october 5, 2011, affidavit in support of motion to strike affidavit material and costs ordered...

7/30/2019 October 5, 2011, Affidavit in support of Motion to Strike Affidavit material and Costs ordered against a Responden

1/31

1

Court of Appeal File Number: 105 11 - CA

(Court File Number: F/C/104/09)

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK

BETWEEN: ANDR MURRAY

APPELLANT

-and-

BETTY ROSE DANIELSKIRESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I, Andre Murray of the City of Fredericton, in the county of York and Province

of New Brunswick, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I Andr Murray, as above indicated, am the Appellant in this matter; as

such have a true and correct knowledge of the matters, herein deposed to,

except where otherwise stated.

2. I, Appellant Andr Murray verily believe that the entirety of the Affidavit

of Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010, is without substantivematerial relative to the matters of the Original MOTION which is requesting of

an Order of Continuance pursuant to Mechanic Lien Act as such the subject

Affidavit cannot have and does not offer substance sufficient to follow withargument establishing procedural law; instead appears motivated to detract

from as contentions found are embarrassing , may delay the fair Hearing of the

matter, are scandalous, frivolous and/or vexatious, and are an abuse of the

process of the Court;

3. I, Appellant Andr Murray verily believe the Defendant (Respondent) did

not provide the Honorable Trial Division Court proper Documentssubstantiating by Affidavit Process Service of the within subject Affidavit of

Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010, as is required according


2/31

2

to and by the Rules of Court 39.01 and 39.04 before either of the two lower

Trial Court Hearings of June 10, 2010 (Madam Justice Garnett) or February

14, 2011 (Madam Justice J. L. Clendening) respectively; Defendant Betty RoseDanielski did not request that either Court acting therefore of first instance to

overlook this glaring irregularity in Court Document Process Service, so that

the Learned Trial Judge could properly consider this same Affidavit.

4. I, Appellant Andr Murray verily believe the Honorable Madam Justice J.

L. Clendening was made sufficiently aware through the Plaintiffs submissionsthat the Defendant had not served upon the Plaintiff the subject Affidavit of

Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010, , as is required by the

Rules of Court. Honorable Madam Justice J. L. Clendening did not make an

Order, nor has there been an request for an Order submitted by the Defendants

therefore before the Honorable Court which could have (if granted) waived theobligation of the Defendants to have served the Affidavit of Defendant Betty

Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010.

5. I, Appellant Andr Murray am requesting an Order under:

Rule 62.24 Failure to Comply with Rule,

specifically 62.24(1)(c) of the Rules of Court for an Order against theRespondent awarding the Appellant costs of the within Motion and the

costs of the Appeal forthwith, Consequences of the Respondents

dilatory non-compliance with Rule 62.20 Filing and Service ofRespondents Submission specifically Rule 62.20 (b), dilatory Filing and

Service of Respondents Submission. Rule 62.20, and in this particular matter, being heard before the

Honorable Court of Appeal, the Respondent was required to serve,

upon the Appellant, a copy of the Respondents Submission, accordingto the Rules of Court, no later than the 20th of October, 2011.

Rule 62.20, and in a particular matter, being heard previously, beforethe Honorable Court of Appeal, the Respondent was required to serve,

upon the Appellant, a copy of the Respondents Submission, accordingto the Rules of Court, no later than the 20th of October, 2010.

Appellant Andr Murray if permitted by this Honorable Court of Appeal

has compiled a demonstrable history of non compliance with the Rules ofCourt by the Solicitor for the Respondent. Furthermore, the Solicitor for

the Respondent has not adhered to Code of Professional Conductguidelines therefore as found established within The Law Society of New

Brunswicks, CHAPTER 15 Section 2 (iii), 2 (v), 2 (vii) and Section 4,


3/31

3

consequently the Appellant requests the court to consider this, when ruling

as to costs of the within Motion and the costs of the herewithin Appeal.

6. Appellant Andr Murray was Process Served Court Documents by

registered Mail, a copy of the Respondents Appeal Book on October 21, 2011.

According to the Rules of Court 3.01 (d) Computation of time, October 21, 2011,is a day past the prescribed time limits according to Rule 62.20 (b) Filing and

Service of Respondents Submission. The Respondents Appeal Book was not

available for pick up from the Canada Post Outlet October 21, 2011, until4:31pm or 16:31, as indicated on the Canada Post tracking status track history.

