Court of Appeal File Number: 82 10 - CA (Court File Number: F/C/104/09) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK

BETWEEN:

ANDRE MURRAY APPELLANT -and-

BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI RESPONDENT

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 Andre 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 Andre Murray understand the requirements, which must be met to justify adducing fresh evidence, as considered by this Court, further; those prerequisites may depend upon whether special grounds must be shown. If special grounds are required to be established, three conditions must be fulfilled: the first condition, upon which, special grounds may be established, is it must be shown the evidence which is now required could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial; the reason the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence, to be used at the June 10, 2010, hearing of a Motion for Orders granting a Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action pursuant to the Section 52.1 (1) (b) of the Mechanics Lien Act, is because the

learned Trial Judge did not allow for a long enough recess (15 minutes) that the Appellant may obtain the documents and return to the Courts. However, the learned Trial Judge having announced a 15 minute recess did not resume Court for one hour. The second portion of the Court hearing lasted entirely eleven minutes during which the 11 minute Court proceedings where entirely dominated by the learned Trial Judge establishing the thesis followed by the antithesis and finally arriving at the predetermined synthesis as had been decided by the Trial Judge prior to the recess. Pleading or argument from the Appellant was not permitted except at the final conclusion of the eleven minute hearing, at which time the learned Trial Judge interjected verbalizing to the effect, the end and abruptly left the Court Room repeating the end - the end thereby denying and effectively preventing the Plaintiff in that matter (Appellant in this matter) from being able to speak on the record to the issues being raised or to the fact that the document: BIDDING PAPERS AND TERMS OF SALE existed; since the Plaintiff was not provided the opportunity to elaborate on the implications of the BIDDING PAPERS AND TERMS OF SALE contractual document (subject of the request to adduce fresh evidence) the Learned Trail Judge misapprehended the conflict of interest and the matter of credibility of the source of the Hearsay information brought before the learned Trial Judge. I Appellant Andre Murray understand the second condition, upon which, special grounds may be established, is that the evidence must be such, that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, although it need not be decisive; Appellant Andre Murray is confident that adducing fresh evidence as before the Honorable Court of Appeal will likely be important and influential in assisting the Honorable Court of Appeal in its deliberations and likely indispensable to its decision

I Appellant Andre Murray understand the third condition, upon which, special grounds may be established ,is the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, although it need not be incontrovertible;

o o o Appellant Andre Murray is of the knowledge that the anticipated fresh evidence be credible; Appellant Andre Murray contends that the subject evidence is Affidavit evidence which includes, a exhibit which is a copy of a document signed by a Solicitor for the Vendor Royal Bank of Canada and the Solicitor acting as Purchasing Agent for the intended Purchaser, 501376 N.B. Ltd, a body corporate. The intended evidence is an contractual investment instrument BIDDING PAPERS AND TERMS OF SALE and Agreement to Purchase Dated: July 16, 2009. Furthermore, the Appellant believes both signatories to the here within above mentioned purchase and sale document, evidently have palatable conflicts of interest, moreover, the same subject signatories are the very same Solicitors whom where sought by Solicitor for the Respondent (Defendant in that matter) by instruction of the Learned Trial Judge to obtain pivotal hearsay information, which was subsequently presented to the Court of Queens Bench Trail Division hearing in progress and was ultimately relied upon by the learned Trial Judge, to render a Decision June 10, 2010, hearing of a Motion for Orders granting a Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action pursuant to the Section 52.1 (1) (b) of the Mechanics Lien Act. 3. Should the Honorable Court of Appeal in this matter determine that special grounds are not required to be established, further, that the Orders: adducing fresh evidence as requested by the Appellant be granted, then the Appellant Andre Murray believes that the following, contained here within, is a sufficiently established case to justify to this Court of Appeal, the exercising of its discretion in favor of the reception of fresh evidence. Here, the fresh evidence sought to be introduced is relevant, credible and would likely affect the verdict. May this please the Honorable Court of Appeal: Rule 62.21 gives the Court very broad discretionary powers
62.21(2) The Court of Appeal may receive (c) on special grounds, upon any question of fact. evidence:

