Oct. 27, 2009, JUSTICE SELF REPRESENT; Day 4 after illegal eviction of Residential Leasehold Tenant...

8/2/2019 Oct. 27, 2009, JUSTICE SELF REPRESENT; Day 4 after illegal eviction of Residential Leasehold Tenant from 29 Mars

1/18

Court File Number: IL tb -cPIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK

BETWEEN: A t'IDRE MURRAYINTENTIED APPELLANT

-and-

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA & 501376 N .B . Ltd.a b od y c orp ora te,

: rNTENDED RESPONDENTS

NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL(FORi"r 62A)

. A j'l ".~~V'I"" ..~ .The intended appellant ... \ ... :.will apply under Rule 62.03 to the Honourable ..... Justice ... : ....of

the Court of Appealat his (or her) chambers in the Justice Building, Queen Street, Fredericton,N.B. on the. ~day of. Cc+o~!. .., 20c::f\., at n~or p.m.) for leave to appealfrom the order (or decision) of the Honourable Mr. Justice lOclk. 'Dionne, of the court ofQueen's Bench, Moncton N.B. dated the. 20th day of .October ,2009., (state therelief sought. any irregularity complained of or any objection intended to be relied 011, specifying.the grounds intended to be argued, including reference to any statutory provision or ruleintended (0 be invoked); .a) An order, pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Court of New Brunswick abridging timefor service of the within Notice of Mati on and affidavits in support;b) An extension of time for service 62.03(2)c) An order, pursuant to Rule 62.26 of the Rules of Court for a stay of

proceedings.d) 45.02 Change of Place of Trial(1) Any party m ay apply to the court at any time tochange the place of trial and shall show that(a) it would be more convenient to have the actiontried at the place proposed by him, or


2/18

(b) that, in the interest ofjustice, the action ought tobe tried at that place.

d) Such further and o th er re lie f a s to th is H on ou ra ble C ou rt may appear just.e)"N'"E\JVBRUNS\VICK REG ULA TION 82-218 under the 'The Residential Tenancies Act(O.c. 82-942) TE~\H NA TION OF TEN A ....[C IE S 2 4(1 )any objection intended to be relied on, specifying the grounds intended to be argued,including reference to any statutory provision or nile intended to be invoked as follows:

G) 18.08 Service Not Conclusive .(1) Whether or not a person has been served with aDocument in accordance with these rules; the person mayshow on a motion to set aside the consequences of default,or on a motion for an adjournment of a proceeding or foran extension of time, that the document(a) did not come to the person's notice, or(b) came to the person's notice only at some timelater than when it was served or is deemed to have beenserved.(2) O n the hearing ora-motion referred to in paragraph(1), the court may allow the motion if it is satisfiedthat the applicant has established the grounds referred to

in clause (l)(a) or (b).H) 37.04 (5) Service of Notice of Motion or PreliminaryMotion.Time for Service(5) Where service of a Notice of Motion or PreliminaryMotion is required, it shall be made at least 10 daysbefore the date of the hearing.I) SERVICE OF PROCESS18.09 Validating ServiceWhere a document has been served by some methodnot authorized by an Act, these rules or an order ofthecourt, or where there has been some irregularity in service,the court may order that the service be validated onsuch terms as may be just, if the court is satisfied that(a) the document came to the notice of the personsought to be served, or(b) the document was left so that it would have cometo the notice of the person sought to be served, except


3/18

for his own attempts to evade service.

Please note the intended appellant has hastilyprepared this appeal with absolutely no previousexperience furthermore the intended appellant has been reduced financially and burdened by anallegedly unlawful eviction.Notes on specifying the grounds intended to be argued are assembled the am of last seven dayperiod to qualifyfor application of motion herein. -Wearing down the opponent by continual losses is unfair.As recently as October 27, 2009 intended respondent George Leblanc Solicitor has e

mailed me stating that m y request t o access documents will not be grantedtom y address at 31 Marshall Street from which I alleged the recent unlawfuleviction occurred. That, I may access documents required for defense in thematters before the court to which intended respondent George LeblancSolicitor is a party both initiating action plaintiff and intended respondent.

Inhibitory impact of unlawful evictionIn cases where an interlocutory injunction issues in accordance with the above-stated

. principles, the parties should generally be required to abide by the dates of apreferential calendar so as to avoid undue abridgement thereby reducing thecapacity of defendants to appropriately respond to the minimum. Inappropriate"acceleration periods such as abridgements during which valid law processcannot be realized to the full benefit of the maximum when deprived of itseffect in whole or in part.