It was not physically possible for Appellant Andr Murray to pick up the

package from the Canada Post outlet, in time to be served. Appellant Andr

Murray has provided the Canada Post tracking status track history for the

package containing the Respondents Appeal Book, tracking numberRW593170269CA, a print out is attached hereto and Marked EXHIBIT AA.

7. I, Appellant Andr Murray did indicate to the Respondent in my very first

e-mail correspondence to Solicitor Thomas Christie on Mon, June 7, 2010, that

I Andr Murray would only be able to properly, accept Service according tothe Rules of Court. Moreover, Rules of Court do not provide for Process

Service of Court Documents upon a non Solicitor by e-mail.

8. At the date of filling this Affidavit, I, Appellant Andr Murray verilybelieve the Respondent has not yet served upon the Appellant a Certificate of

Respondent (Form 62G).

9. As of the filling date of this Affidavit, Appellant Andr Murray verily

believes the Respondent has not yet Process Served according to Rules of

Court, therefore, served upon the Appellant the Respondents Appeal Book.

10. I, Appellant Andr Murray believe, the Defendant did not serve the

subject Affidavit of Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010, as isrequired by the Rules of Court 39.01 and 39.04 not before either of the two

subject lower /Court hearings: June 10, 2010 (Madam Justice Garnett) or

February 14, 2011 (Madam Justice J. L. Clendening) furthermore, did not

request that the Court of first instance overlook this glaring irregularity inprocessing Court Document Service, so that the Learned Trial Judge would

properly consider subject Affidavit.


4/31

4

11. The following facts were all submitted to Madam Justice J. L. Clendening

through Plaintiffs Submission Book 2, for the Honorable Courts attention and

consideration thereof, during the February 14, 2011 Court Hearing andcomprised 30 pages of submission enforced by evidence in the Record.

12. I, Appellant Andr Murray believe, in Matters of or regarding nonadherence to the Rules of Court, as it pertains to Court File Number: FC 104

09, Andr Murray v. Betty Rose Danielski, the Defendant Betty Rose

Danieslki (Respondent in this matter) likewise, her Solicitor appear to share astrong and continued inclination to indulge in dilatory practices, of a

dysfunctional nature, seriously deserving of sanction by this Honorable Court.

Appellant Andr Murray alleges that Betty Rose Danielski (Respondent in this

matter) has evaded Service attempts by not responding to the Appellants

(Plaintiff in that matter) attempts at Service, to the last know place of residenceof the Defendant, Betty Rose Danielski, (Respondent in this matter) in Toronto

Ontario, according to Rules of Court 27.03, Service of Pleadings and pursuantto Rules of Court, 18.03. Please note: Appellant Andr Murray (Plaintiff in that

matter) was forced to commission a professional process server, as all other

means of service had been exhausted, further, as it became evident to (Plaintiffin that matter) now Appellant Andr Murray, that, Betty Rose Danielski was

avoiding service. Andr Murray attempted to effect Personal Service, Service

by Prepaid Mail or Prepaid Courier, of correspondence containing the

following relative Court Documents

1.

Copy of a Claim for Lien Dated April 16, 2009;

2. Copy of a Certificate of Pending Litigation Dated April 21, 2009;

3. Copy of a Notice of Action (Form 16 B) Dated April 21, 2009;

4. Copy of a Statement of Claim (Form 16 C) Dated May 20, 2009;

5. Copy of a Amended Statement of Claim (Form 16 C) Dated Aug

21, 2009;

13.

The, as mentioned above, unsuccessful Service attempts, caused theAppellant to necessarily acquire the services of Canadian Process Servers Inc.

(a professional process service company based in Toronto, Ontario) According

to the Rules of Court the here within listed below Service, was successfulOctober 19, 2009 as evidenced by Copy of a Affidavit of Service by Process


5/31

5

Server George Mallai Dated, November 9th, 2009 including the following

documents:

1. Copy of a Claim for Lien Dated April 16, 2009

2. Copy of a Certificate of Pending Litigation Dated April 21, 2009

3. Copy of a Notice of Action (Form 16 B) Dated April 21, 2009

4. Copy of a Statement of Claim (Form 16 C) Dated May 20, 2009.

5. Copy of a Amended Statement of Claim (Form 16 C) Dated Aug 21,

2009

14. I Appellant Andr Murray, believe it is significant and noteworthy that

reports from the Canadian Process Servers Inc, indicated unsuccessful serviceattempts. The process server George Mallai was of the opinion that Betty Rose