I Appellant Andre Murray understand that a decision on an application such as this requires a proper balance to be struck between the need to have available for adjudication complete and accurate facts. 4. Appellant Andre Murray requests that in the interests of justice this fresh evidence be admitted, Appellant Andre Murray was not deficient in the rule of due diligence, because Appellant Andre Murray was not given a fair opportunity by the Learned Trial Judge to respond with relevant information and counter arguments to those criteria being established (at such a late date) nemo judex in causa sua debet esse. Appellant Andre Murray was denied counter claim and or rebuttal opportunity, due in a fair proceeding according to the principle of natural justice. 5. The Learned Trial Judge decided to dismiss the Motion before the Court, and in effect did not grant the requested Order for a Continuance appears to have been based on implications from the source document, which the Appellant is now requesting be adduced as fresh evidence. Note: Learned Trial Judged erred in law by misapprehending that the Sale which the subject BIDDING PAPERS AND TERMS OF SALE speak to, actually had closed, when in fact the sale has not yet closed, furthermore, as of the dating of this document the subject property remains in escrow. 6. Appellant Andre Murray believes that the Court of Queens Bench Trail Division and the Learned Trial Judge hearing the motion are bound, above all other considerations, to do justice in each particular case. May it please this Honorable Court of Appeal the Appellant believes that to do justice in a particular case requires a balancing of potential prejudice to both parties resulting from the decision to grant or refuse the requested Orders. A palatable prejudice will result against Appellant Andre Murray should his requested Order to present relative fresh evidence not be granted. No prejudice would be visited upon the Respondent by having the evidence presented to this Honorable Court for consideration on the Merits. 7. Appellant Andre Murray has attached the Affidavit and exhibits that which the Appellant requests this Honorable Court to receive as fresh evidence is attached hereto and Marked EXHIBIT AA. 8. I, Appellant Andre 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 the Respondent 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 of Respondents Submission specifically Rule 62.20 (b), dilatory Filing and Service of Respondents Submission. Under 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, according to the Rules of Court, no later than the 20th of October, 2010. Appellant Andre Murray if permitted by this Honorable Court of Appeal has compiled a demonstrable history of non compliance with the Rules of Court by the Solicitor for the Respondent. Furthermore, the Solicitor for the Respondent has not adhered to The Law Society of New Brunswicks Code of Professional Conduct, CHAPTER 15 Section 2 (iii), 2 (v), 2 (vii) and Section 4, consequently the Appellant requests the court to consider this, when ruling as to costs of the within Motion and the costs of the here within Appeal. 9. I, Appellant Andre Murray believe, in the Matter regarding non adherence to the Rules of Court as it pertains to Court File Number: FC 104 09, Andre Murray v. Betty Rose Danielski, the Defendant Betty Rose Danieslki (Respondent in this matter) likewise, her Solicitor appear to share a strong and continued inclination to indulge in dilatory practice of a serious enough nature deserving of sanction by this Honorable Court. Appellant Andre 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 residence of the Defendant, Betty Rose Danielski, (Respondent in this matter) in Toronto Ontario, according to Rules of Court 27.03, Service of Pleadings and pursuant to Rules of Court, 18.03. Please note: Appellant Andre 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 Appellant Andre Murray (Plaintiff in that matter) Betty Rose Danielski was avoiding service. Other Ways to Effect Personal Service, Service by Prepaid Mail or Prepaid Courier, of correspondence containing the 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; 10. The, as mentioned above, unsuccessful Service attempts, caused the Appellant 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 successful October 19, 2009 as evidenced by Copy of a Affidavit of Service by Process 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 11. I Appellant Andre Murray, believe it is significant and noteworthy that reports from the Canadian Process Servers Inc, indicated unsuccessful service attempts. 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 Andre 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 Process Server George Mallai caused subsequent attempts and revealed a significant change in apparent attitude of Betty Rose Danielski as a contingency Service attempt, sent UPS registered Mail, by Plaintiff now Appellant Andre 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 Rose Danieslki, after the above mentioned successful in person service and a second set which was claimed and signed for which was sent to Fudger House, the place of work of the Defendant Betty Rose Danielski. 12. I, Plaintiff Andre Murray, subsequent to service of the here within above listed Court documents served upon Defendant in that matter Betty Rose Danielski, 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 Andre Murray, am unaware of any in attempt of personal Service 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. 13. I, Plaintiff Andre Murray, for the first time became aware of the Defendant Betty Rose Danielski having retained the services of Solicitor Thomas Christie when the Plaintiff Andre Murray (Appellant in this matter) Searched the Court File (Court File Number: F/C/104/09) in preparation for filing and serving of the Plaintiff Andre Murray Motion for a Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action, consequentially caused by the Royal Bank of Canadas refusal to Defendant Andre Murrays many requests to be granted access to 29 Marshall Street, Fredericton, so that Court documents could be retrieved by the Plaintiff, which were essential and indispensable necessary to move the (Court File Number: F/C/104/09) Mechanics Lien Action along to discovery. 14. I, Plaintiff Andre 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 by sending a electronic facsimile of the documents accompanied by a cover page by telephone transmission to Fax: (506) 472 2091 of CHRISTIE LAW OFFICE, solicitor for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI. 15. The affidavit in support of the here within above mentioned Motion, detailed the reasons for the delay of the Discovery process pursuant to the Mechanics Lien Act prohibiting the forward movement of the subject action thus far and the reasons necessary for the requested Order for a continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action. Communication The Plaintiff