Continuous (real-valued) function on compact sets may allow maximum input instead ofimposing a opposing force that alienates the general public from the fullbenefit of maximum input over relative time. The general laymen public ishardly capable of interrupting a well oiled corporate machine with all of thecorporation's facility.

The great law society of our land has established law based on common 1aw principalstried and true presidents developed over thousands of years.

Abridgement of time can be beneficial if justice is served. Inappropriate eviction from apersons residence then denying access to files. All this occurring followingmonths of burdening the tenants with unlawful eviction / vacate premisesnotices contrary to the Tenancy act of N.B. is simply wrong thinking andpractice.

The term optimum - Minima and maxima in law can be a overpowering responsibilityfor some a empowering privilege for others.


4/18

In this case there is an blatant imbalance in convenience which is not only apparent but aswe examine the developmental process of the relative character assassinationoccurring with th e landlord making statements - false hoods that themortgage burden was the landlord's alone when in fact it was entirely theopposite.

Furthermore, the landlord implied that all services over a 4 year period where at thelandlords expense this can be disproved by documentary evidence and willreveal that the landlord never once paid utilities mfor the 29 Marshall Streetor 31 Marshall Street duplex civic addresses over the 4 year plus period ..

The intended appellant paid every bill that arrived at that civic address of 29 MarshallStreet & 3l Marshall Street all phone bills all water bills all electrical bills.with cash payments and. filed the receipts over the past four years. Thesereceipts are currently being withheld in a lock out situation by eviction as theintended appellant Andre Murray was not allowed to leave with his property.

Given time to defend the intended appellant will produce documentary evidence of actualRoyal Bank of Canada teller receipts for cash deposits to the Landlords accountindicating payment on time and always a head of time with payment of the leasemaintaining a 10 month pre paid balance continuously for the entire 4 year period .. The intended appellant will illuminate the tactics used against the tenant bythe highly-skIlled solicitors, combined using-calculated attempts to confuse matters by requestingabridgement oftime to serve documents the use of Rules of Court 18.09 ValidatingService - have imbalanced the intended appellant to the point of becoming a .Victim.Incomprehensible reasons to justify the sudden reversal of real estate transfer policies

subject to purchaser responsibility to tenants in the singular.Mortgage sales in themselves can be disturbing as a general rule. In this case we see thatthe absentee landlord had appointed a Power of attorney that negotiated anexcellent financial situation on all parties concerned. Asset/equity valueswhere being maintained.Public interest in corporate accountabilityInwarfare a tactical move is to lay siege to your opponent thereby exhausting the opponentby attrition. Denying anyone within our society of fair/equal opportunity to expressthemselves especially in light of the related evidently abrupt reversal in this corporate policyduring conveyances of real estate which are contractually subject to tenancies!Where is the convenience - when two parties agree to a subject clause signature an dcommissioner of oaths than suddenly act the exact opposite at the expense of a legitimatetenant.


5/18

An application for a stay of proceedings must be determined within the framework of athree-part test adopted by the Supreme court of Canada in Manitoba (Attorney General)v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd., 1987 CanLII 79 (S.c.c.), [1987] 1S.c.R. 110 and RJR-MiuDonald Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1994 CanLII 117 (S.c.c.), [19941 1S.C.R. 311.The first part of the test requires an applicant to show that there is a serious question to beappealed. In the present case,1) Of particular interest found within paragraph 8 of the Exhibit "P" are that the

defendants or the Intended Respondents (respectively) by oath and signature areagreeing that the purchaser '501376 N.B. Ltd., a body corporate' will accept, subjectto existing tenancies, deeds of conveyance with respect to real estate resulting from amortgage sale by public auction held on the 16th day of July, 2009 from vendor .'ROYAL BA~'K. OF CANADA'.

