august 11, 2011, referral. the applicant’s pre hearing brief, rules of court, rule 38.06.1 for...

8/3/2019 August 11, 2011, Referral. The Applicants Pre Hearing Brief, Rules of Court, Rule 38.06.1 For Joint Hearing regardi

1/75

Court File Number: F/M/1/11

F/M/22/11

IN THE COURT OF QUEENS BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK

TRIAL DIVISION

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FREDERICTON

BETWEEN:

ANDRE MURRAY

Applicant,

-and-

THE NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION

Respondent,_____________________________________________________________________

The Applicants Pre-Hearing BriefRules of Court, Rule 38.06.1

For joint Hearing regarding Court File Number: F/M/1/11 and F/M/22/11Filed by the Self Represented Applicant Andr Murray

_____________________________________________________________________

Andr Murray

The Applicant

31 Marshall Street,

Fredericton,

New Brunswick,

E3A 4J8

Telephone Number:

E-mail address:

[email protected]

Debora M. Lamont

Stewart McKelvey

Barristers, Solicitorsand Trademark AgentsSuite 600 Frederick

Square 77

Westmorland StreetP.O. Box 730

Fredericton NB

E3B 5B4Direct Dial:

506.443.0125

Main Tel:

506.458.1970Fax: 506.444.8974

Email:

[email protected]

Debora M. Lamont

Solicitor for Respondent

The New Brunswick

Police Commission /435 King Street,Suite 202 / 435,

Fredericton NB

E3B 1E5Tel.(506) 453-2632

Fax.(506) 457-3542


2/75

ii

PART 1 INDEX

The Plaintiffs Pre-Hearing Brief{(1) Unless ordered otherwise, each party to an application shall prepare a

pre-hearing brief containing}

PAGE

A. PART I INDEX ____________________________________iiB. PART II STATEMENT OF FACTS ___________________ 1

{(a) a succinct outline of the facts the party intends to establish,}

C. PART III - ISSUES ____________________________________ 6{(b) a concise statement of the issues to be dealt with by the court,}

1. Questions for the Court to answer ________________________6

{(c) a concise statement of the principles of law on which the party

relies and citation of relevant statutory provisions and leading

authorities, and}

2. Introduction__________________________________________6

3.MAXIMS ____________________________________________8

4.Fraud _______________________________________________10

5.Fraudulent Representation _______________________________23

6.Granting Disclosure ____________________________________25

7.Security of property____________________________________37

8.Interpretation of Statutes________________________________53

9.Interpretation ________________________________________60

10.Closing_____________________________________________62

11.Should the Respondent pay costs of the within Motion?______65


3/75

iii

12.Cost Orders in favor of self-represented litigants____________65

D. PART VI ORDERS SOUGHT _______________________ 70{(d) a concise statement of the relief sought by the party.}


4/75

1

B. PART II STATEMENT OF FACTS{(a) a succinct outline of the facts the party intends to establish,}

1. Wednesday May 7, 2008, approximately 6 pm Andr Murray while leavinghis residence and traveling by bicycle into the center of Fredericton City,

the APPLICANT was intercepted by a single Police patrol car followed by

a group of Police patrol cars; the occupants of which, members of the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE proceeded to assault and arrest the

APPLICANT.

2. The Preposterous position of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEregarding the May 7, 2008 incident obliged the APPLICANT to reasonably

on September 27, 2010, apply pursuant to Right to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 for correspondence and

other documents which may reveal other possible motivations for the

outrageous behavior of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE as did occur

May 7, 2008.

3. APPLICANT as above mentioned, having filed complaints with both NewBrunswick Police Commission (File: 2110 C- 09- 09), and the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE regarding the above mentioned incident

Wednesday May 7, 2008, involving inter alia the arrest, of APPLICANT,

reasonably any subsequent investigations and results/conclusions

determined thereof, must be made available for perusal by the

APPLICANT and according to RTIPPA.