received no reply by phone, email, regular post letter, registered mail, or other wise any form of communication regarding the here within subject matter from the Defendant and Respondent in this matter. 16. The Plaintiff, on the 31st day of May, 2010 served Solicitor for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI, E. Thomas Christie, QC with the Amended Notice of Motion and supporting Affidavit 2 by sending a facsimile of the documents accompanied by a cover page by telephone transmission to Fax: (506) 472 2091 of CHRISTIE LAW OFFICE, solicitor for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI. 17. The Plaintiff, on the 31st day of May, 2010 served Solicitor for Defendant E. Thomas Christie, QC with the Plaintiffs letter to the Defendant requesting Consent to a Continuance Dated May 31, 2010, 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). 18. The Plaintiff, on the 31st day of May, 2010 served Solicitor for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI, E. Thomas Christie, QC with the Plaintiff Andre Murrays 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 page by telephone transmission to Fax: (506) 472 2091 of CHRISTIE LAW OFFICE, solicitor for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI. 19. No response was received to the above mentioned three separate facsimiles, sent the 31st day of May, 2010, by the Plaintiff furthermore, never received a reply by phone, email, regular post letter, registered mail letter or other wise any form of communication know to the Plaintiff. 20. Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM was the first time I Plaintiff Andre Murray received an e-mail from Solicitor Thomas Christie. The above mentioned Jun 4, 2010 e-mail is attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT BB 21. I Plaintiff Andre Murray replied to the above mentioned email correspondenceof 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, to date, I have never received any documents from your office whatsoever. 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 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. 22. Further to that point, in the same two above mentioned letters, the Plaintiff Andre 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 Affidavit 2 Dated 31st day of May, 2010 Also; Please confirm that you received my faxed documents sent 05/31/2010 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 by consenting 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 . I trust you find the following agreeable. 23. The here within above mentioned two Jun 7, 2010 e-mails where never to my knowledge replied to, further the above mentioned two Jun 7, 2010 emails are attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT CC 24. I, Appellant Andre Murray, received a series of e-mails and replied in kind, 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 according to client services at Court of Appeal also the Court reporter insisted that this was incorrect behavior furthermore that proper conduct would have been that Thomas Christie himself should commission a certified copy from the Court reporter at his own expense and should not be bothering Andre Murray with such matters. 25. Next, I, Appellant Andre Murray, was told by Solicitor Thomas Christie that I must serve any amended pleading upon him at a date earlier than the Rules of Court dictate because of his previously scheduled vacation of Solicitor Thomas Christie. 26. A copy, of the July 19, to July 22, 2010, e-mails are attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT DD 27. I, Appellant Andre 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) 28. To which Solicitor Thomas Christie did not confirm receiving the same Fax.