2) Exhibit "P" Dated 08/09/09 and provided as support for one NOTICE OF MOTION(FORt\-! 37A) filed with COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH TRIAL DIVISIONJUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONCTON, N . B . as COURT FILE NUMBERMC064209 FILED SEP 182009, BETWEEN: ROYAL BANK OF CANADA &501376 N.B. Ltd., a body corporate, Plaintiffs, -and- ANDRE MURRAY, Defendant,

3) Further to section two and the within NOTICE OF MOTION (FOIUv13 7A) we seethat both ROY AL BA~'K OF CANADA & 501376 N.B. Ltd., are Plaintiffs applyingto the Court of Queen's benchof New Brunswick zo" day of October, 2009 for anorder that: The defendant Andre Murray and any other party residing a t 29 MarshallStreet, Fredericton, New Brunswick be required to vacate the property located at 29Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, forthwith.4) we see also an affidavit in support of NOTICE OF MOTION (FORi\!{3 7A) whereJulie Ruggiero an employee as a Collection Associate for the Royal Bank of Canadadoes MAKE OATH and claims to have personal knowledge of matters hereindeposed.5) Julie Ruggiero confirms in her affidavit area g ) that a Mortgage Sale took place July16!h,2009 to Hugh Cameron in trust.. .

6) Julie Ruggiero confirms in her affidavit area h) and provided a copy marked "H" ofthe same Bidding Papers and Terms of Sale signed. by George H. Leblanc, as Solicitorfor the Mortgagor, ROYAL BANK OF CANADA and also signed by Hugh Cameronin trust. This is the same in every word as Exhibit "P". Notice within paragraph 8 ofthe copy marked "H" provided by Julie Ruggiero that the Intended Respondents(respectively) by oath and signature are agreeing that the purchaser '501376 N.B.Ltd., a body corporate' evidentially represented by Hugh Cameron will accept,subject to existing tenancies, deeds of conveyance with respect to real estateresulting from a mortgage sale by public auction held on the 16th day of July, 2009from implied vendor 'ROYAL BANK OF CANADA' evidentially represented byGeorge H. Leblanc.7) Furthermore to the affidavit where Julie Ruggiero an employee as a CollectionAssociate for the Royal Bank of Canada does MAKE OATH and claims to havepersonal knowledge of matters herein deposed. Julie Ruggiero states in #3 of same


6/18

affidavit the following: "1 am advised by George H. Leblanc and do verily believethat the closing of the subject property has been postponed pending vacant possessionof the property, and particularly the vacating of the property by Andre Murray and orother persons residing there."

8) Furthermore to the affidavit where Julie Ruggiero an employee as a CollectionAssociate for the Royal Bank of Canada does MAKE OATH and claims to havepersonal knowledge of matters herein deposed. Julie Ruggiero states in #5" Attachedhereto and marked "I" is a copy of the Affidavit of service of Hugh K. Cameron datedJuly z o " . 2009, whereby he advises that he served Andre Murray with a Notice toVacate on July 16th 2009 by leaving a copy at the Property."

9) Furthermore to the affidavit where Julie Ruggiero an employee as a CollectionAssociate for the Royal Bank of Canada does M.J\KE OATH and claims to havepersonal knowledge of matters herein deposed. Julie Ruggiero states in #14 "I amfurther advised by George H. Leblanc and do verily believe that mr murray claims tohave a lease to the subject property, however, has refused or neglected to provide acopy to George H. Leblanc despite requests for same.

10) Furthermore to the affidavit where Julie Ruggiero an employee as a CollectionAssociate for the Royal Bank of Canada does MAKE OATH and claims to havepersonal knowledge of matters herein deposed. Julie Ruggiero states in # 15"Accordingly, Royal Bank of Canada requests an Order that the defendant, AndreMurray and or any other ?ccupants of the property be required to vacate the property,forthwith, that they be ordered not to cause any damage to the property in doing so,that they pay the within cost of the within Motion on a solicitor/client-basis; and suchfurther relief as this Honourable Court may appear just"

11) Julie Ruggiero sworn to the above at the City of Montreal, Province of Quebec this9th day of Sept., 2009 before a NOTARY- PROVINCE OF QUEBEC ..

12) On the zo" of Octoher, 2009 at 9:30 an Order that Andre Murray be evicted from 29Marshall Street. .13) Purchaser of the property which has a civic address of 29 Marshall Street and a lease

hold of same by Andre Murray Exhibit "A" filed with COURT OF QUEEN'SBENCH TRIAL DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONCTON, N.B. SEP 18,2009, presumably in support of the NOTICE OF MOTION (FORM37A),BETWEEN: ROYAL BANK OF CANADA & 501376 N.B. Ltd., a body corporate,Plaintiffs, -and- ANDRE MURRAY, Defendant, the intended respondents ROYALBANK OF CANADA & 501376 N.B. Ltd. a body corporate,and the intendedappellant Andre Murray respectively.14) By examination we find within the above paragraph 1 of Exhibit "P" reveals that theIntended Respondents both have Solicitors acting as agents.

