justicedonedirtcheap@gmail.com

Welcome to Court of Appeal of New Brunswick





Representations of the Lady of Justice in the Western tradition occur in many places and at many times. She sometimes wears a blindfold, more so in Europe, but more often she appears without one. She usually carries a sword and scales. Almost always draped in flowing robes, mature but not old, no longer commonly known as Themis, she symbolizes the fair and equal administration of the law, without corruption, avarice, prejudice, or favor.


CLICK ON HEREIN BELOW PROVIDED: LAW SCHOOL BOOK IMAGES, SIMPLY SELECT THE SUBJECT OF YOUR INTEREST AND ENTER OUR HUMBLE LAW LIBRARY; THIS IS A CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF OUR MERITORIOUSLY RESEARCHED TORT LAW (TO REDRESS A WRONG DONE) THEN LISTED A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES OF OUR CONTRIBUTING SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANT'S, CONCERNING:
the study, theory and practice of litigation
as it relates to The Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Provincial Court and The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick; Filing, and Procedure, in general.















       Please find - here below - this Link: My Brief Story - Introduction: Welcome, this is a 'Justice' Blog intended to benefit all;   'Self Represented Litigants'.


=================================================================================================

2013 New Year's Resolution:
To however, cause the Judiciary of New Brunswick to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Reason being, that, the Charter is applicable in New Brunswick, just as all provinces are bound by the Constitution.
Despite the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, it was not until 1985, that, the main provisions regarding equality rights (section 15) came into effect. The delay was meant to give the federal and provincial governments an opportunity to review per-existing statutes and strike potentially unconstitutional inequalities.

=================================================================================================

NOTICE: above provided image is a link to the 'RANT' area of contributing Self Represented Litigants
========================================
=========================================================


NOTICE: above provided image is a link to the 'Public Forum regarding our legal and judicial system


NOTICE: above provided image is a link to the 'RANT' area of contributing Self Represented Litigants

Quick Link Back to Justice Done Dirt Cheap Front Page
Quick Link to Search main INDEX of 'My Files' Court of Appeal of New Brunswick Documents
Quick Link to Front Page Court of Appeal of New Brunswick

Monday, December 03, 2012

Madam Justice Kathleen Quigg married to Clerk of Court of Queens Bench, Fredericton Craig Carleton: Conflict of public interest!? - brought to JDDC's attention by anonymous post found herewithin Court of Appeal Section


The Honourable Madam Justice Kathleen Quigg
Madam Justice Kathleen A. Quigg, B.A., LL.B. Born in North Bay, Ontario. Daughter of Ann (Clinch) Quigg and Frank Quigg. Educated at the University of New Brunswick (B.A. - 1986, LL.B. - 1989). Married to Craig Carleton. They are the parents of three children. Called to the New Brunswick Bar in 1989. Joined Robichaud, Godin, Williamson, Theriault and Johnstone in Bathurst in 1989 where she practiced law for 17 years. Appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Division, November 22, 2006.Sat in Family Division in Saint John New Brunswick until her appointment to the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick on March 3, 2008. Served on the Canadian Bar Association Council of New Brunswick for 8 years and became President in 2005. Justice Quigg represented the Province of New Brunswick on the National Board of Directors of the Canadian Bar Association and was Vice-President, nationally, of the Woman Lawyer’s Forum of the Canadian Bar Association. Her Law Society involvement included serving as a member of the Bar Admission Course Committee and the Insurance Management Committee. She also served as a representative for Gloucester County  on the  Law Society Council .Justice Quigg is a former Vice-Chair of the New Brunswick Labour and Employment Board and sat on the New Brunswick Insurance Board.


Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Procedure - Standard of review of discretionary decisions





In Beaverbrook Canadian Foundation v. Beaverbrook Art Gallery 2006 NBCA 75 (CanLII), (2006), 302 N.B.R. (2d) 161, [2006] N.B.J. No. 307 (QL), 2006 NBCA 75, at para. 4, Drapeau C.J.N.B. addressed the standard of review of discretionary decisions in terms that are equally applicable to the present case:

Like any other discretionary judicial decision, it may be interfered with on appeal only if it is founded upon an error of law, an error in the application of the governing principles or a palpable and overriding error in the assessment of the evidence (see British Columbia (Minister of Forests) v. Okanagan Indian Band, 2003 SCC 71 (CanLII), [2003] 3 S.C.R. 371, 2003 SCC 71 at para. 43) or if it is unreasonable, in the sense that nothing in the record can justify it (see the Honourable R.P. Kerans, Standards of Review Employed by Appellate Courts (Edmonton: Juriliber Limited, 1994) at pp. 36-37 and Secretary of State for Education and Science v. Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council, [1977] A.C. 1014 (H.L.) Lord Diplock at p. 1064)

Friday, October 12, 2012

72.12.CA September 28.12 Response to Status Report





Hello Mr. Michael J. Bray, Q.C.,

RE: File Number 72-12-CA ANDRE MURRAY v. THE CITY OF FREDERICTON and others,
                                                       

  I did receive September 25, 2012  Service of a REQUEST FOR STATUS REPORT (FORM 62J) signed by Dominique Harvey, Deputy Registrar Dated September 24, 2012. 

