely:
79. This Court is not restricted by the criminal Code of Canada, and furtherhas Jurisdiction granted and enforceable in pursuance with the following acts
and rules of Court:
Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 Rules of Court of new Brunswick 1.02 Application, 1.03
Interpretation (1) (2) and 1.08 Orders on Terms Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 section 17 Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B.
2009, c. R-10.6 Section 2 and Section 66
The Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2 section 12
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
37/50
35
80. Furthermore, the Honorable Court will be acting in furtherance of the
spirit of Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, by
granting the Order as requested by the Applicant.
FORM 1 REFERRAL81. FORM 1 REFERRAL ( Right to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act , S.N.B. 2009, c.R- 10.6, s.65(1)( a )) pursuant to Right to
Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-10.6 does not
contain a location which is designated for an APPLICANT to provide the
detail by which the Honorable Court ( c) may make any other order that is, inthe opinion of the judge, necessary
82. FORM 1 REFERRAL is unlike Rule 37.03 of the Rules of Court which
states clearly the requirements that should be present on the face of a Notice of
Motion.
37.03 Content of Notice of Motion or PreliminaryMotionA Notice of Motion or Preliminary Motion shall(a) state the precise order sought,(b) state the grounds to be argued, including a reference to anystatutory provision or rule to be relied on, and(c) list the documentary evidence to be used at the hearing of themotion
83. Furthermore, FORM 1 REFERRAL is unlike Rule 38.04 of the Rules
of Court which states clearly the requirements that should be present on the
face of a Notice of Application.
38.04 Content of NoticeA Notice of Application shall(a) state the precise order sought,(b) state the grounds to be argued, including a reference to anystatutory provision or rule to be relied on, and
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
38/50
36
(c) list the documentary evidence to be used at the hearing of theapplication.
84. Therefore, no obligation existed compelling the APPLICANT to
provide a written notice of the relief which the APPLICANT was requesting
of this Court on the FORM 1 REFERRAL.
Closing
85. When considering Section 2 of the Right to Information and Protection
of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 as it relates to the Applicant, provides
as follows:
Purposes of this Act2 The purposes of this Act are
(a ) to allow any person a right of access to records in the custody orunder the control of public bodies, subject to the limited and specificexceptions set out in this Act,
(c) to allow individuals a right of access to records containing personalinformation about themselves in the custody or under the control of
public bodies, subject to the limited and specific exceptions set out inthis Act,
86. Furthermore, Section 66 of the Right to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 provides for the following
Decision of The Court of Queens Bench66(1) (c)If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of QueensBench of New Brunswick under subsection 65(1), the judge shall holda hearing and,
(a ) where the matter is referred by an applicant,(i) if the head of a public body denied a request for informationin whole or in part, may order the head of the public body togrant the request in whole or in part, and
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
39/50
37
(c) may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge,
necessary
87. Furthermore applicable Rules of Court of New Brunswick:
1.02 ApplicationThese rules apply to all proceedings in the Court of Queens Bench andthe Court of Appeal unless some other procedure is provided under anAct.
1.03 Interpretation(1) Except where a contrary intention appears, the Interpretation Act and the interpretation section of the Judicature Act apply to these rules.
(2) These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, leastexpensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding onits merits.
1.08 Orders on TermsWhen making an order under these rules, the court may impose suchterms and give such directions as are just.
88. Furthermore, interpretation of the three relevant statues namely:
Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009,c R-10.6
Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2
Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2
Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13 section 17
89. A label of absurdity may be attached to interpretations which defeat thepurpose of a statute or render some aspect of it pointless or futile; the
Applicant is requesting this Honorable Court provide the remedies as
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
40/50
38
contemplated by the drafters of the Right to Information and Protection of
Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6.
90. The following is found at legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com at the
following internet web address provided below:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/audi+alteram+partem
audi alteram partem [Latin, hear the other side.] It embodies theconcept in Criminal Law that no person should be condemned unheard;it is akin to due process. The notion that an individual, whose life,liberty, or property are in legal jeopardy, has the right to confront the
evidence against him or her in a fair hearing is one of the fundamentalprinciples of Constitutional Law in the United States and England.
91. It is ironic, that, if the Applicant was actually a criminal then according
to natural Justice the Applicant would have the right to confront the evidence
against him in a fair hearing, which is one of the fundamental principles
Justice adhered to in Canada. However the Applicant is in fact not a criminal
and the Applicant is requesting of the Courts assistance to take this alternative
route, as contemplated by the drafters of Right to Information and Protectionof Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, to gain the information necessary for
his safety inter alia
92. The remedy found herein requested is in accordance with the Rules of
Court, the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-
10.6, the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2 and the Police Act, SNB 1977,
c P-9.2.
93. Furthermore the Applicant has argued why this Honorable Court does
in fact have the Jurisdiction to grant the relief sought according to Rules of
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
41/50
39
Court, the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, SNB 2009, c R-
10.6, and the Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2.