15) The Intended Respondents are transferring deeds of conveyance regarding real estate( the same real estate for which Andre Murray holds a year to year lease - the samereal estate for which they have acquired a Court Order of eviction ).16) As we read on in paragraph 8 the intended respondents are agreeing by oath andsignature that the purchaser 501376 N.B. Ltd., a body corporate will accept thetransfer of real estate from seller ROYAL BANK OF CANADA subject to existingtenancies.


7/18

17) Which is how Andre Murray becomes a problem in more way than one since he iscurrently holding a certain interest in the property - a year to year lease. Two he hasfiled a lien against th e title

1 S ) Intended appellant Andre Murray residing in Fredericton, was not appropriatelymade aware of the court date and information regarding the court case because ofimproper service and because of this, was unable to attend the court on the date of thehearing taking place in the court of Queen's Bench in Moncton, N.B. two hours driveaway from Fredericton N.B.19) Furthermore, intended appellant Andre Murray received damaged mail one daybefore the Trial date. Incidentally, same package mentioned was officially removed fromcirculation the 16 th day of October and received a second stamp by Canada Post rubber stamped,dated Oct 16th , and words indicating that the package had to be removed from circulation forrepairs as the package was torn completely open and contents damaged and or papers maybemissing.Although barely legible intended appellant Andre Murray could make out a Court Filenumber. Intended appellant Andre Murray in sincerity called the Fredericton Court of Queen'sbench Clerk's office and enquired about the court "filenumber and was informed that this numberwas indicative of a Moncton court file number and consequently must proceed to call the .Moncton Court Clerk's office.Many attempts till closing of business hours office workers continued to refuse to revealinformation regarding file on that Oct 19 day.Intended appellant Andre Murray" left many messages for the Clerk of the.court but receivedno reply, was told by office staff that she had left for the day earlier than usual. .

20) The Intended Respondents had filed same NOTICE OF MOTION (Form 37A) onSept 18,2009. This filing date allowed for plenty of time for service, yet no service bypersonal service or by registered mail was attempted.21) The Intended Respondents claimed that service was accomplished Oct 13th andrequested validation pursuant to Rule 18.09.22) The intended appellant Andre Murray was away for that time period and only becameaware of a possible court hearing no sooner than Monday the 19th of October 2009 as he receivedthe damaged mail.22) .Place of trial had been set in Moncton when the disputed property is in theFredericton jurisdiction and also the Intended Respondents 501376 N.B. Ltd.a body corporate, is also in Fredericton.23) Oct 19 intended appellant Andre Murray called on legal council in this for advice o nthis matter and was instructed that improper service would likely be the cause for a reschedulingof the hearing for a future date.


8/18

:.:~) Oct 20 in tended appellan t A ndre M urray called the M on cton C ourt C lerk's office m anyt imes but again r ec ei ve d n o reply,25) O ct 20 am in tended appellant And re Mu rray arriv es at th e F red ericto n, C ou rt C lerk 'soffice when i t opened in mo rn in g an d waited to see the C lerk of the C ourt. In ten ded appellan tA ndre M urray w as in form ed that there w as nothing the Fredericton C lerk of the C ourt could dofo r reg ard in g g ain in g in sig ht in to th is m a tter.26) O ct 20 in tended appellan t ..\ndre M urray m ade the earliest appoin tm en t possible w ith theF red ericto n R en talsm e n an d w as in fo rm e d, it was ou ts ide the ir J u ri sd ic tion .27) O ct 20 in tended appellan t A ndre M urray called the M oncton Court C lerk's office m anytim es but again w as told to "atten d an d search the files yourself, also there is a 4 10 search fee",after speaking to som eone at the M on cton Q ueen 's Bench, in tended appellan t A ndre M urraywas finally in form ed in the afternoon that a letter con tain ing the results of a m issed trialwas being sen t to him by regular m aiL28) Oct 23, Fredericton Sheriffs arrive at the in tended appellan t A ndre M urray's 31M arshall S treet residence. In tended appellan t Andre M urray still has not received thep rom ised co urt serv ices co rresp on den ce.29) Oct 23 w hile the in tended appelian t A ndre M urray w as aw aking from sleep, Sheriffsare breaking in to 31 M arshall S treet prem ises, and dem anded im m ediate vacancy of the

