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

Ground for Appeal: Motions Judges did not give adequate reasons


 

 When rendering a decision, it is incumbent upon the motions judges to give adequate reasons, the judge should relate the evidence to the principles in this case, as the following case describes.

 

New Brunswick (Chief Judge of the Provincial Court) v. Mackin, 1996 CanLII 4800 (NB CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/1lmr0>

 

GROUND 2 ON APPEAL:          

MOTIONS JUDGE FAILED TO GIVE REASONS

 
          Judge Mackin's counsel argues that the failure to give reasons for his decision is sufficient for this court to reverse the motions judge. Counsel for the Chief Judge argues to the contrary that it is not necessary to give reasons in every case. He cites the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (9:0) in R. v. Burns, 1994 CanLII 127 (SCC), [1994] 1 S.C.R. 656 at 664-65 for this proposition. Burns, as noted, was a criminal case. McLachlin, J. said the rule made good sense, and she referred to the heavy caseloads to be dealt with in criminal law courts. If judges had to deal with every aspect of every case, it would slow the system of justice immeasurably. She said at p.664:


Trial judges are presumed to know the law with which they work day in and day out. If they state their conclusions in brief compass and these conclusions are supported by the evidence, the verdict should not be overturned merely because they fail to discuss collateral aspects of the case.

See also R. v. Smith (D.A.), 1990 CanLII 99 (SCC), [1990] 1 S.C.R. 991; R. v. MacDonald, 1976 CanLII 140 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 665 and the comments of L'Heureux-Dubé, J. in Willick v. Willick, 1994 CanLII 28 (SCC), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 670.
        

  The principle in these cases does not apply here. This appeal does not concern a criminal law case, nor a family law case. What was being asked for here is an extraordinary remedy. As well, the failure to relate the evidence to the principles in this case is hardly the failure to discuss collateral aspects. It was incumbent upon the motions judge to give adequate reasons, and this he failed to do. In any event, the task has been undertaken to do so at the appeal level, and this disposes of that ground.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Home