94. In closing let us review The New Brunswick Interpretation Act,
R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13, section 17 which states: 17 Every Act and regulation
and every provision thereof shall be deemed remedial, and shall receive such
fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the
attainment of the object of the Act, regulation or provision. The Applicant
believes that in fulfillment of these stated goals, this Court should grant the
Applicants Order as requested, which would in the Applicants view be Justice,
which by the Applicants definition is the fair and proper administration of
laws.
NOTE
95. The Solicitor acquired by the NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE
COMMISSION, has not been hired to represent the interests of the
FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, therefore there is no reason for this Court
to receive representations from the Solicitor who is acting in the interest of theNEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION, regarding this issue of an
investigation into the abuse and malicious manipulation of the Fredericton
Police Force services, regarding the volume and substance of the telephone
reports and complaints containing erroneous and provocative allegations
against Andr Murray (Applicant In this matter) and most importantly an order
disclosure of same investigation to the Applicant.
ALL OF THIS respectfully submitted this ______day of ____________2011.
____________Andr Murray
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
42/50
40
PART III ORDERS SOUGHT 1. Order an investigation to determine is there is substance to the
alleged abuse and malicious manipulation of the Fredericton PoliceForce services.
2. The Investigation shall reveal the excessive volume of `nonproductive` complaint telephone calls regarding the Applicant and orApplicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year periodfrom 2005-2011
3. The Investigation shall reveal the number of non eventresponses by FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to Investigate theApplicant and or Applicants residence 29 31 Marshall Street over
the 6 year period from 2005-2011
4. Moreover, the Investigation may conclusively reveal theunfounded substance of the telephone reports and complaints toFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding the Applicant and orApplicants residence of 29 31 Marshall Street over the 6 year periodfrom 2005-2011.
5. The Investigation may reveal the identity of the telephonereports and determine why the complaints are without substance
nevertheless caused suffering of the innocent Applicant by relentlessstalking and or surveillance or the Applicants residence of 29 31Marshall Street occurring regularly over the 6 year period from 2005-2011.
6. Finally Order full disclosure of same investigation to theApplicant that the Applicant may acquire a Cease and desist Order forthe protection of his body and sole.
Schedule A - A list of authorities in the order referred to
in the Submission; and1. Reference: Maxim - Neminem laedit qui jure suo utitur .
A person who exercises his own rights injures no one.
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
43/50
41
2. Reference: there is the underlying consideration of doing justice
between the parties (Grewal v. Minister of Employment and
Immigration (1986), 63 N.R. 106 (F.C.A.), as summed up by Mr.
Justice Strayer ).
3. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines Justice, at
Page 2527 2528
4. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines unjust as atPage 4775
5. Definition of fair is found at Merriam Webster online at the following:
address: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fair
6. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines fair, at Page
1788
7. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), defines Justice, at
Page 2527 2528
8. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) defines merits at
Page 3136
9. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) defines Construe at
Page 947
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
44/50
42
10. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) defines Just at Page
2526
11. Reference: Merriam-webster.com defines merit at the following
address
(http://mw4.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/merits)
12. Reference: on the merits is defined by legal-dictionary.com at the
following address: http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/on+the+merits on the merits
13. Reference: Daly v. Petro-Canada, 1995 CanLII 6205 (NB Q.B.)
Justice H. H. McLellan stated his view regarding the discretion of the
Trial Judge and also his view that the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed
that matters of civil procedure should be decided on their substance
and merits, May it please the Honorable Court found at page 9 to page
17
14. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B, at
Page 5294: Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one
thing is the exclusion of another.
15. Reference: definition of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius may be
found at the following website
(http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclus
ioAlterius.aspx )
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
45/50
43
16. Reference: definition of opinion may be found at the following
website (http://www.merriam_webster.com/dictionary/opinion)
17. Reference: definition of opinion may be found at the following
website (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/opinion)
18. Reference: definition of DISCRETION is provided by Black's Law
Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 1405 and 1406
19. Reference: definition of NECESSARY AND PROPER is provided byBlack's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 3273
20. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B at
Page 5327 : Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. Subsequent
laws repeal prior conflicting ones.
21. Reference: definition of the Maxim Leges posteriores priores
contrarias abrogant is provided at the Legal Dictionary website at the
following URL at (http://legal-
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Leges+posteriores+priores+contrarias
+abrogant)
22. Reference: definition of Leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant
is provided by Wikipedia, at the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implied_repeal
23. Reference: definition of notwithstanding is provided from:
http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/N/Notwithstanding.aspx
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
46/50
44
24. Reference: definition of notwithstanding is from Black's Law
Dictionary (8th ed. 2004),at Page 3378
25. Reference: Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42,
[2002] 2 S.C.R. 559 Justice IACOBUCCI J
26. Reference: explanation of Statutory interpretation is provided at
Wikipedia located at the following URL:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation
27. Reference: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) APPENDIX B, at
Page 5294 :Expressio unius est exclusio alterius. The expression of one
thing is the exclusion of another.