. prem ises, the Sheriffs served a copy of the court order to in tended appellan t A ndre M urray,30) The in tended appellan t Andre M urray read the court order stated that in tendedappellan t Andre M urray and any other occupan ts of the property located at 29 M arshallstreet, Fredericton N ew Brunsw ick are ordered to V acate forthwith falling. w hich thesheriff shall be directed to take whatever law ful steps are necessary to evict the in tendedappellan t A ndre M urray and any other occupan ts from the aforesaid prem ises,31) The in tended appellan t Andre M urray replied to the sheriffs on that day of thesurprise eviction that he would co operate with the court order and vacate the 29 M arshallS treet address, bu t poin ted out that the court order did not state or include the other halfof the duplex known as civic address 31 M arshal Street Fredericton N .B. for whichin tended appellan t Andre M urray also holds a lease.According to Sheriffs Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. 5-8Limitation of actions l4 Notwithstanding that a process of a court or order ofajudge is adjudged invalid, void orvoidable, if the ChiefSheriff, D eputy Chief Sheriff or a regional sheriff, sheriff, depu ty sheriff or sheriffsofficer(a)has done nothing marc than obey the terms of the process or order, and(b)ac(s without malice,

The in tended appellan t Andre M urray com prehends that the Sheriff m ust not exceed theterm s of the process or order.


9/18

This error of address was pointed out to the sheriffs but was ignored instead of acorrection in behav io r t he she rif f continued to enter intended appellant Andre Murray's31 Marshall Street duplex accompanied by three Police detectives and one RBC propertymanager agent ..32) The intended appellant Andre Murray produced his lease copy which clearly statedthat the separate addresses of 29 Marshall Street and 31 Marshall Street addresses areleased to Andre Murray as the Tenant respectively.33) The appellant intended appellant Andre Murray produced two electrical power billsthat indicated that two separate accounts existed in the name of the deffendent AndreMurray for the two separate addresses of29 Marshall Street and 31 Marshall Street.Further evidence was offered that one could look at the two separate power meters on theback of the building. .34) The intended appellant Andre Murray produced the rent payment receipts indicatingthat the rent was prepaid to the RBC account of Betty Danielski the Landlord, up to Sept1,2010. Almost a full year pre paid in advance,35) The order for eviction indicated that the time for service of the within Notice ofMotion be abridged. This did not allow time for any defense to properly reply.36) The appellant Intended appellant Andre Murray was. first unlawfully evicted from hiscivic address of 31 Marshall Street, duplex unit, in Fredericton N.B. even as theeviction orders only referred to his duplex unit known as civic address, 29 MarshallStreet, Fredericton,37) The second part of the test requires the applicant to show that she or he would suffer"irreparable harm" if the stay is not granted. Irreparable harm intended appellant AndreMurray comprehends to mean "harm which either cannot be quantified in monetary termsor which cannot be cured, usually because one party carmot collect damages from theother.": see MacDonald at 341. In the present case, the appellant Andre Murray is nowhomeless resulting from a unlawful eviction from his 31Marshall Street duplex and morerelative to this appeal is the unlawful eviction for 29 Marshall Street according to theNEW BRUNSWICK REGULATION 82-218 under the The Residential Tenancies Act (O.C.82-942) TERMINATION OF TENANCIES 24(1)Unable to access documents to enable and or counter claim a eviction that was promisedby oath and signed by both intended respondents only one month ago and referred to asExhibit "P" The defense of the above motioned Actions will not be possible to properlyrespond to the above mentioned eviction, without a home, without his belongings,documents and computer access. Irreparable harm is apparent.

38) The third part of the test is known as the balance of convenience test and is defined as"a determination of which of the two parties will suffer the greater harm from the


10/18

granting or refusal of [a stay], pending a decision on the merits."; see Metropolitan Scoresat 129, On this part of the test, the balance. of convenience is clearly with the intendedappellant Andre Murray who will suffer the greater harm from the granting of this evictionorder.

j) In the alternative an order for an extension of time to issue and serve a Notice of Appeal in theevent that the judge hearing th e motion rules t ha t th e order ( or dec is io n ) is not interlocutory;

k) The real issue on this part of the motion is whether or not the intended appellant AndreMurray would suffer irreparable harm if the eviction notice is allowed to stand and theinjunction is refused.1 ) The intended appellant Andre Murray is confident of his evidence that it is sufficient toestablish that he will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not granted.

m) The intended appellant Andre Murray did not receive proper service.Notice Of Action, or The Motion therefore I did not in all fairness have the opportunity to bepresent for the court hearing, in .Moncton regarding the Motion for Orders to Evict and the furtherrequests of the Court by the plaintiffs that and or arguments necessary to grant the Abridgementof Time for service upon the defendant Andre Murray to evict from his premises. No fair.opportunity to .coupter claim and or defend the Motion. . .