4. December 9, 2010, the APPLICANT did receive a reply correspondencefrom the NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION, which stated


5/75

2

NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION in spite of RTIPPA is

declining to allow the APPLICANT full access to documents, currently in

their possession, furthermore, this denial of access applies to specific

material - an Appendix C which consists of the investigation report

prepared by the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE and the copy provided

to NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION. Please note NEW

BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION is prepared to provide only partial

disclosure of the investigation report (2 pages of 48 pages).

5. NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION in spite of RTIPPA hasconfirmed both verbally and by written correspondence a refusal to allow

the APPLICANT full access to documents in their possession, which are

specific to this matter (in particular 48 pages) of Appendix C

6. January 13, 2011 NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION did makepartially available the documents as requested by the APPLICANT of

NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION File : 2110 C- 09- 09further, designated NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION File:

2010 RTIPPA- 02.

7. Andr Murray (APPLICANT in this matter) subsequently reviewed theNEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION File: (File: 2110 C- 09- 09

) 2010 RTIPPA- 02, the subject investigation report summary and

conclusion revealed that the cause of APPLICANTS Assault, Battery and

Arrest was as a result of a obscured/hidden person having provided a

report the following is an exact excerpt: Investigative Summary blacked

out .., a blacked out has provided a statement that he


6/75

3

observed a male closely matching the description of a suspect in some

type of crime, as a result he contacted the police station, and Cst. Debbie

Stafford attended the area and attempted to stop and identify the

individual.

8. March 5. 2009, daylight hours; APPLICANT having just finishedshoveling the driveway to residential dwelling was again assaulted and

arrested by the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE at 29 -31 Marshall

Street, in the City of Fredericton. The FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE

were directed by telephone transmission to APPLICANT and allegedly

falsely informed that APPLICANT was someone else, who

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE allegedly have warrants for the arrest of

that individual.

9. March 5. 2009, APPLICANT , although never resisted, again experiencedassault and battery resulting in physical injury at the hands of members of

the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE. As a result of the injuries, theApplicant have been unable to work (full capacity) since the March 5. 2009

assault and battery. Please note the APPLICANT was required by medical

doctor to wear an arm brace and attend physiotherapy, which continues to

this day because subject injuries which are not yet healed. the

APPLICANT is still suffering from the injuries inflicted upon the

APPLICANT by the March 5. 2009 arrest.

10.Late 2009, APPLICANT did file a complaint with the FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE, regarding the March 5. 2009 Assault, involving Battery

and Arrest. NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION File: (File:


7/75

4

9000 C- 09- 61 ) 2010 RTIPPA- 01 regarding the March 5. 2009

Assault, involving Battery and Arrest. The documents which NEW

BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION have released into the

APPLICANTS possession revealed that the Police regarding the March 5.

2009 Assault, involving Battery and Arrest. were being directed and or

guided by telephone communication with the FREDERICTON POLICE

FORCE dispatcher (as it does appear) to the APPLICANT moreover,

although the Applicant had removed all of his winter clothing all

accessories including hats scarves and gloves in a effort to maintain a

lower body temperature, to complete the laborious task of shoveling out the

snow from his driveway on a warm sunny day. Therefore it could not

possibly be true that a distinctly identifiable man of the Applicants shape,

size complexion and color of hair could possibly be mistaken for anyone

else other than who he actually is.

11.APPLICANT has been subject to an apparent plan of action designed toachieve a particular goal (object yet known) a unreasonable nonstopharassment program against the APPLICANT in this matter, since year

2005 became a Tenant at 29 Marshall Street in the City of Fredericton.

False witness statements against the APPLICANT therefore employing the

unsuspecting local FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE with unfounded

allegations which have lead to the APPLICANT in this case becoming the

victim of violence at the hands of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE.

12.APPLICANT Andre Murray since year 2005 becoming a ResidentialTenant at his Marshall Street residence in the City of Fredericton has


8/75

5

experienced unrelenting harassment by two neighbors in particular, living

in single family houses on each side of his residence.