As you Michael J. Bray are Registrar of Court of Appeal I will inform you that Madame Justice Judy L. Clendening sitting at the Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division, Fredericton New Brunswick on the 10th, day of September 2012, did render a Oral decision which, inter alia,  Stayed the Action Court File FC/45/11 (same Court of Queens Bench File corresponding with Court of Appeal File 72-12-CA)  further outrageously unfair/unjust orders of Madame Justice Judy L. Clendening are such that I have been Ordered to pay $5000 as an surety in the event that I fail to receive a favorable decision from Court of Appeal possible costs occurring should I lose my Appeal.

Furthermore Justice Judy L. Clendening Ordered that should I fail to pay this $5000 surety as a consequence Andre Murray as Plaintiff will be deemed to have abandoned the Appeal corresponding with Appeal Court file number 72-12-CA, unless $5000 is deposited with the Clerk of the Court of Queen’s Bench, by September 30, 2012.

NOTICE: I consider this subject decision impugned, unfair/unjust; consequentially, I will be filing an appeal to overturn the subject September 10, 2012 decision and outrageously unfair/unjust conditions, so that I may move forward with Court of Appeal File 72-12-CA and have this subject Appeal heard on its merits.    


Attached hereto is the subject impugned decision of Madame Justice Judy L. Clendening sitting at the Court of Queen’s Bench, Trial Division, Fredericton New Brunswick on the 10th, day of September 2012 most notably continuing to insist the she preside over my matters despite my objections of her has a preliminary matter having just refused to hear a Motion to Recuse herself. 

In the mean time I wish you a fabulous weekend.

 Sincerely and without malice, aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity.

_____________________
André  Murray


Please see Scanned copy of:

October 5, 2012 cover letter to the Registrar. 

 http://www.scribd.com/doc/109816507/72-12-CA-Oct-5-12-Cover-Lett-Response-to-Status-Report

72.12.CA September 28.12 Response to Status Report


http://www.scribd.com/doc/109821098/72-12-CA-Sep-28-12-Response-to-Status-Report


May 11.12 4 FC-45-11 Motions Decision

http://www.scribd.com/doc/109820311/May-11-12-4-FC-45-11-Motions-Decision

Wednesday, October 03, 2012

Request for Status Report FORM 62J from the Court of Appeal



If, you are a Self Represented Litigant, in New Brunswick, Canada, however, once you file your Notice of intent to Appeal the time clock begins to count down the days, consequentially,  if you required more time than is allowed, (according to Rules of Court - 4 Months) for the preparation of your final documents to be ready for submission, you will likely receive correspondence from Michael Bray office,  who is the Registrar for the The New Brunswick Court of Appeal:


Request for Status Report FORM 62J from the Court of Appeal regarding 72-12-CA:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/108857807/72-12-CA-September-24-2012-Request-for-Status-Report-FORM-62J-8x11-from-the-Court-of-Appeal-regarding-72-12-CA


 I have been assured by previous Registrar Michael Bray, that this occurs regularly. So much so, that the Rules of Court were amended to allow this process because the Court Dockets (the official schedule of proceedings in law suits pending in a Court of Law) were commonly "filling up" and or "backed up" with time extension motions, consequentially, it has become necessary to amend the Rules of Court to accommodate this reality. 


When receiving one of these subject Request for Status Report FORM 62J from the Court of Appeal regarding 72-12-CA , all that is required of you is your explanation within 30 days, (Please note: you only have 30 days from receipt of letter, to file and serve your reply letter); things should be fine.


I will keep you (readers) posted as to my Request for Status Report FORM 62J, sent, therefore, to Michael Bray's office,  who is the Registrar for the The New Brunswick Court of Appeal, furthermore, regarding 72-12-CA  and the results thereof.


Relevant New Brunswick Rules of Court, Rule 62.15.1: (http://www.gnb.ca/0062/regs/Rule/RULE62.pdf)

62.15.1 Failure to Perfect Appeal Within Four Months

(1) If an appeal is not perfected within 4 months after
the date of the order, decision or judgment appealed from,
the Registrar shall mail a Request for Status Report (Form
62J) to the appellant’s solicitor of record or to the appellant
if the appellant does not have a solicitor of record and
shall mail a copy thereof to each other solicitor of record
and to any other party to the appeal who does not have a
solicitor of record.


(2) The appellant’s solicitor of record or the appellant,
as the case may be, shall respond to the Request for
Status Report within 30 days and shall send a copy of his
or her response to the solicitors of record and to the parties
to the appeal who do not have a solicitor of record.

(3) The Registrar shall present the response of the appellant’s
solicitor of record or of the appellant, as the case
may be, to a judge of the Court of Appeal who shall determine
whether a Notice of Status Hearing (Form 62K)
should be issued and the judge
(a) may direct the Registrar to issue a Notice of Status
Hearing, or
(b) may, if satisfied with the status of the appeal, direct
the Registrar to mail another Request for Status
Report at a fixed date if the status of the appeal is unchanged.


