Procedure: Answer question: Should Leave to Appeal be granted to the Intended Appellant

(a) a concise statement of the issues to be dealt with by the court;

·         Should Leave to Appeal be granted to the Intended Appellant?

1.                       Rules of Court, Rule 62.03, is the Rule considered by this Court in deciding whether to grant leave to Appeal Court of Appeal.

62.03 Leave to Appeal

(4) In considering whether or not to grant leave to appeal, the judge hearing the motion may consider the following:

(a) whether there is a conflicting decision by another judge or court upon a question involved in the proposed appeal;

(b) whether he or she doubts the correctness of the order or decision in question; or

(c) whether he or she considers that the proposed appeal involves matters of sufficient importance.

2.                       In Lang v. Tran, Cavarzan J. addressed the following regarding “importance of the issues”:

With respect to the factor involving the importance of the issues, I note that the rule does not refer to the importance of the issues “to the parties”. No doubt, when matters require resolution by proceeding to trial the issues are important to the parties. In my view, however, “importance of the issues” comprehends matters of general importance affecting the rights of society at large, . . .

Lang v. Tran, 2006 CanLII 32627 (ON SC), at para. 11

3.                     (Your reasons here).

4.                       This Intended Appellant believes that this Court will conclude after considering the entirety of this brief that both condition are met, (a) there is a conflicting decision by another judge or court upon a question involved in the proposed appeal; and/or (b) this Court doubts the correctness of the order or decision in question and/or; (c) this Court considers that the proposed appeal involves matters of sufficient importance to grant Leave to Appeal. 

(a) A concise statement setting out clearly and particularly in

what respect the order or decision appealed from is alleged to be wrong;

5.                       Your reasons here...Example "The subject December 17, 2012, impugned Orders of Madame Justice Clendening are draconian, oppressive, biased,  overbreadth, and if left to stand, will bring New Brunswick administration of Justice into disrepute".

Please see the following, for ideas:

http://newbrunswickcourtofappeal.blogspot.ca/p/applicable-principles-to-court-of.html