13.since year 2005 became a Residential Leasehold Tenant at his MarshallStreet residence in the City of Fredericton has been visited by the local

FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE; Please Note that the

APPLICANT is making this statement with carful attention not to

exaggerate the facts of the matter as in the first year 2005 it would be safe

to say the members of the FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE visited

the residence at least twice a week, sometimes twice a day with annoying

allegations that the APPLICANT may have while walking in his yard,

further allegedly may have inadvertently and mysteriously offended a

neighbor although without actually having spoken to anyone nor had the

APPLICANT observed anyone.

14.The foregoing must have been recorded by the FREDERICTON CITYPOLICE FORCE Dispatch, (as it is their professional practice) this subjectharassment program against the APPLICANT must have been

chronologically documented and existing within the files of the

FREDERICTON CITY POLICE FORCE Department headquarters.

C. PART III - ISSUES{(b) a concise statement of the issues to be dealt with by the court,}

1. Questions for the Court to answer

Should the Honorable Court Order the New Brunswick PoliceCommission to disclose both requested Appendix C as provided by


9/75

6

and found within the Fredericton City Police Force Reports to the

Applicant?

Should the Honorable Court Order the Fredericton City Police Force todisclose the full requested Police Reports?

Should the Honorable Court Order the investigation by the FrederictonPolice into the abuse and malicious manipulation of the Fredericton

Police Force services regarding the volume and substance of thetelephone reports and complaints containing erroneous and provocative

allegations against Andr Murray (Applicant In this matter) order

disclosure of same investigation to the Applicant.

{(c) a concise statement of the principles of law on which the party relies and

citation of relevant statutory provisions and leading authorities, and}

2. Introduction

15.It is the APPLICANTS contention that in pursuance of RTIPPA the headof a public body should disclose requested records that contain information

of the identity of a malicious Police informant telephone caller, because

there exists circumstances in the present case which are the exception to

the rule which normally dictate that the RTIPPA is to be used to protect the

identity of third party. To use the RTIPPA to protect the identity of a third

party who is the source of a malicious Police informant telephone calls

bearing false witness which reasonably could be considered and has

evidently resulted in a disservice to justice causing violations of (in this

case) the APPLICANTS civil liberties including a very real possibility of

a fatal danger to the APPLICANT.

16.The NEW BRUNSWICK POLICE COMMISSION has identified a partyby only as a THIRD PARTY and subject of this application .


10/75

7

Misapprehension exists here, non-disclosure is clearly outweighed by the

significant public interest in this matter requiring disclosure for the

purposes of the safety or protection of the APPLICANT. Section 22(5) of

the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-

10.6 provides the following example of where the head of a public body

shall disclose a record in the case of where the private interest of the third

party in non-disclosure is clearly outweighed by the significant public

interest in disclosure for the purposes of public health or safety or

protection of the environment as follows:

22(5) Subject to section 34 and any other exception provided for in thisAct, the head of a public body shall disclose a record that contains

information described in subsection (1) or (2) if, in the opinion of the

head, the private interest of the third party in non-disclosure is clearlyoutweighed by the significant public interest in disclosure for the

purposes of public health or safety or protection of the environment.

17.When someone misuses and abuses the system especially crime preventionservices and public services to engage in a systematic vicarious assault on

an innocent these malicious people should in effect be relinquishing theintended protection of the RTIPPA.

18.We should all expect a reasonable protection of our privacy, bet when ouractions become unreasonable, and in this case to be direct malicious, then

those maliciousindividuals should not be protected by law designed to

protect the privacy of reasonable people acting forthright.

3. MAXIMS

19.Because Maxims are principles and authorities, universally admitted, asbeing just, further, that it be consonant to reason and part of the general


11/75

8

customs or common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts of

parliament, please note APPLICANT will use the relevant Maxims

throughout following arguments as they may apply in this particular case.

20.APPLICANT comprehends; the following are the definitions of "maxims".Found at (http://ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html)

21.APPLICANT will include and utilize Maxims, that, which, therefore maystrengthen the following arguments such as the APPLICANT intends, for

that reason, to present/offer to this most Honorable Court.