Danielski was in deed avoiding Court Document Service. Consequently,

further expense was incurred by Plaintiff in that matter Andr Murray(Appellant in this matter) as multiple return visits where required by process

server George Mallai of Canadian Process Servers Inc to Betty Rose

Danielskis Residence and place of employment. Noteworthy is that the

successful Service of Court Documents upon Betty Rose Danielski by ProcessServer George Mallai caused subsequent attempts and revealed a significant

change in apparent attitude of Betty Rose Danielski, as evidenced bycontingency Service attempts, sent UPS registered Mail, by Plaintiff nowAppellant Andr Murray to two different locations, additional copies of the

above referenced documents, one set to the Defendant Betty Rose Danielskis

residence was for the first time accepted, claimed and signed for by Betty RoseDanieslki, after the above mentioned successful in person service Process

Server George Mallai and a second set which (always rejected before) was

finally claimed and signed for which was sent to Fudger House, the place ofwork of the Defendant Betty Rose Danielski.

15. I, Plaintiff Andr Murray, subsequent to service of the here within above

listed Court documents served upon Defendant in that matter Betty RoseDanielski, did not receive service of the Defendants Notice of Intent to Defend,

or Demand for Particulars, at any time. I did not receive a phone call, email,

regular post mail or registered mail regarding the here within subject. I,Plaintiff Andr Murray, am unaware of any in attempt of personal Service


6/31

6

upon myself and or registered mail attempts by the Defendant (Respondent in

this matter) of the above mentioned Defendants Notice of Intent to Defend, or

Demand for Particulars.

16. I, Plaintiff Andr Murray, for the first time became aware of Defendant

Betty Rose Danielski having retained Legal services of Solicitor ThomasChristie, not before the Plaintiff Andr Murray (Appellant in this matter)

Searched the Court File (Court File Number: F/C/104/09) in preparation for

filing and serving of the Plaintiffs Motion for Orders granting therefore, aContinuance of the Plaintiffs Mechanics Lien Action, caused as the Plaintiff

Andr Murray does believe by the Solicitor for Royal Bank of Canada

working together with the Respondent in this matter contriving to deny

Defendant Andr Murrays many requests therefore not grant access to 29

Marshall Street, Fredericton, so that substantive material essential to Discoveryas is desirable when seeking remedy, these subject documents could not be

retrieved by the Plaintiff, without consent by the Landlord Defendant BettyRose Danielski and or R.B.C. mortgagee which subject documents were

essential and indispensably necessary to move the (Court File Number:

F/C/104/09) Mechanics Lien Action along to DISCOVERY.

17. I, Plaintiff Andr Murray, on the 20th day of April, 2010, served Solicitor

E. Thomas Christie, for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI, with Court

File Number: F/C/104/09 a Notice of Motion and supporting Affidavit bysending a electronic facsimile of the documents accompanied by a cover page

by telephone transmission to Fax: (506) 472 2091 of CHRISTIE LAWOFFICE, solicitor for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI.

18. The affidavit in support of the herewithin above mentioned Motion,

detailed the reasons for any perceived delay of the Discovery process pursuantto the Mechanics Lien Act, prohibiting the forward movement of the subject

action, thus far, and the reasons necessitating a requested Order for a

Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action. Please note: The Plaintiff neverreceived any reply, whatsoever, from the solicitor for the

Respondent/Defendant. The Plaintiff Andr Murray never received a reply by

phone, email, regular post letter, registered mail, or any other form of

communication from the Defendant (Respondent in this matter) of theherewithin subject matter of requesting consent therefore, to a Continuance of

the Mechanics Lien Action.


7/31

7

19. The Plaintiff, on the 31st day of May, 2010 served Solicitor E. Thomas

Christie, for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI, with the Amended

Notice of Motion and supporting Affidavit 2 by sending a facsimile of thedocuments accompanied by a cover page by telephone transmission to Fax:

(506) 472 2091 of CHRISTIE LAW OFFICE.


Christie for Defendant, with the Plaintiffs letter to the Defendant Dated May

31, 2010, requesting Consent to a Continuance of a NOTICE of ACTIONrelative to the subject Mechanics Lien, by sending a facsimile of the

documents accompanied by a cover page by telephone transmission to Fax:

(506) 472 2091 of CHRISTIE LAW OFFICE, agents for Defendant BETTY

ROSE DANIELSKI (Respondent in this matter).