10

29. Further in the same e-mail the Plaintiff Andre Murray requested to be provided with the estimated time Solicitor Thomas Christie required for the Respondents presentation to the Court of Appeal as follow: 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 the question of the Respondent as follows: Hello Thomas Christie, Please explain as to why, to date, all of the documents 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 one of the Appellants September 2, 2010 emails of was replied to, but not the other email concerning the very peculiar underlined name of Betty Rose Danielski the Respondent. The Appellant again resent the e-mail concerning the very peculiar underlined name of Betty Rose Danielski the Respondent. 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 was not given the opportunity to protest the reference to or inclusion of such a document at the subject June 10, 2010 Hearing before the learned Trial Judge. 34. Subsequently the Appellant provided the Respondent with the appropriate list of intended documents to be used at the hearing of the Court of Appeal in a timely manner furthermore, the list evidently was not to the satisfaction of the 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

11

Appellant responsibly investigated the matter further, it was found that the inclusion of any material for the appeal was to the discretion of the Appellant and not in fact necessary to satisfy the Respondent as was insisted. 35. The Solicitor for the Respondent did not Serve the Respondents Submission upon the Appellant within the prescribed Rules of Court time limits, in this case October 20, 2010. The Solicitor for the Respondent had been placed on NOTICE Mon, Jun 7, 2010, by email, 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. At 2:00 PM on October 20, 2010, I Andre Murray called Client Services of the Court of Appeal enquiring after the Respondents Submission. I Andre Murray was told that the Respondents Submission had not yet been filed. 37. October 20, 2010, I Andre Murray telephoned the Office of the Solicitor for the Respondent, several times, but was unsuccessful at reaching the Solicitor for the Respondent. 38. On Thursday, October 21, 2010, I Andre Murray again telephoned the Office of the Solicitor for the Respondent, several times, but was unsuccessful at reaching the Solicitor for the Respondent. 39. October 22, 2010, I Andre Murray retrieved a telephone message from Court of Appeal Client Services, the message conveyed that Solicitor for the Respondent had indeed filed a Respondents Submission, approximately 4 pm October 20, 2010, and claimed to have e-mailed a copy of the 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

40. On Friday, October 22, 2010, at approximately 8:30 AM, I Andre Murray telephoned the Office of the Solicitor for the Respondent, and did reach the Solicitor Thomas Christie for the Respondent. I verbalized that I had not yet received a copy of the Respondents Submission, furthermore, confirmed that I must be served according to the Rules of Court. The Solicitor for the Respondent replied, 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 Andre Murray should attend his Office Mail box on Monday (3 days later) at which time the Respondents Submission would be available. The Respondents Solicitor protested, that, I should not wish to wait until Monday. Again, 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 suffice and wished to have a copy sent to me right-way, and I Andre Murray suggested, offering, that local couriers could accomplish the Document Process Service 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 and facsimile 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 was is not considered service according to the Rules of Court. However, I was told that a copy was and or would be sent as a courtesy and would not be considered service. I stated, that, the way I already indicated I wished to be served was by registered mail and was told the document would be mailed but not given a time frame by which that would happen, and the 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 Andre Murray corresponded by electronic 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

43. On Monday, October 25, 2010 I Andre 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. 44. This affidavit is made in support of a NOTICE OF MOTION that this Court receives fresh evidence; furthermore, consider the circumstances as outlined regarding a ruling on costs as filed by Appellant Andre Murray.

SWORN TO AT THE City of Fredericton, In the County of York and Province of New Brunswick this _________day of __________ 2010.

BEFORE ME: _______________________ A NOTARY PUBLIC or COMMISSIONER OF OATHS PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

_________________ Andre Murray

14

15

EXHIBIT AA

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

EXHIBIT BB

from Christie Law Office <tclaw@nb.aibn.com> to andremurraynow@gmail.com date Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM subject danielski motion affidavit.pdf mailed_by nb.aibn.com Mr. Murray, Would you please email me back that you have received the documents in the above pdf file? Thank you. Tom Christie E. Thomas Christie, Q.C. Christie Law Office Suite 306, 212 Queen Street Fredericton, NB E3B 1A8 Tel.: 506_472_2090 Fax: 506_472_2091 Email: tclaw@nb.aibn.com danielski motion affidavit.pdf danielski motion affidavit.pdf 937K View Download

23

EXHIBIT CC

from Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> to tclaw@nb.aibn.com date Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:48 PM subject Your confirmation please mailed_by gmail.com hide details Jun 7