22.A. Maxim definitions:A. Maxim (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856):

1. An established principle or proposition. A principle of law

universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.

2. Maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry. 1 Bl. Com.

68. They are principles and authorities, and part of the general customsor common law of the land; and are of the same strength as acts ofparliament, when the judges have determined what is a maxim; which

belongs to the judges and not the jury. Terms do Ley; Doct. & Stud.

Dial. 1, c. 8. Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other casesthat may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b.

3. The application of the maxim to the case before the court, isgenerally the only difficulty. The true method of making the application

is to ascertain how the maxim arose, and to consider whether the case

to which it is applied is of the same character, or whether it is anexception to an apparently general rule.

4. The alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are

dangerous. 2 Inst. 210.


12/75

9

B. Maxim (William C. Anderson'sA Dictionary of Law, (1893), page

666):

1. So calledbecause it's value is the highest and its authority the most

reliable, and because it is accepted by all persons at the very highest.

2. The principles and axioms of law, which are general propositions

flowing from abstracted reason, and not accommodated to times ormen, are wisely deposited in the breasts of the judges to be applied to

such facts as come properly before them.

3. When a principle has been so long practiced and so universally

acknowledged as to become a maxim, it is obligatory as part of the law.

C. Maxim of Law (Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, (1933), page1171): An established principle of proposition. A principle of law

universally admitted as being a correct statement of the law, or as

agreeable to reason. Coke defines a maxim to be "a conclusion ofreason" Coke on Littleton, 11a. He says in another place, "A maxim is a

proposition to be of all men confessed and granted without proof,

argument, or discourse." Coke on Littleton. 67a.

D. Maxim (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition): Maxims are but

attempted general statements of rules of law and are law only to the

extent of application in adjudicated cases."

Maxim - Regula pro lege, si deficit lex. In default of the law, the maxim

rules.

23.APPLICANT supports the English dictum that a man's home is his refugeas was established in common law by the lawyer and politician Sir Edward

Coke in The Institutes of the Laws of England, as early as 1628 further, that

this is a fundamentally important concept, that the Courts should uphold:

"For a man's house is his castle, et domus sua cuique est tutissimumrefugium [and each man's home is his safest refuge].


13/75

10

The Common laws of the Realm should by no means be delayed for the

law is the surest sanctuary, that a man should take, and the strongest

fortress to protect the weakest of all, lex et tutissima cassis.

The house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for

his defence against injury and violence as for his repose. "

24.Further to the above principal established 1628 by lawyer and politician SirEdward Coke; a principal the Applicant comprehends, is as a free society,

we must have liberties grounded on self evident truths of the importance of

the sanctity, security and privacy of the individuals home. TheAPPLICANT wishes to bring to the Courts attention the seriousness of the

unwarranted violation of someones home, invasion of privacy and as the

above mentioned Sir Edward Cokes, Semayne's Case, reflects and

embodies sanctity principals, referred to as, aMans Home is his Castle.

4. Fraud

Maxim - The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights.2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2327

25.The APPLICANT asserts that facts as will be presented, and thepreponderance of probability will lead to the conclusion that the unnamed

informant caller(s) and source of the fraudulent information provided to the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, are acting maliciously, fraudulently

and misusing the public resources for their own disingenuous ends.

26.The APPLICANT would like to note the following Maxims regarding thenature of the fraud:


14/75


15/75

12

Fraud is most common in the buying or selling of property, including

real estate, Personal Property, and intangible property, such as stocks,

bonds, and copyrights. State and federal statutes criminalize fraud, butnot all cases rise to the level of criminality. Prosecutors have discretion

in determining which cases to pursue. Victims may also seek redress in

civil court.

Fraud must be proved by showing that the Applicant's actions involved

five separate elements: (1) a false statement of a material fact,(2)knowledge on the part of the Applicant that the statement is untrue, (3)

intent on the part of the Applicant to deceive the alleged victim, (4)

justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and (5)injury to the alleged victim as a result.

