Court of Appeal File Number: 105 11 - CA (Court File Number: F/C/104/09) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK ANDR

R MURRAY APPELLANT -andBETTY 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 Andr 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 Andr Murray verily believe that the entirety of the Affidavit of Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010, is without substantive material relative to the matters of the Original MOTION which is requesting of an Order of Continuance pursuant to Mechanic Lien Act as such the subject Affidavit cannot have and does not offer substance sufficient to follow with argument establishing procedural law; instead appears motivated to detract from as contentions found are embarrassing , may delay the fair Hearing of the matter, are scandalous, frivolous and/or vexatious, and are an abuse of the process of the Court; 3. I, Appellant Andr Murray verily believe the Defendant (Respondent) did not provide the Honorable Trial Division Court proper Documents substantiating by Affidavit Process Service of the within subject Affidavit of Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010, as is required according

BETWEEN:

to and by the Rules of Court 39.01 and 39.04 before either of the two lower Trial Court Hearings of June 10, 2010 (Madam Justice Garnett) or February 14, 2011 (Madam Justice J. L. Clendening) respectively; Defendant Betty Rose Danielski did not request that either Court acting therefore of first instance to overlook this glaring irregularity in Court Document Process Service, so that the Learned Trial Judge could properly consider this same Affidavit. 4. I, Appellant Andr Murray verily believe the Honorable Madam Justice J. L. Clendening was made sufficiently aware through the Plaintiffs submissions that the Defendant had not served upon the Plaintiff the subject Affidavit of Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010, , as is required by the Rules of Court. Honorable Madam Justice J. L. Clendening did not make an Order, nor has there been an request for an Order submitted by the Defendants therefore before the Honorable Court which could have (if granted) waived the obligation of the Defendants to have served the Affidavit of Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010. 5. I, Appellant Andr 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. 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, 2011. Rule 62.20, and in a particular matter, being heard previously, 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 Andr 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 Code of Professional Conduct guidelines therefore as found established within The Law Society of New Brunswicks, 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 herewithin Appeal. 6. Appellant Andr Murray was Process Served Court Documents by registered Mail, a copy of the Respondents Appeal Book on October 21, 2011. According to the Rules of Court 3.01 (d) Computation of time, October 21, 2011, is a day past the prescribed time limits according to Rule 62.20 (b) Filing and Service of Respondents Submission. The Respondents Appeal Book was not available for pick up from the Canada Post Outlet October 21, 2011, until 4:31pm or 16:31, as indicated on the Canada Post tracking status track history. It was not physically possible for Appellant Andr Murray to pick up the package from the Canada Post outlet, in time to be served. Appellant Andr Murray has provided the Canada Post tracking status track history for the package containing the Respondents Appeal Book, tracking number RW593170269CA, a print out is attached hereto and Marked EXHIBIT AA. 7. I, Appellant Andr Murray did indicate to the Respondent in my very first e-mail correspondence to Solicitor Thomas Christie on Mon, June 7, 2010, that I Andr Murray would only be able to properly, accept Service according to the Rules of Court. Moreover, Rules of Court do not provide for Process Service of Court Documents upon a non Solicitor by e-mail. 8. At the date of filling this Affidavit, I, Appellant Andr Murray verily believe the Respondent has not yet served upon the Appellant a Certificate of Respondent (Form 62G). 9. As of the filling date of this Affidavit, Appellant Andr Murray verily believes the Respondent has not yet Process Served according to Rules of Court, therefore, served upon the Appellant the Respondents Appeal Book. 10. I, Appellant Andr Murray believe, the Defendant did not serve the subject Affidavit of Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010, as is required by the Rules of Court 39.01 and 39.04 not before either of the two subject lower /Court hearings: June 10, 2010 (Madam Justice Garnett) or February 14, 2011 (Madam Justice J. L. Clendening) furthermore, did not request that the Court of first instance overlook this glaring irregularity in processing Court Document Service, so that the Learned Trial Judge would properly consider subject Affidavit.