Christie for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI, with Plaintiff AndrMurrays letter to the Defendant requesting Documents pursuant to the

Mechanics' Lien Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-6, section 32(1), Dated May 31,

2010, by sending a facsimile of the documents accompanied by a cover pageby telephone transmission to Fax: (506) 472 2091 of CHRISTIE LAW

OFFICE, solicitor for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI.

22. No response was received to the above mentioned three separatefacsimiles, sent the 31st day of May, 2010, by the Plaintiff furthermore, never

received a reply by phone, email, regular post letter, registered mail letter orother wise any form of communication know to the Plaintiff.

23. Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM was the first time I Plaintiff Andr Murray

received an e-mail from Solicitor Thomas Christie. The above mentioned Jun4, 2010 e-mail is attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT BB

24. I Plaintiff Andr Murray replied to the above mentioned emailcorrespondence of Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, from Solicitor Thomas

Christie on date Mon, Jun 7, 2010, by e-mail including two e-mails detailing

the issues that I was concerned with, as follows:

In response to your request contained there in, I must respond, that, todate, I have never received any documents from your office

whatsoever.


8/31

8

Notice: I have a problem with my neighbor, whom is for some

unexplainable reason, of the habit, that he must cause me to not receive

my Canada Post Mail.Furthermore, I have documented evidence of this same neighbor

intercepting courier delivery of my correspondence ultimately causing

it to never arrive and subsequently refusing to surrender same.

In light of the following, I kindly request that all correspondence which

must be sent to me, and is required service according to the Rules ofCourt, further, that it be sent by Registered Mail only.

Furthermore, kindly provide the tracking number to me directly by

email that I may intercept the delivery of same.

Obviously this, in light of the following circumstances, will expedite

matters.

25. Further to the herewithin above point found in Paragraph 24, within thesame two above mentioned letters, the Plaintiff Andr Murray requested of the

Solicitor Thomas Christie for the Defendant, confirmation that the recently

faxed documents had been received successfully as follows:

Question: Please confirm that you received my faxed documents sent

05/31/2010 03:07 PM which included 40 pages, consisting of Amended

Notice of Motion dated 31st day of May, 2010 and supporting Affidavit2 Dated 31st day of May, 2010

Also; Please confirm that you received my faxed documents sent05/31/2010 03:17 PM which included a correspondence Letter of

inquiry regarding Court File Number F/C/104/09 and request of your

Client Defendant Betty Rose Danielski and her cooperation byconsenting to a Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action pursuant to

section 52.1 (1) (b) of the Mechanics Lien Act.

Also; Please confirm that you received my faxed documents sent

05/31/2010 03:14 PM which included a correspondence Letter

regarding Lienholders Right to Information Mechanics Lien Act,

R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M_6

Kindly respond to all of the above at your earliest convenience.

Nothing more implied .


9/31

9

I trust you find the following agreeable.

26. The here within above mentioned Paragraphs 24 and 25 consisting of twoJun 7, 2010 e-mails sent to Solicitor for the Defendant (Respondent in this

matter) never to my knowledge received a reply, furthermore the above

mentioned two Jun 7, 2010 e-mails are attached hereto and marked EXHIBITCC

27. I, Appellant Andr Murray, received a series of e-mails and replied inkind, from July 19 to July 22, 2010. The essence of the e-mails received from

Solicitor Thomas Christie initially insisted that his client the Respondent must

be provided with a copy of the Transcript from the June 10, 2010 Hearing. The

following position of Thomas Christie was contrary to normal practice, as

confirmed by and according to Court Client Services at Court of Appeal, alsothe Court reporter insisted that this behavior of Thomas Christie was incorrect

behavior, furthermore that proper conduct would have been that ThomasChristie himself should commission a certified copy from the Court reporter at

his own expense and should not be bothering Andr Murray with such matters.

Furthermore,, Appellant Andr Murray, was told by Solicitor Thomas Christiethat Andr Murray must serve any Amended pleading upon Thomas Christie at

a date earlier than the Rules of Court dictate because of his Solicitor Thomas

Christies previously scheduled vacation.

28. A copy, of the July 19, to July 22, 2010, e-mails are attached hereto and

marked EXHIBIT DD

29. I, Appellant Andr Murray, in a series of e-mails of September 2, 2010,

out of courtesy attempted to bring attention to a Fax sent the same day as

follows:

As you are aware of my facsimile of this same day .... thought I

would take this opportunity, regarding Certificate of Readiness'(FORM62HH) To which Solicitor Thomas Christie did not confirm

receiving the same Fax.