Hello Tom Christie, this is my courteous acknowledgment of your email sent, end of the working day and dated Friday June 4, 2010. I have opened and perused your correspondence only today Monday June 7, 2010. In response to your request contained there in, I must respond, that, to date, I have never received any documents from your office whatsoever. 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 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. Question: Please confirm that you received my faxed documents sent 05/31/2010 03:07 PM which included 40 pages, consisting
24

of Amended Notice of Motion dated 31st day of May, 2010 and supporting Affidavit 2 Dated 31st day of May, 2010 Also; Please confirm that you received my faxed documents sent 05/31/2010 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 by consenting 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 . I trust you find the following agreeable. Wishing you and your office, the very best this day. Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity Andre Murray

from Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> to tclaw@nb.aibn.com date Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:53 PM subject Re: Your confirmation please mailed_by gmail.com hide details Jun 7

Hello Tom Christie,

25

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

Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity Andre Murray
_ Show quoted text _ __ Andre Murray

EXHIBIT DD

from tclaw@nb.aibn.com reply_to tclaw@nb.aibn.com to andremurraynow@gmail.com, Tom Christie <tclaw@nb.aibn.com> date Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:27 PM mailed_by srs.bis.na.blackberry.com hide details Jul 19 Mr. Murray, if you intend to rely on the transcript of the earlier hearing then you will need to provide me a copy of it either on its own or as part of an affidavit. Please get it to me this week as my office will be closed after Friday for two weeks. Thanks Tom Christie Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device

from Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> to tclaw@nb.aibn.com date Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 7:12 PM subject Re: mailed_by gmail.com 26

hide details Jul 19

Hello Thomas Christie, Good to hear from you. Please consider me advised, that you will be closing your office .... I wish you a happy holiday. Also, kindly never address me as Mr. as I do not recognize this term, as it is addressing a 'person' that, which, I consider myself not. I am a man, not a person as defined by law, my name is Andre. Thank you Thomas for your consideration on the herein before mentioned 'Mr.' matter. Note: Fax correspondence sent to your office on or about May 31, 2010 please see Court of Queen's Bench AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE (FORM 18B) filed Court of Queen's Bench May 31, 2010. Furthermore your office has not replied. Sincerely Andre Murray
_ Show quoted text _ __ Andre Murray

from Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> to tclaw@nb.aibn.com date Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 10:27 AM subject Re: mailed_by gmail.com hide details Jul 21

Hello Thomas Christie, further to your e-mail of date Mon July 19, 2010 Please confirm that according to rules of Court furthermore, that if I intend to use transcripts I am obligated to provide a certified copy to you.
27

I have spoken with a Court reporter as a result of your inquires and was advised by same that I may not provide you a copy as they are copy righted Kindly confirm is this true? Sincerely Andre Murray
_ Show quoted text _ __ Andre Murray

from Christie Law Office <tclaw@nb.aibn.com> to Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> date Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:05 AM subject RE: mailed_by nb.aibn.com hide details Jul 21 Our position will be that if you plan to refer to any transcript, then you will have to make it an exhibit to an affidavit of yours and file and serve it on me. Otherwise, our position will be that you will be prohibited from referring to any portion of the transcript. Furthermore, this will confirm I am in receipt of your Motion and what appears to be a supporting affidavit of yours dated June 17th. Feel free to add this email string to your Record on Motion as my acknowledgement of service. Tom

E. Thomas Christie, Q.C. Christie Law Office Suite 306, 212 Queen Street Fredericton, NB E3B 1A8 Tel.: 506_472_2090 Fax: 506_472_2091

28

Email: tclaw@nb.aibn.com From: Andre Murray [mailto:andremurraynow@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 10:27 AM To: tclaw@nb.aibn.com Subject: Re: _ Show quoted text _

From Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> to Christie Law Office <tclaw@nb.aibn.com> date Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 4:15 PM subject Re: mailed_by gmail.com hide details Jul 21

Hello Thomas Christie, further to your e-mail of date Mon July 19, 2010 The unfortunate position you are taking regarding your demand that I must provide you with a copy of a transcript is contrary to practice at COURT APPEAL. Please be advised that I have contacted the registrar of COURT OF APPEAL 'Dominique'. Consequentially, in view of the facts and certain legal positions I am obliged, to agree with other authorities. I must respectfully decline your demand, unless you can otherwise demonstrate my obligation. Kindly advise your position on this matter at your earliest convenience. Thanking you in advance. Sincerely Andre Murray_ Show quoted text _
__ Andre Murray