(4) When the appellant’s solicitor of record or the appellant,
as the case may be, does not respond to a Request
for Status Report or when a judge of the Court of Appeal
so directs, the Registrar shall
(a) obtain from a judge of the Court of Appeal a date
for a status hearing, and
(b) at least 60 days before the date obtained under
clause (a) mail a Notice of Status Hearing to the solicitors
of record and to any party to the appeal who does
not have a solicitor of record.


(5) The Registrar shall certify to the judge presiding
at the status hearing the names and addresses of the solicitors
of record and the parties to whom the Registrar has
sent a Notice of Status Hearing and the date of mailing
thereof.


(6) Unless the appeal has been perfected or discontinued
before the date fixed for the status hearing, the solicitors
of record or their properly instructed agents and the
parties to the appeal who do not have solicitors of record
shall attend. The parties to the appeal who have solicitors
of record may attend on the status hearing. Where a party
to the appeal who has a solicitor of record does not attend,
the solicitor shall, on the status hearing, file proof that a
copy of the notice was served on his or her client.

(7) On the status hearing, the presiding judge may
(a) order the appeal to be perfected within a specified
time,
(b) adjourn the status hearing to a fixed date,
(c) dismiss the appeal, or
(d) make such other order as may be just.


(8) Unless the appeal is perfected or discontinued
within the time so ordered, the Registrar shall dismiss the
appeal for delay and shall notify all parties to the appeal
of the dismissal.


(9) A dismissal of an appeal under clause (7)(c) or
paragraph (8) shall be with costs unless the judge presiding
at the status hearing orders otherwise.

Thursday, August 02, 2012

Procedure - The prerequisites to a successful plea-withdrawal application in Court of Appeal



The New Brunswick Court of Appeal may allow an appellant to submit substantive material evidence for the Hearing of a an Application to 'Withdraw a Guilty Plea' (given before the 'lower Courts') if the appellant can show that the plea was invalid, in the sense that it was:
  1. not made voluntarily; 
  2. not made unequivocally
  3. that it was not informed:

   In Meade v. R., 2007 NBCA 56 (CanLII), [2007] N.B.J. No. 237 (QL), 2007 NBCA 56, Richard, J.A., who delivered the judgment of the Court, enunciates, at para. 1, the prerequisites to a successful plea-withdrawal application on appeal:
             
The principles that govern an application on appeal to withdraw a plea of guilty were recently summarized by this Court in R. v. Winmill (R.L.) 2006 NBCA 77 (CanLII), (2006), 300 N.B.R. (2d) 125, [2006] N.B.J. No. 324 (QL), 2006 NBCA 77, where we stated, at paras. 3-4 as follows:

A ground of appeal seeking to withdraw a plea of guilty involves a question of mixed law and fact, within the meaning of subparagraph 675(1)(a)(ii) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46. Leave to appeal is therefore required: R. v. Guignard (G.), 2003 NBCA 46 (CanLII), [2003] N.B.J. No. 264; 260 N.B.R. (2d) 396; 684 A.P.R. 396; 2003 NBCA 46 and R. v. Brun (T.), 2006 NBCA 17 (CanLII), [2006] N.B.J. No. 51; 296 N.B.R. (2d) 147; 769 A.P.R. 147; 2006 NBCA 17.

The guiding principles in considering an application for leave to withdraw a guilty plea were summarized in Brun as follows (at para. 8):

A court of appeal may allow an appellant to withdraw a guilty plea if the appellant can show that the plea was invalid, in the sense that it was not made voluntarily or unequivocally or that it was not informed: see R. v. Claveau (L.F.) 2003 NBCA 52 (CanLII), (2003), 260 N.B.R. (2d) 192 (C.A.) and R. v. Nowlan, [2005] N.B.J. No. 474 (C.A.) (QL). As noted in R. v. Guignard, at para. 7, an appellant 'must show valid grounds which would allow [him] to withdraw [his] guilty plea. This must be done by providing convincing evidence.' [...]


Also one may identify a feature of the record that would substantiate an allegation of professional incompetence.  


In R. v. G.D.B., 2000 SCC 22 (CanLII), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 520, [2000] S.C.J. No. 22 (QL), 2000 SCC  22, at paras. 26-27, the Court articulated the following standard to assess the validity of any ground of  appeal challenging the competence of counsel at trial:

The approach to an ineffectiveness claim is explained in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984), per O'Connor J.  The reasons contain a performance component and a prejudice component.  For an appeal to succeed, it must be established, first, that counsel's acts or omissions constituted incompetence and second, that a miscarriage of justice resulted.

Incompetence is determined by a reasonableness standard.  The analysis proceeds upon a strong presumption that counsel's conduct fell within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.  The onus is on the appellant to establish the acts or omissions of counsel that are alleged not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment.  The wisdom of hindsight has no place in this assessment.





Next Post Previous Post Home