These elements contain nuances that are not all easily proved. First, notall false statements are fraudulent. To be fraudulent, a false statement

must relate to a material fact. It should also substantially affect a

person's decision to enter into a contract or pursue a certain course ofaction. A false statement of fact that does not bear on the disputed

transaction will not be considered fraudulent.

Second, the Applicant must know that the statement is untrue. A

statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not fraudulent. To be

fraudulent, a false statement must be made with intent to deceive the

victim. This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once falsity andmateriality are proved, because most material false statements are

designed to mislead.

Third, the false statement must be made with the intent to deprive the

victim of some legal right.

Fourth, the victim's reliance on the false statement must be reasonable.

Reliance on a patently absurd false statement generally will not giverise to fraud; however, people who are especially gullible, superstitious,

or ignorant or who are illiterate may recover damages for fraud if the

Applicant knew and took advantage of their condition.

Finally, the false statement must cause the victim some injury thatleaves her or him in a worse position than she or he was in before the

fraud.


16/75

13

A statement of belief is not a statement of fact and thus is not

fraudulent. Puffing, or the expression of a glowing opinion by a seller,

is likewise not fraudulent. For example, a car dealer may represent thata particular vehicle is "the finest in the lot." Although the statement

may not be true, it is not a statement of fact, and a reasonable buyer

would not be justified in relying on it.

The relationship between parties can make a difference in determining

whether a statement is fraudulent. A misleading statement is morelikely to be fraudulent when one party has superior knowledge in a

transaction, and knows that the other is relying on that knowledge, than

when the two parties possess equal knowledge. For example, if theseller of a car with a bad engine tells the buyer the car is in excellent

running condition, a court is more likely to find fraud if the seller is anauto mechanic as opposed to a sales trainee. Misleading statements aremost likely to be fraudulent where one party exploits a position of trust

and confidence, or a fiduciary relationship. Fiduciary relationships

include those between attorneys and clients, physicians and patients,stockbrokers and clients, and the officers and partners of a corporationand its stockholders.

A statement need not be affirmative to be fraudulent. When a person

has a duty to speak, silence may be treated as a false statement. This

can arise if a party who has knowledge of a fact fails to disclose it to

another party who is justified in assuming its nonexistence. Forexample, if a real estate agent fails to disclose that a home is built on a

toxic waste dump, the omission may be regarded as a fraudulent

statement. Even if the agent does not know of the dump, the omissionmay be considered fraudulent. This is constructive fraud, and it is

usually inferred when a party is a fiduciary and has a duty to know of,

and disclose, particular facts.

Fraud is an independent criminal offense, but it also appears in

different contexts as the means used to gain a legal advantage oraccomplish a specific crime. For example, it is fraud for a person to

make a false statement on a license application in order to engage in theregulated activity. A person who did so would not be convicted offraud. Rather, fraud would simply describe the method used to break

the law or regulation requiring the license.


17/75

14

Fraud resembles theft in that both involve some form of illegal taking,

but the two should not be confused. Fraud requires an additional

element of False Pretenses created to induce a victim to turn overproperty, services, or money. Theft, by contrast, requires only the

unauthorized taking of another's property with the intent to

permanently deprive the other of the property. Because fraud involvesmore planning than does theft, it is punished more severely.

29.Fraud as offered above herewithin and below may be established byshowing that the perpetrators actions involved five separate elements:

(1)a false statement of a material fact,(2)knowledge on the part of the source that the statement is untrue,(3)intent on the part of the source to deceive the alleged victim,(4)justifiable reliance by the alleged victim on the statement, and(5) injury to the alleged victim as a result.

30.The APPLICANT is not attempting to prove Fraud, per se, but wishes toalert the attention of the Court to the relevant portions of an argument

regarding the fraudulent misrepresentations of the unknown informantcaller(s) and the implications of same, namely that because the unknown

informant caller(s) are acting fraudulently they should not in the usual

manner be protected by this Court. To be fraudulent, a false statement must

relate to a material fact, in this case unknown informant caller(s)

fraudulently informing the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE of facts

which the unknown informant caller(s) must have known to be false. In

criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or

to damage another individual A false statement of fact that does not bear on

the intentional deception will not be considered fraudulent, in this matter,

the intentional deception was to cause the FREDERICTON POLICE


18/75

15

FORCE to act against the Applicant on many occasions under the false

information that the APPLICANT was an individual with warrants for his

arrest, or some other equally false claims.