The intended appellant apply under,n). AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE: Furthermore, in support of the following item # 13especially relative item within that contractual document 'SALE IS UPON THE FOLLOWINGTERMS AND CONDITIONS': Item 8; The purchaser accepts the real estate, subject to existingtenancies, and any registered restrictive covenants, if any, as they exist at date thereto. Note:These terms where accepted by AGREEM ENT TO PURCHASE on the 16th day ofJuly, 2009 bysignature of Barrister Solicitor in Trust acting on behalf of the respondents to this appeal 501376N.B. Ltd. a body corporate.0). NEW BRUNSW ICK REGULATION 82-218 under the 'The Residential TenanciesAct (O.c. 82-942) 21(4)' The sheriff, upon receiving an eviction order issued undersubsection (1) or (3), shall put the landlord in possession of the demised premises and forthat purpose the sheriff and his deputies and officers have full power, after reasonabledemand for admission, to force open both outer and inner doors of the premises ..Is this case no prior demands where made and incidentally the required pre delivered paperswhere: then presented after they broke down the door.TERM INA nON OF TENANCIES24(1) A notice of termination ofa tenancy is to be served(ajif the premises are let from year to year, by the landlord or the tenant at least threemonths before the expiration of any such year to be effective on the last day of that year;


11/18

Note: This courtesy was never granted probably becluse the sale of property took placechronologically less than and not compatible in terms of three months prior to Sept. 1automatic lease renewal.This is the reason the RE0iTAlSMEi'-f would not process the application for sucheviction request. Consequentially, the RESPONTIENTS appear to have been compelledto circumvent theThe Residential Tenancies Act ( O.c. 82-942) and plead to the trial Division of TheQueens Bench.p) Time for service requires both the minimum time before trial date and what exactly isthe Rule this must be quoted and relied upon.Note. Must be left in the case of abridged service at a door or place defendant is likely totravel note: duplex house is approximately 100 feet long with 5 five doors as possible.passage ways for entry and or departure. I only in the past 4 plus years as a tenant haveever used three of the doors I have kept two closed with furniture in front of them.Unfortunately it appears that one of these doors was chosen to (curiously the one which isonly accessible through a arbor which is kept locked and always impassable.

18.09 Validating Service

The intended appellant Andre Murray was not properly served according to niles ofcourt .. WHAT IS THE RULE TO BE RELIED UPON?

. ...The intended appelIant Andre Murray was continually and relentlessly contacted byparties of the opposing nature united in what appears to be a common goal whichmay be obtained by any means at their disposal.

RULE 18SERVICE OF PROCESS18.02 How Personal Service Shall be Made(1) Personal service shall be made as follows:Individual(a) on an individual, other than a person under disability,by leaving a copy of the document with him;

18.10 Proof of Service(1) The service of a document may be proved by anaffidavit of the person effecting such service (Form 18B).16.08 Time for Service


12/18

(1) Where-an action is commenced by issuing a Noticeof Action with Statement of Claim Attached, it shallbe served within 6 months thereafter.16.03 By Statement of Claim or Notice of Action(1) Unless provided otherwise by these rules, theoriginating process for the commencing of a proceedingshall be a Notice of Action w ith S tatem en t of Claim Attached(Form 16A).

FOR.'\-I 16A reads as follows:NOTICE OF ACTIO~ \VITHSTATE)'IENT OFCLAD-I ATTACHED(FORM 16A)TO: __(the above-named defendant)LEG AL PRO CEED IN GS H AV E BEEN CO MM EN CEDAGAINST YOU BY FILING THIS NOTIC EO F A CTIO N W ITH STA TEM EN T O r: CLA Th! A TTA CH ED .If you wish to defend these proc.eedings, either you ora New Brunswick lawyer acting on your behalf must prepareyour Statement of Defence in the form prescribedby the Rules of Court and serve it on the plaintiff or theplaintiff's lawyer a t the address shown below and, withproof of such service, file it inthis Court Office togetherwith the filing fee of $50,(a) if you are served in New Brunswick, WITHIN 20DAYS after service on you of this Notice of ActionWith Statement of Claim Attached, orMultiple Abridgmens unnecessary abuse of process.MOTIONS AND APPLICATIONSRULE 37PROCEDURE ON MOTIONS37.04 Service of Notice of Motion or PreliminaryMotionTime for Service(5) Where service ofa Notice of Mati on or PreliminaryMotion is required, it shall be made at least 10 daysbefore the date of the hearing.