Further in the same e-mail the Plaintiff Andr Murray requested to beprovided with the estimated time Solicitor Thomas Christie required for the

Respondents presentation to the Court of Appeal as follow:


10/31

10

Dear sir ... we must confer, as to the estimated time required, that,

which shall be scheduled, with the Court of Appeal, as is provided for,

within a 'Certificate of Readiness'.

30. Furthermore, in a follow up email 9 minutes after sending the first

September 2, 2010 email to Solicitor Thomas Christie the Appellant asked thequestion of the Respondent as follows:

Hello Thomas Christie, Please explain as to why, to date, all of thedocuments submitted, on behalf of Betty Rose Danielski and coming

from your office have the Betty underlined!?

31. The Solicitor Thomas Christie for the Respondent delayed 5 days, and

finally on September 7, 2010 the Appellants September 2, 2010 e-mail wasreplied to, but not the other e-mail (sent same day) concerning the very

peculiar underlined portion of name Betty Rose Danielski. The Appellantagain resent the e-mail concerning the very peculiar underlined name of the

Respondent Betty Rose Danielski. No e-mail has ever been returned to the

Appellant in this regard.

32. A copy, of the September 2, 2010, to September 7, 2010, e-mails are

attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT EE

33. The Appellant was never served with any affidavit of Betty Rose

Danielski, prior to the June 10, 2010, Court of Queens Bench hearing and wasnot given the opportunity to protest the reference to or inclusion of such adocument at the subject June 10, 2010 Hearing before the learned Trial Judge

hearing said Matter.

34. Subsequently, the Appellant provided the Respondent, in a timely manner,

with the appropriate list of intended documents to be used at the hearing of the

Court of Appeal, furthermore, the list evidently was not to the satisfaction ofthe Solicitor for the Respondent as he protested the absence of a Affidavit of

Betty Rose Danielski. The Solicitor for the Respondent did pressure the staff of

the Court of Appeal to insist that the Appellant must include a Affidavit of

Betty Rose Danielski in the Appeal Book. When the Appellant responsiblytherefore, further investigated the matter, it was found that the inclusion of any

material for the appeal was to the discretion of the Appellant, and not in fact

not necessary to satisfy the Respondent as was insisted by solicitor ThomasChristie for the Defendant/Respondent.


11/31

11

35. The Solicitor for the Respondent did not perform proper Court Document

Process Service upon the Appellant, therefore, requiring service of a copy ofthe Respondents Submission upon the Appellant within prescribed Rules of

Court with consideration for time limits, as in this case October 20, 2010. The

Solicitor for the Respondent had been placed on NOTICE with respect toproper service by email; Mon, Jun 7, 2010, please see EXHIBIT CC

quoted below:

In light of the following, I kindly request that all correspondence

which must be sent to me, and is required service according to the

Rules of Court, further, that it be sent by Registered Mail only.

Furthermore, kindly provide the tracking number to me directly by

email that I may intercept the delivery of same.Obviously this, in light of the following circumstances, will expedite

matters.

36. Despite the here within above Jun 7, 2010, notice, the Appellant was not

served October 20, 2010, with the Respondents Submission. Therefore, at2:00 PM on October 20, 2010, I Andr Murray telephone called Client

Services of the Court of Appeal, enquiring after the Respondents Submission.

I Andr Murray was told that the Respondents Submission had not yet been

filed.

37.

October 20, 2010, I Andr Murray telephoned the Office of the Solicitorfor the Respondent, several times, but was unsuccessful at reaching theSolicitor for the Respondent.

38. On Thursday, October 21, 2010, I Andr Murray again telephoned theOffice of the Thomas Christie, Solicitor for the Respondent, several times, but

was unsuccessful at reaching the Solicitor for the Respondent.

39. October 22, 2010, I Andr Murray retrieved a telephone message from

Court of Appeal Client Services, the message conveyed that Thomas Christie

Solicitor for the Respondent had indeed filed a Respondents Submission,

approximately 4 pm October 20, 2010, and claimed to have e-mailed a copy ofthe document to the Appellant, although, the Registrar Micheal Bray

confirmed that the Service by email was not in fact considered Service on a

non solicitor according to the Rules of Court.