11. The following facts were all submitted to Madam Justice J. L. Clendening through Plaintiffs Submission Book 2, for the Honorable Courts attention and consideration thereof, during the February 14, 2011 Court Hearing and comprised 30 pages of submission enforced by evidence in the Record. 12. I, Appellant Andr Murray believe, in Matters of or regarding non adherence to the Rules of Court, as it pertains to Court File Number: FC 104 09, Andr 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 practices, of a dysfunctional nature, seriously deserving of sanction by this Honorable Court. Appellant Andr 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 Andr 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 (Plaintiff in that matter) now Appellant Andr Murray, that, Betty Rose Danielski was avoiding service. Andr Murray attempted to effect Personal Service, Service by Prepaid Mail or Prepaid Courier, of correspondence containing the following 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; 13. 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 14. I Appellant Andr 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 Andr 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 evidenced by contingency Service attempts, sent UPS registered Mail, by Plaintiff now Appellant Andr 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 Process Server George Mallai and a second set which (always rejected before) was finally claimed and signed for which was sent to Fudger House, the place of work of the Defendant Betty Rose Danielski. 15. I, Plaintiff Andr 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 Andr 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. 16. I, Plaintiff Andr Murray, for the first time became aware of Defendant Betty Rose Danielski having retained Legal services of Solicitor Thomas Christie, not before the Plaintiff Andr Murray (Appellant in this matter) Searched the Court File (Court File Number: F/C/104/09) in preparation for filing and serving of the Plaintiffs Motion for Orders granting therefore, a Continuance of the Plaintiffs Mechanics Lien Action, caused as the Plaintiff Andr Murray does believe by the Solicitor for Royal Bank of Canada working together with the Respondent in this matter contriving to deny Defendant Andr Murrays many requests therefore not grant access to 29 Marshall Street, Fredericton, so that substantive material essential to Discovery as is desirable when seeking remedy, these subject documents could not be retrieved by the Plaintiff, without consent by the Landlord Defendant Betty Rose Danielski and or R.B.C. mortgagee which subject documents were essential and indispensably necessary to move the (Court File Number: F/C/104/09) Mechanics Lien Action along to DISCOVERY. 17. I, Plaintiff Andr 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. 18. The affidavit in support of the herewithin above mentioned Motion, detailed the reasons for any perceived delay of the Discovery process pursuant to the Mechanics Lien Act, prohibiting the forward movement of the subject action, thus far, and the reasons necessitating a requested Order for a Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action. Please note: The Plaintiff never received any reply, whatsoever, from the solicitor for the Respondent/Defendant. The Plaintiff Andr Murray never received a reply by phone, email, regular post letter, registered mail, or any other form of communication from the Defendant (Respondent in this matter) of the herewithin subject matter of requesting consent therefore, to a Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action.

19. The Plaintiff, on the 31st day of May, 2010 served Solicitor E. Thomas Christie, for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI, 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. 20. The Plaintiff, on the 31st day of May, 2010 served Solicitor E. Thomas Christie for Defendant, with the Plaintiffs letter to the Defendant Dated May 31, 2010, requesting Consent to a Continuance of a NOTICE of ACTION relative to the subject Mechanics Lien, 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). 21. The Plaintiff, on the 31st day of May, 2010 served Solicitor E. Thomas Christie for Defendant BETTY ROSE DANIELSKI, with Plaintiff Andr 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. 22. 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. 23. Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM was the first time I Plaintiff Andr Murray received an e-mail from Solicitor Thomas Christie. The above mentioned Jun 4, 2010 e-mail is attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT BB 24. I Plaintiff Andr Murray replied to the above mentioned email correspondence of 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. 25. Further to the herewithin above point found in Paragraph 24, within the same two above mentioned letters, the Plaintiff Andr 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. 26. The here within above mentioned Paragraphs 24 and 25 consisting of two Jun 7, 2010 e-mails sent to Solicitor for the Defendant (Respondent in this matter) never to my knowledge received a reply, furthermore the above mentioned two Jun 7, 2010 e-mails are attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT CC 27. I, Appellant Andr 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, as confirmed by and according to Court Client Services at Court of Appeal, also the Court reporter insisted that this behavior of Thomas Christie 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 Andr Murray with such matters. Furthermore,, Appellant Andr Murray, was told by Solicitor Thomas Christie that Andr Murray must serve any Amended pleading upon Thomas Christie at a date earlier than the Rules of Court dictate because of his Solicitor Thomas Christies previously scheduled vacation. 28. A copy, of the July 19, to July 22, 2010, e-mails are attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT DD 29. I, Appellant Andr 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) To which Solicitor Thomas Christie did not confirm receiving the same Fax. Further in the same e-mail the Plaintiff Andr 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 the Appellants September 2, 2010 e-mail was replied to, but not the other e-mail (sent same day) concerning the very peculiar underlined portion of name Betty Rose Danielski. The Appellant again resent the e-mail concerning the very peculiar underlined name of the Respondent Betty Rose Danielski. 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 hearing said Matter. 34. Subsequently, the Appellant provided the Respondent, in a timely manner, with the appropriate list of intended documents to be used at the hearing of the Court of Appeal, 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 Appellant responsibly therefore, further investigated the matter, it was found that the inclusion of any material for the appeal was to the discretion of the Appellant, and not in fact not necessary to satisfy the Respondent as was insisted by solicitor Thomas Christie for the Defendant/Respondent.