(Where the intended appellant Andre Murray (or as may be) applies for leave to appeal froman interlocutory order or decision) The intended appellant Andre Murray (or as may be) willapply in the alternative for an extension of time to issue and serve a Notice of Appeal in the eventthat the judge hearing the motion rules that the order (or decision) is not interlocutory;


13/18

Upon the hearing of th e motion the following affidavits or other documentary ev id en ce w ill bepresented: (list the affidavits or other documentary evidence to be usedt.

1. Signed Year to Year Lease agreement for 29 Marshall Street, Fredericton, NewBrunswick Dated Septem ber 1, 2005.

2. Signed Lease agreement for 31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick DatedS ep tem b er 1 ,2 00 5.

3. Contractual agreement Between Landlord Betty Rose Danielski & Contractor AndreMurray Dated September 1 , 2 00 5

4. Signed documentary evidence of an exclusive and irrevocable right to first refusaland first option to purchase from BETTY ROSE DA~IELSKI subject propertY,which is identifiable as and registered with Land Titles office under the title number(P.I.D. 01548650) And civic addresses 2 9 1 3 1 Marshall Street at the City ofFredericton, County of York and Provin ce of N ew Brunswick. Dated Septem ber I,2005.

5. Affidavit of Andre Murray6. Official Bank issued receipts of deposit covering the entire lease payment schedule

from Sept 2005 till current date for the lease of both property addresses 29/3 iMarshall Street, Fredericton New Brunswick.indicating rent pre-paid till end of Sept1,2010. . .7. FORM 2 CLATh-fFOR LIEN[Mechanics' Lien, R.S.N.B. 1973, c:M_6. ss.20(3)J

.Dated April 1 6, 2 0098. NOTICE OF ACTION (FOR1-116B) Dated April 21 2009.9. FORlY[6 CERTIFICATE OF PEh'DING LITIGATIONDATED APRIL 21, 200910. STATEMENT OF CLAIM (FORM 16C) Dated may 20,200911. AlvlENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM (FORM 16C) Dated August 21,200912. Defendant, outlining the terms of sale & the bidding papers in the matter of a

mortgage sale by public auction held on th e 16th day of July, 2009.13. Intended Respondents documents of Royal Bank Of CANADA & 501376 N.B. Ltd.A body corporate, negotiated using certain BIDD ING PA PERS &TERMS OF SALE

IN THE MATTER of a Mortgage Sale by public Auction held on the 16th day ofJuly,2009

14. Official Canada Post Stamp on envelope containing the actual damaged courtdocuments intended for service.

15. A ffid av it o f Betty Danielski


14/18

16. Entire docum en ts flied: N OTICE OF M OTION (FOR..'V !37A) filed withC OC RT O F Q CEE N'S BE~CH T RL\L D IV IS ION JU DIC IA L DISTRICTOF MONCTON, N .B. as CO L'R T FILE \1.TMBER \lIC064209 FILED SEP182009, BET\V EEN : R OY "-\L BA .:N l( OF CA .i"JA DA & 501376 N .B. Ltd., abody corporate, Plaintiffs, - an d - A .c 'iDRE l vI lJRR ..AY , Defendant

17. All utility bills for civic addresses 29 Marshall Street & 31Marshall Streetmarked paid cash as receipts from utility.18. Addressed envelopes ~spanning years. Separate addresses 29& 31 Marshall

Street respectively.19. Schedule "A" for subject property registered with Service N.B.20. All contractual agreements mentioned in this Motion that are within mycontrol,21 . Entire Damaged documents officially removed from circulation by Canada Postas requiring repair and indicated tom and m issing pages: NOTICE OF

M OTION (FOR1vl 37 A)-filed with COURT OF QUEEN 'S BENCH TRIALDIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF MONCTON , N.B. as COURT FILENUMBER MC064209 FILED SEP 182009, BET\VEEN:'ROYAL BANKOF CAN ADA & 501376 N :B. Ltd., a body corporate, Plain tiffs, -and- .ANDRE M URRAY. Defendant

22. Email dated October 27 from intended responden t G eorge Leblanc refusingaccess to 31 M arshall S treet that docum en ts m ay be retrieved for the fairprocess of th e l eg al issues before this H onorable C ourt.