31.Second, the individual Source of the information must know that thestatement is untrue. A statement of fact that is simply mistaken is not

fraudulent. In the present case, this was not simply one mistaken statement

of fact, since the year 2005 the deceptions are unrelenting and were of a

substance requiring a sufficient consciousness of mind to orchestrate the

copious barrage unrelenting fraudulent misrepresentations of the unknown

informant caller(s). This is perhaps the easiest element to prove, once

falsity and materiality are proved because most material false statements

are designed to mislead, such as in this case, the false information to the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE was crafted to mislead the Fredericton

Police into a course of action which would have been to the detriment of

the APPLICANTS legal rights and standing, and at the same time the

induced course of action would have been to the benefit of the unknowninformant caller(s) (otherwise why would this continue this course of

action).

32.Third, the false statement, in a incident of fraud, must be made with theintent to deprive the victim of some legal right, in this case the Applicant

would have been deprived of the Applicants legal rights guaranteed by

The English Magna Carta, expressed in The United States constitution and

guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights, which stated clearly the

relationship between life, liberty, and property; arguably there is no


19/75

16

property more sacred than a mans home. The violation of ones home

constitutes a serious affront to human dignity.

33.Fourth, justifiable reliance by the alleged victim (FREDERICTONPOLICE FORCE) on the fraudulent statement as is in this case the victim's

reliance on the false information, must be reasonable (which is apparent

because the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE acted on same) .

34.Finally, the false statements provided by the malicious informantsevidently made victims of FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE and the

APPLICANT causing injury leaving all concerned and or interacting

during these false arrests, inter alia in a worse position than they were

before the malicious informants instigated said events .

35.TheMaxim Let no one be relieved or gain an advantage by his ownfraud. Is relevant to this hearing because, the informant(s), having

repeatedly provided false information (whatever their motivation)toFREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, by their (the informant) actions and the

actions of their willing agents (FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE) created

a condition, where, the Applicant:

a) Despite having no warrants for the Applicant,b) Despite having not been a criminal,c) Despite having no criminal record,d) Despite having not being engaged in criminal activity,e) Despite having not being under investigation by the Fredericton

Police,f) The applicant has had his residence searched twice withoutwarrants, by the Fredericton Police,

g) The applicant has at his residence been, Assaulted, Battered,Arrested, injured and Detained three separate times,


20/75

17

h) The applicant has been subject to 6 years of unnecessary PoliceHarassment involving many incidents coming and going to the

area of residence,i) The Applicant cannot enjoy the Applicants residence, without

interference,

j) The applicant is in fear for his life and or personal safety,k) The Fredericton Police Force will not cooperate with the

Applicant.

which reveals that the agenda of the unnamed informant(s) appears to be

succeeding consequentially without the intervention of the Courts,

Applicant will continue to be Assaulted, Battered, Arrested, injured,

Detained and have his residence searched without COURT ORDERED

WARRANTS, illegally by the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE.

36.Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), Page 4062 and 4063 provides thefollowing definition of REPRESENTATION as follows:

REPRESENTATIONrepresentation,n.1. A presentation of fact either by words or by

conduct made to induce someone to act, esp. to enter into a contract;

esp., the manifestation to another that a fact, including a state of mind,exists


21/75

18

entitle the injured party to repudiate the whole contract. William R.