28. Reference: definition of Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius may be
found at the following website
(http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/E/ExpressioUniusEstExclus
ioAlterius.aspx )
29. Reference: Maxim - Neminem oportet esse sapientiorem legibus . No
one ought to be wiser than the laws.
30. Reference: Maxim Nemo est supra leges. No one is above the laws
31. Reference: In Catalyst Fund General Partner I Inc. v. Hollinger Inc.,
2004 CanLII 66299 (ON SC), Justice C. Campbell J.: stated the
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
47/50
45
following regarding the issues of scope, extent, timing and cost of
Court of Queens Bench court ordered investigation.
32. Reference: In R. v. Lam, 2008 BCPC 248 (CanLII), from paragraph 35
through to and including paragraph 45 as follows
Schedule B - The text of all relevant provisions of Statutes or Regulations (orcopies of the complete Statute or Regulation may be filed and served with theSubmission).
Rules of Court
1.02 Application
These rules apply to all proceedings in the Court of Queens Bench andthe Court of Appeal unless some other procedure is provided under anAct.
1.03 Interpretation
(1) Except where a contrary intention appears, the Interpretation Act
and the interpretation section of the Judicature Act apply to these rules.(2) These rules shall be liberally construed to secure the just, leastexpensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding onits merits.
37.03 Content of Notice of Motion or PreliminaryMotionA Notice of Motion or Preliminary Motion shall(a) state the precise order sought,(b) state the grounds to be argued, including a reference to any
statutory provision or rule to be relied on, and(c) list the documentary evidence to be used at the hearing of themotion
38.04 Content of Notice
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
48/50
46
A Notice of Application shall(a) state the precise order sought,
(b) state the grounds to be argued, including a reference to anystatutory provision or rule to be relied on, and(c) list the documentary evidence to be used at the hearing of theapplication.
59.01 Authority of the Court(1) Subject to any Act and these rules, the costs of a proceeding or astep in a proceeding are in the discretion of the court and the court maydetermine by whom and to what extent costs shall be paid.
Judicature Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. J-2
9(1) Notwithstanding anything in the provisions of this or any otherAct or the Rules of Court, the Trial Division shall have and exercisegeneral and original jurisdiction in all causes and matters including
jurisdiction in the following matters, namely:
(a) all causes and matters, civil and criminal, that were within theexclusive cognizance of the Supreme Court in the exercise of itsoriginal common law jurisdiction, before the commencement of theJudicature Act, 1909;
(b) all causes and matters that prior to July 1, 1966, were assigned toor cognizable by the Chancery Division;
(c) all causes and matters that prior to September 4, 1979, were withinthe jurisdiction of the County Court of New Brunswick; and
all causes and matters that prior to September 4, 1979, were within the
jurisdiction of the Queens Bench Division of the Supreme Court
Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13
17 Every Act and regulation and every provision thereof shall bedeemed remedial, and shall receive such fair, large and liberal
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
49/50
47
construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of theobject of the Act, regulation or provision.
Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6
Purposes of this Act2 The purposes of this Act are
(a ) to allow any person a right of access to records in the custody orunder the control of public bodies, subject to the limited and specificexceptions set out in this Act,
(c) to allow individuals a right of access to records containing personal
information about themselves in the custody or under the control of public bodies, subject to the limited and specific exceptions set out inthis Act,
Decision of The Court of Queens Bench66(1) (c)If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of QueensBench of New Brunswick under subsection 65(1), the judge shall holda hearing and,
(a ) where the matter is referred by an applicant,
(i) if the head of a public body denied a request for informationin whole or in part, may order the head of the public body togrant the request in whole or in part, and
(c) may make any other order that is, in the opinion of the judge,
necessary
Costs76(1) If a matter is referred to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick under subsection65(1) or appealed to a judge of The Court of Queens
Bench of New Brunswick under section 75, the judge shallaward costs in favour of the person who referred or appealedthe matter
(a ) where the person is successful, and
-
8/3/2019 Referal Applicants Post Hearing Brief
50/50
(b) where the person is not successful, if the judge
considers it to be in the public interest.
76(2) Despite subsection (1), a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick may award costs in favourof the public body if the judge considers that the matterfor review or appeal is frivolous or vexatious oramounts to an abuse of the right to access.
Police Act, SNB 1977, c P-9.2
12(1) Each police officer is charged with responsibility for
(a) maintaining law and order,
(b) preventing offences against the law,
(c) enforcing penal provisions of the law,
(d) escorting and conveying persons in custody to orfrom a court or other place,
(e) serving and executing court process in respect of offences against the law,
(f) maintaining order in the courts,