DATED at fr.?~~ : 0 0.> N . ' .S , this ~7.day of .. Q c t - o b u , 2009

An dre Mu rra y the intended appellant29/31 Marshall Street, Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3A 4J8Telephone Number: 1 506261 2675Esmail address: [email protected]
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


15/18

George LeBlanc Solicitor of Record for ROYAL BAi"\il


16/18

Court File Number: ILi5-CA-IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK

BETWEEN: ANDRE MURRAYINTENDED APPELLANT

-and-

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA & 501376 N.B. Ltd.a body corporate,

INTENDED RESPONDENTS

AFFIDAVIT

I, Andre Murray of the City of Fredericton, in the county of York and Province of NewBrunswick, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:

1. I Andre Murray with a Power of Attorney appointed to act as agent onbehalf of the absentee Landlord Betty Rose Danielski did sign a year toyear lease agreement on or about September 1, 2005 for the duplex civicaddresses 29 Marshall Street & 31 Marshall Street, in the City ofFredericton N.B.

2. I Andre Murray did make two larger cash payments at the outset of mytenancy totaling rent prepayment of$7000, to be used to pay the leaserental charges at some time in the future in consideration for the lease ofthe duplex 29 Marshall Street & 31 Marshall Street civic addresses withinthe city of Fredericton N.B ...

3. The subject Lease was for the entire duplex premises of civic addresses29 Marshall Street and 31 Marshall Street respectively at the City ofFredericton, New Brunswick.


17/18

4. The Power of Attorney appointed to act as agent on behalf of the absenteeLandlord Betty Rose Danielski is known to me as Richard Boileau.

5. Documents establishing the appointment of Richard Boileau as The Powerof Attorney for Betty Rose Danielski and by Betty Rose Danielski whereproduced for my review prior to the signing of the lease agreement.

6. In the year of 2005 I ANDRE MURRA.Y signed a separate contractualagreement and obtained an exclusive and irrevocable right to first refusal andfirst option to purchase from BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI subject property,which is identifiable as and registered with Land Titles office under the tidenumber (P.LD. 01548650) at the City of Fredericton, County of York andProvince of New Brunswick.

7. In the year 2005 I ANDRE l\-HJRRAY signed a separate contractual agreementto act in the capacity of property manager I renovation contractor and generalhandyman.

8. I Andre Murray have paid all utilities for the duplex civic addresses 29 MarshallStreet and 31 Marshall Street Fredericton, New Brunswick beginning Sept. 2005until currently 2009.

9. I Andre Murray did obtain receipts for cash payments made for all utilities to thesubject properties from the year 2005 untilcurrently 2009.10. I Andre Murray have intentionally prepaid my rent in advance of nothing less

than ten months according to a condition within the original lease agreement of2Q05. .11. I Andre Murray have caused bank teller receipts to be written chronicling all

cash deposits to Betty Danielski's RBC Bank account since 2005 to 2009,sufficient for five years of lease tenancy.12. I Andre Murray have not received proper service according to the rules of courtregarding Court File Number Me 064209 Filed IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S

BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK TRIAL DNISION JUDICAL DISTRICTOF MONCTON BETWEEN: ROYAY BANK OF CANADA & 501376 N.B.Ltd., a body corporate, Plaintiffs, -and- ANDRE MURRAY, Defendant,NOTICE OF MOTION (FORM 37A) FILE DATED SEPT 18,2009.

13. I Andre Murray have received a email October 27,2009 from solicitor GeorgeLeblanc I provide the quote "There may be expenses to be covered by you inadvance, as a requirement of further access" which is the reply to my request toaccess documents required to properly defend myself on the current issuesinvolving solicitor George Leblanc as Plaintiff & intended respondentrespectively.

14. This affidavit is made in support of a_NOTICE OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TOAPPEAL by Andre Murray.


18/18

SWOR'f TO AT THE City of Fredericton,In the County of York And Province ofNew Brunswick this~1'-f1...day of V( f 2009.BEFORE ME:

..

)))))))! ~ ~ / ~ ~ l ~ _ ~ ~ , L _ . \ z _ ,j L _ ( _ G _ l ~ _ ~ _ { + _ - - -) Andre Murray __ j

Date post:	06-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	justice-done-dirt-cheap
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times