12/31

12

40. On Friday, October 22, 2010, at approximately 8:30 AM, I Andr Murray

telephoned the Office of the Solicitor for the Respondent, and did reach

Solicitor Thomas Christie for the Respondent. I Andr Murray at that time,verbalized my concerns, that I had not yet received a copy of the Respondents

Submission, furthermore, confirmed with Solicitor Thomas Christie that I must

be served according to the Rules of Court. The Solicitor for the Respondentreplied that my request was not able to be granted as he (Respondents

Solicitor) was currently preparing to leave Fredericton for destination

Woodstock. Furthermore, that I Andr Murray should attend his Office Mailbox on Monday (3 days later) at which time the Respondents Submission

would be available. The Respondents Solicitor Thomas Christie protested that,

I Andr Murray should not be content to wait until Monday. Again, Solicitor

Thomas Christie offered to leave a copy in the mail box of his office on

Monday for me to pick up. I stated that, the mail box offer would not sufficeand wished to have a copy sent to me right-way, and I Andr Murray

suggested, offering, that local couriers could accomplish the Document ProcessService job that very same day as it was still early morning . Courier Service

was rejected and instead, I was offered Service by facsimile or e-mail of the

document. I informed the Solicitor for the Respondent that e-mail andfacsimile is not considered service, upon a non solicitor, according to the rules

of Court. Thomas Christie persisted inquiring if my e-mail address was the

same as the court document indicated. Which, I indicated that I did not wish a

copy sent by email because that is not considered service according to theRules of Court. However, I was told by Solicitor Thomas Christie confirming

for that purpose, that a copy was and or would be sent by e-mail as a courtesyand would not be considered service. I stated, that I wanted to be served wasby registered mail and was told the document would be mailed but not given a

time frame by which that would happen, then Solicitor for the Respondent,

quickly ended the conversation, stating that other matters where pressing.

41. On October 22, 2010, immediately, following a telephone conversation

with the Solicitor for the Respondent I Andr Murray corresponded byelectronic facsimile a letter to the Solicitor for the Respondent, confirming my

position, further, my requirements regarding the matter of Court Document

Service upon myself.

42. A copy, of the October 22, 2010, the here within above mentioned

facsimile correspondence letter to the Office of the Solicitor for the

Respondent is attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT FF


13/31

13

43. On Monday, October 25, 2010 I Andr Murray, received an envelope in

my mail box, which had the return address of the Office of the Solicitor for the

Respondent, the contents of the envelope was the Respondents Submission.The contents of the envelop was lacking a Acknowledgement of Receipt Card

and acquisition of the envelope required no signature, contrary to the Rules of

Court 18.03 and despite the request, as mentioned earlier here within above,made to the Solicitor for the Respondent, who was placed on notice Mon, Jun

7, 2010, by email, please see EXHIBIT CC. The Appellant offers that the

Respondents Submission document was received by the Appellant 5 days late,according to the rules of court, and still had not been properly served according

to the rules of Court. A copy of the subject envelope is attached hereto and

marked EXHIBIT GG

44.

This affidavit is made in support of a NOTICE OF MOTION, requestingOrders inter alia, that the Affidavit of Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated

June 3, 2010 and any attachments, thereto, be struck out and or not consideredby this Court; furthermore, consequently in light of the following the Appellant

requests a ruling on costs as filed by Appellant Andr Murray.

SWORN TO AT THE City ofFredericton, In the County ofYork and Province of NewBrunswick this _________dayof __________ 2011.

BEFORE ME:

_______________________A NOTARY PUBLIC or

COMMISSIONER OF OATHS

PROVINCE OF NEWBRUNSWICK

)))))

)))))))))

_________________Andr Murray


14/31

14


15/31

15

EXHIBIT


16/31

16

EXHIBIT

from Christie Law Office [email protected]

te Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM

bject danielski motion affidavit.pdfailed_by nb.aibn.com

r. Murray,

ould you please email me back that you have received the documents in the

ove pdf file?

ank you.

m Christie

Thomas Christie, Q.C.

ristie Law Office

ite 306, 212 Queen Streetedericton, NB

B 1A8

l.: 506_472_2090x: 506_472_2091

mail: [email protected]

nielski motion affidavit.pdf danielski motion affidavit.pdf

7K View Download


17/31

17

EXHIBIT

m Andre Murray

[email protected] Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:48 PM

bject Your confirmation please

ailed_by gmail.com

de details Jun 7

Hello Tom Christie,

is is my courteous acknowledgment of your email sent, end of the working day and dated Friday Ju2010.

have opened and perused your correspondence only today Monday June 7, 2010.

n response to your request contained there in, I must respond, that, to date, I have never received anocuments from your office whatsoever.