10

35. The Solicitor for the Respondent did not perform proper Court Document Process Service upon the Appellant, therefore, requiring service of a copy of the Respondents Submission upon the Appellant within prescribed Rules of Court with consideration for time limits, as in this case October 20, 2010. The Solicitor for the Respondent had been placed on NOTICE with respect to proper service by email; Mon, Jun 7, 2010, 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. Therefore, at 2:00 PM on October 20, 2010, I Andr Murray telephone called Client Services of the Court of Appeal, enquiring after the Respondents Submission. I Andr Murray was told that the Respondents Submission had not yet been filed. 37. October 20, 2010, I Andr 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 Andr Murray again telephoned the Office of the Thomas Christie, Solicitor for the Respondent, several times, but was unsuccessful at reaching the Solicitor for the Respondent. 39. October 22, 2010, I Andr Murray retrieved a telephone message from Court of Appeal Client Services, the message conveyed that Thomas Christie 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.

11

40. On Friday, October 22, 2010, at approximately 8:30 AM, I Andr Murray telephoned the Office of the Solicitor for the Respondent, and did reach Solicitor Thomas Christie for the Respondent. I Andr Murray at that time, verbalized my concerns, that I had not yet received a copy of the Respondents Submission, furthermore, confirmed with Solicitor Thomas Christie 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 Andr Murray should attend his Office Mail box on Monday (3 days later) at which time the Respondents Submission would be available. The Respondents Solicitor Thomas Christie protested that, I Andr Murray should not be content to wait until Monday. Again, Solicitor Thomas Christie 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 Andr 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 is not considered service according to the Rules of Court. However, I was told by Solicitor Thomas Christie confirming for that purpose, that a copy was and or would be sent by e-mail as a courtesy and would not be considered service. I stated, that I wanted 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, then 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 Andr 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

12

43. On Monday, October 25, 2010 I Andr 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. A copy of the subject envelope is attached hereto and marked EXHIBIT GG 44. This affidavit is made in support of a NOTICE OF MOTION, requesting Orders inter alia, that the Affidavit of Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Dated June 3, 2010 and any attachments, thereto, be struck out and or not considered by this Court; furthermore, consequently in light of the following the Appellant requests a ruling on costs as filed by Appellant Andr Murray. SWORN TO AT THE City of Fredericton, In the County of York and Province of New Brunswick this _________day of __________ 2011. BEFORE ME: _______________________ A NOTARY PUBLIC or COMMISSIONER OF OATHS PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

_________________ Andr Murray

13

14

EXHIBIT AA

15

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

16

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 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
17

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, 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

18

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 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.
19

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. 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. 20

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 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.
21

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

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 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. 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 _

23

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 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!?

24

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 Email: tclaw@nb.aibn.com 25

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

26

EXHIBIT FF

27

28

EXHIBIT GG

29

30

31