Anson, Principles of the Law of Contract 218, 222 (Arthur L. Corbin

ed., 3d Am. ed. 1919).

affirmative representation. A representation asserting the existence of

certain facts pertaining to a given subject matter.

false representation. See MISREPRESENTATION.

material representation. A representation to which a reasonable person

would attach importance in deciding his or her course of action in a

transaction. Material representation is a necessary element of an

action for fraud. [Cases: Contracts 94(2); Fraud 18. C.J.S. Contracts

156, 166.]

promissory representation. A representation about what one will do inthe future; esp., a representation made by an insured about what will

happen during the time of coverage, stated as a matter of expectation

and amounting to an enforceable promise. [Cases: Insurance 3035.C.J.S. Insurance 537, 546551, 629, 634, 639, 694, 704, 759.]

37.The informant(s) have done what is according to Blacks Law Dictionaryrepresentation which is a presentation of fact (in this case that the

APPLICANT is someone who he is not) either by words or by conduct

assertion (repeatedly providing false fraudulent information to the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE) to induce someone (MEMBERS

OF FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE) to act to injure Andr Murray

(APPLICANT) .

38.The informant(s) have provided what is according to Blacks LawDictionary above as material representation which is a representation to

which a reasonable person may attach importance while deciding their

(FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE) course of action such as to behave in


22/75

19

such a exaggerated manner so as to allow for Assault, Batter, Arrest, in the

course of an intended arrest of the APPLICANT which to date has

incidentally included unlawful detainment of APPLICANT Andr Murray

while having endured violent false arrest furthermore, FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE have conducted WARRENTLESS search procedure the

APPLICANTS residence.

39.Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) , Page 3169 and page 3170 providesthe following definition of MISREPRESENTATION as follows:

MISREPRESENTATION

misrepresentation,n. 1. The act of making a false or misleading

assertion about something, usu. with the intent to deceive. The worddenotes not just written or spoken words but also any other conduct that

amounts to a false assertion. [Cases: Fraud 9.]

2. The assertion so made; an assertion that does not accord with the

facts. Also termed false representation; (redundantly) falsemisrepresentation. Cf. REPRESENTATION(1). misrepresent,vb.

A misrepresentation, being a false assertion of fact, commonly takes

the form of spoken or written words. Whether a statement is false

depends on the meaning of the words in all the circumstances,including what may fairly be inferred from them. An assertion may also

be inferred from conduct other than words. Concealment or even non-disclosure may have the effect of a misrepresentation .... [A]n assertion

need not be fraudulent to be a misrepresentation. Thus a statement

intended to be truthful may be a misrepresentation because ofignorance or carelessness, as when the word not is inadvertently

omitted or when inaccurate language is used. But a misrepresentation

that is not fraudulent has no consequences ... unless it is material.

Restatement (Second) of Contracts 159 cmt. a (1979).

fraudulent misrepresentation. A false statement that is known to befalse or is made recklessly without knowing or caring whether it istrue or false and that is intended to induce a party to detrimentally

rely on it. Also termed fraudulent representation; deceit. [Cases:

Fraud 8.] A misrepresentation is fraudulent if the maker intends his


23/75

20

assertion to induce a party to manifest his assent and the maker (a)

knows or believes that the assertion is not in accord with the facts, or

(b) does not have the confidence that he states or implies in the truth ofthe assertion, or (c) knows that he does not have the basis that he states

or implies for the assertion. Restatement (Second) of Contracts

162(1) (1979).

material misrepresentation. 1.Contracts. A false statement that is likely

to induce a reasonable person to assent or that the maker knows islikely to induce the recipient to assent. [Cases: Contracts 94. C.J.S.

Contracts 136, 139140, 156, 158160, 170171, 173174.] 2.Torts.