29

from tclaw@nb.aibn.com reply_to tclaw@nb.aibn.com to Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com>, Tom Christie <tclaw@nb.aibn.com> date Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 5:43 PM subject Re: mailed_by srs.bis.na.blackberry.com hide details Jul 21 To be clear, any document, including any transcript you might rely on must be properly filed with the court and served on me. If during the hearing you refer to any document or evidence that is not properly before the Court I will be objecting to it. Tom Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device From: Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:15:45 _0300 To: Christie Law Office<tclaw@nb.aibn.com> _ Show quoted text _

from Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> to tclaw@nb.aibn.com date Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 5:41 PM subject Re: mailed_by gmail.com hide details Jul 22

Hello Thomas Christie, further to your e-mail of date Mon July 19, 2010 As you have indicated that it will be necessary for you to close your law office for two weeks immediately prior to the COURT OF APPEAL hearing for 'Leave to Appeal; scheduled August 10, 2010. Please be advised that a Amendment to the Motion, is currently being prepared and I will require that you accept and or not avoid service of same.
30

Please advise me, in your absence, as to where, and or with whom, should I leave the Amended Motion, which is currently being crafted and expected to be ready for service before the last week of July, 2010 ? Your position on this matter at your earliest convenience. Please Thanking you in advance. Sincerely Andre Murray
Sincerely Andre Murray _ Show quoted text _ __ Andre Murray

from tclaw@nb.aibn.com reply_to tclaw@nb.aibn.com to Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com>, Tom Christie <tclaw@nb.aibn.com> date Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 8:39 PM subject Re: mailed_by srs.bis.na.blackberry.com hide details Jul 22 I gave you advance warning of my office closure anticipating that you may have some plan to alter your approach. There will be someone at my office until noon tomorrow (Fri. 23rd July). After that there will be no one available and authorized to accept service. You had better plan to deal with that issue when we begin the hearing as I will be objecting to any amendment.

Tom Sent from my BlackBerry wireless device From: Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:41:20 _0300 _ Show quoted text _ EXHIBIT EE from Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> to Christie Law Office <tclaw@nb.aibn.com> date Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:00 PM subject Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH) mailed_by gmail.com 31

hide details Sep 2

Hello Thomas Christie, As you are aware of my facsimile of this same day .... thought I would take this opportunity, regarding Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH) 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' . This is my courteous letter of consideration, I expect a reply to this matter at your earliest convenience. Thank you in advance and wish you a good day. Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity Andre Murray

from Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> to Christie Law Office <tclaw@nb.aibn.com> date Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:09 PM subject Re: Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH) mailed_by gmail.com hide details Sep 2

Hello Thomas Christie, Please explain as to why, to date, all of the documents submitted, on behalf of Betty Rose Danielski and coming from your office have the Betty underlined!?

32

Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity Andre Murray
_ Show quoted text _ __ Andre Murray

from Christie Law Office <tclaw@nb.aibn.com> to Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> date Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 11:26 AM subject RE: Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH) mailed_by nb.aibn.com hide details Sep 7

My experience is that matters such as this are usually scheduled for a half day, but there is no way of telling how long you think you will need. I dont expect that my argument will be more than to 1 hour in length.

Hope this helps.

Tom

E. Thomas Christie, Q.C. Christie Law Office Suite 306, 212 Queen Street Fredericton, NB E3B 1A8 Tel.: 506_472_2090 Fax: 506_472_2091 33

Email: tclaw@nb.aibn.com From: Andre Murray [mailto:andremurraynow@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 5:01 PM To: Christie Law Office Subject: Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH) _ Show quoted text _

from Andre Murray <andremurraynow@gmail.com> to Christie Law Office <tclaw@nb.aibn.com> date Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 12:09 PM subject Re: Certificate of Readiness' (FORM62HH) mailed_by gmail.com hide details Sep 7

Hello Thomas Christie, Please explain as to why, to date, all of the documents submitted, on behalf of Betty Rose Danielski and coming from your office have the Betty underlined!? Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation, or frivolity Andre Murray
_ Show quoted text _ __ Andre Murray

34

EXHIBIT FF

35

36

37

38

39