Notice: I have a problem with my neighbor, whom is for some unexplainable reason, of the habit, thaust cause me to not receive my Canada Post Mail.urthermore, I have documented evidence of this same neighbor intercepting courier delivery of myrrespondence ultimately causing it to never arrive and subsequently refusing to surrender same.

n light of the following, I kindly request that all correspondence which must be sent to me, and isquired service according to the Rules of Court, further, that it be sent by Registered Mail only.urthermore, kindly provide the tracking number to me directly by email that I may intercept the delif same.bviously this, in light of the following circumstances, will expedite matters.

uestion: Please confirm that you received my faxed documents sent 05/31/2010 03:07 PM whichcluded 40 pages, consisting of Amended Notice of Motion dated 31st day of May, 2010 and suppoffidavit 2 Dated 31st day of May, 2010

lso; Please confirm that you received my faxed documents sent 05/31/2010 03:17 PM which includrrespondence Letter of inquiry regarding Court File Number F/C/104/09 and request of your Clienefendant Betty Rose Danielski and her cooperation by consenting to a Continuance of the Mechanien Action pursuant to section 52.1 (1) (b) of the Mechanics Lien Act.

lso; Please confirm that you received my faxed documents sent 05/31/2010 03:14 PM which includ


18/31

18

rrespondence Letter regarding Lienholders Right to Information Mechanics Lien Act, R.S.N.B. 19M-6

indly respond to all of the above at your earliest convenience.Nothing more implied .

trust you find the following agreeable.

Wishing you and your office, the very best this day.

ncerelyndithout malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity

Andre Murray

m Andre Murray

[email protected] Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:53 PM

bject Re: Your confirmation please

ailed_by gmail.com

de details Jun 7

Hello Tom Christie,

urther to and in addition to my earlier correspondence kindly confirm that you received my Faxrrespondence sent 04/20/2010 03:54 PM consisting of 14 pages of the Notice of Motion andpporting Affidavit.


Andre Murray

Show quoted text _

ndre Murray


19/31

19

EXHIBIT

from [email protected]_to [email protected]

[email protected],

m Christie te Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:27 PM

ailed_by srs.bis.na.blackberry.com

de details Jul 19

r. Murray, if you intend to rely on the transcript of the earlier hearing then you will need to provide me a copy of it e

its own or as part of an affidavit.ease get it to me this week as my office will be closed after Friday for two weeks.

anks

m Christie

nt from my BlackBerry wireless device

m Andre Murray [email protected]

te Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:12 PM

bject Re:ailed_by gmail.com

de details Jul 19

Hello Thomas Christie,

ood to hear from you.

lease consider me advised, that you will be closing your office .... I wish you a happy holiday.

lso, kindly never address me as Mr. as I do not recognize this term, as it is addressing a 'person' thahich, I consider myself not.

am a man, not a person as defined by law, my name is Andre. Thank you Thomas for your consideran the herein before mentioned 'Mr.' matter.

Note: Fax correspondence sent to your office on or about May 31, 2010 please see Court of Queen'sench AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE (FORM 18B) filed Court of Queen's Bench May 31, 2010.urthermore your office has not replied.


20/31

20

ncerely Andre MurrayShow quoted text _

ndre Murray

m Andre Murray

[email protected] Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:27 AMbject Re:

ailed_by gmail.com

de details Jul 21

Hello Thomas Christie,urther to your e-mail of date Mon July 19, 2010

lease confirm that according to rules of Court furthermore, that if I intend to use transcripts I amligated to provide a certified copy to you.

have spoken with a Court reporter as a result of your inquires and was advised by same that I mayrovide you a copy as they are copy righted

indly confirm is this true?

ncerely Andre Murray

Show quoted text _

ndre Murray

m Christie Law Office Andre Murray

te Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:05 AMbject RE:

ailed_by nb.aibn.com

de details Jul 21

ur position will be that if you plan to refer to any transcript, then you will have to make it an exhibit to an affidavit ours and file and serve it on me. Otherwise, our position will be that you will be prohibited from referring to any port

the transcript.


21/31

21

urthermore, this will confirm I am in receipt of your Motion and what appears to be a supporting affidavit of yours dne 17th. Feel free to add this email string to your Record on Motion as my acknowledgement of service.

m


ristie Law Office

ite 306, 212 Queen Street

edericton, NB

B 1A8

l.: 506_472_2090

x: 506_472_2091


om: Andre Murray [mailto:[email protected]]

nt: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:27 AM

: [email protected]: Re:

Show quoted text _

om Andre Murray Christie Law Office

te Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:15 PMbject Re:

ailed_by gmail.com

de details Jul 21


he unfortunate position you are taking regarding your demand that I must provide you with a copyanscript is contrary to practice at COURT APPEAL.

lease be advised that I have contacted the registrar of COURT OF APPEAL 'Dominique'.onsequentially, in view of the facts and certain legal positions I am obliged, to agree with otheruthorities.


22/31

22

must respectfully decline your demand, unless you can otherwise demonstrate my obligation.

indly advise your position on this matter at your earliest convenience.

hanking you in advance.

Sincerely Andre Murray_ Show quoted text _

ndre Murray


Andre Murray ,m Christie

te Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:43 PM

bject Re:ailed_by srs.bis.na.blackberry.com

de details Jul 21

be clear, any document, including any transcript you might rely on must be properly filed with the court and served

e. If during the hearing you refer to any document or evidence that is not properly before the Court I will be objectin

m


om: Andre Murray

te: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:15:45 _0300: Christie Law Office

Show quoted text _

from Andre Murray [email protected]

te Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:41 PM

bject Re:ailed_by gmail.com

de details Jul 22


23/31

23


s you have indicated that it will be necessary for you to close your law office for two weeksmmediately prior to the COURT OF APPEAL hearing for 'Leave to Appeal; scheduled August 10, 2

lease be advised that a Amendment to the Motion, is currently being prepared and I will require thau accept and or not avoid service of same.

lease advise me, in your absence, as to where, and or with whom, should I leave the Amended Motihich is currently being crafted and expected to be ready for service before the last week of July, 201

our position on this matter at your earliest convenience. Please

hanking you in advance.

Sincerely Andre Murrayincerely Andre Murray

Show quoted text _

ndre Murray


Andre Murray ,

m Christie

te Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:39 PMbject Re:

ailed_by srs.bis.na.blackberry.com

de details Jul 22

ave you advance warning of my office closure anticipating that you may have some plan to alter your approach. Th

ll be someone at my office until noon tomorrow (Fri. 23rd July). After that there will be no one available and authoaccept service. You had better plan to deal with that issue when we begin the hearing as I will be objecting to any

mendment.

m


om: Andre Murray

te: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:41:20 _0300

Show quoted text _


24/31

24

EXHIBIT

from Andre Murray Christie Law Office

te Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:00 PMbject Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH)

ailed_by gmail.com

de details Sep 2


s you are aware of my facsimile of this same day thought I wouldke this opportunity, regarding Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH)

ear sir ... we must confer, as to the estimated time required, that, which shall be scheduled, with theourt of Appeal, as is provided for, within a 'Certificate of Readiness' .

This is my courteous letter of consideration, I expect a reply to this matter at your earliest convenien

Thank you in advance and wish you a good day.


Andre Murray

m Andre Murray

Christie Law Office

te Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:09 PMbject Re: Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH)

ailed_by gmail.com

de details Sep 2

Hello Thomas Christie,lease explain as to why, to date, all of the documentsbmitted, on behalf of Betty Rose Danielski and coming from your office have the Betty underlined


25/31

25


Andre Murray

Show quoted text _

ndre Murray

m Christie Law Office

Andre Murray te Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:26 AM

bject RE: Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH)ailed_by nb.aibn.com

de details Sep 7

y experience is that matters such as this are usually scheduled for a half day, but there is no way of telling how long

nk you will need. I dont expect that my argument will be more than to 1 hour in length.

ope this helps.

m


ristie Law Office

ite 306, 212 Queen Street

edericton, NB

B 1A8

l.: 506_472_2090

x: 506_472_2091



26/31

26

om: Andre Murray [mailto:[email protected]]nt: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:01 PM

: Christie Law Office

bject: Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH)

Show quoted text _

m Andre Murray Christie Law Office

te Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM

bject Re: Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH)ailed_by gmail.com

de details Sep 7


lease explain as to why, to date, all of the documentsbmitted, on behalf of Betty Rose Danielski and coming from your office have the Betty underlined


Andre Murray

Show quoted text _

ndre Murray


27/31

27

EXHIBIT


28/31

28


29/31

29

EXHIBIT


30/31

30


31/31