A false statement to which a reasonable person would attach

importance in deciding how to act in the transaction in question or to

which the maker knows or has reason to know that the recipientattaches some importance. See Restatement (Second) of Torts 538

(1979). [Cases: Fraud 18.] The materiality of a misrepresentation isdetermined from the viewpoint of the maker, while the justification of

reliance is determined from the viewpoint of the recipient.... The

requirement of materiality may be met in either of two ways. First, amisrepresentation is material if it would be likely to induce a

reasonable person to manifest his assent. Second, it is material if the

maker knows that for some special reason it is likely to induce the

particular recipient to manifest his assent. There may be personalconsiderations that the recipient regards as important even though

they would not be expected to affect others in his situation, and if themaker is aware of this the misrepresentation may be material eventhough it would not be expected to induce a reasonable person to make

the proposed contract. One who preys upon another's known

diosyncrasies cannot complain if the contract is held voidable when hesucceeds in what he is endeavoring to accomplish.... Although a

nonfraudulent misrepresentation that is not material does not make the

contract voidable under the rules stated in this Chapter, the recipientmay have a claim to relief under other rules, such as those relating to

breach of warranty. Restatement (Second) of Contracts 162 cmt. c

(1979).

misrepresentation of source. See PASSING OFF.


24/75

21

negligent misrepresentation. A careless or inadvertent false statement in

circumstances where care should have been taken. [Cases: Fraud

13(3).]

40.There is evidence that certain informant(s) acted under a knowingmisrepresentation of the truth and or concealment of a material fact

regarding certain fraudulent information rendered to FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE to further induce the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE

to act to the detriment of the Applicant by feigning that the APPLICANT

was and or is someone whom he was not.

41.The informant(s) have done what is according to Blacks Law Dictionarymisrepresentation which is the act of making a false or misleading

assertion about something as in this case false allegations directed against

the reputation of the APPLICANT The word misrepresentation denotes

not just written or spoken words but also any other conduct that amounts to

a false assertion.

42.R. v. Mavroudis, 2009 ONCJ 430 (CanLII), Justice P.N. Bourque statedregarding Fraud, Conspiracy and Impersonation, at paragraph 16, 17, 32,

33, 34 and 40 As follows:

http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2009/2009oncj430/2009oncj430.html

LAW

[16] In the previous sentencing I set out what I felt was theappropriate legal framework for a sentencing for a significant fraudconviction:


25/75


26/75

23

regarding ALLEGED FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS and

BALANCE OF PROOF at paragraph 20 and paragraph 31 as follows:

[20] The parties concur that the elements comprising the tort ofdeceit or fraudulent representation are:

1. there must be a false representation of fact;2. the representation must be made with knowledge of its

falsity, or at least made in the absence of any genuine belief

that it is true, or recklessly;3. it must be made with the intention that it should be acted on

by the defendant, or by a class of persons which includes the

defendant, in the manner which resulted in damage to him;4. it must be proved that the defendant has acted upon the false

statement; and

5. that the defendant has sustained damage by so doing.BALANCE OF PROOF

[31] The defendants must meet a higher degree of probabilitygiven that their claim is based on allegations of fraud by Mr. Miller. InContinental Insurance Co. v. Dalton Cartage Co.,1982 CanLII 13

(S.C.C.), [1982] 1 S.C.R. 164, Chief Justice Laskin for the Court stated

at p. 170:

There is necessarily a matter of judgment involved in weighing

evidence that goes to the burden of proof, and a trial judge is justifiedin scrutinizing evidence with greater care if there are serious allegations

to be established by the proof that is offered. I put the matter in the

words used by Lord Denning in Bater v. Bater, supra ([1950] 2 AllE.R. 458) at p. 459, as follows:

It is true that by our law there is a higher standard ofproof in criminal cases than in civil cases, but this is

subject to the qualification that there is no absolute

standard in either case. In criminal cases the charge

must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, but there


27/75

24

may be degrees of proof within that standard. Many

great judges have said that, in proportion as the crime is

enormous, so ought the proof to be clear. So also in civilcases. The case may be proved by a preponderanceof probability, but there may be degrees ofprobability within that standard. The degreedepends on the subject-matter. A civil court, whenconsidering a charge of fraud, will naturally requirea higher degree of probability than that which itwould require if considering whether negligencewere established. It does not adopt so high a degreeas a criminal court, even when it is considering acharge of a criminal nature, but still it does require a

degree of probability which is commensurate withthe occasion.

[emphasis added]

44.Maxim - Perspicua vera non sunt probanda.Plaintruths need not be proved. Co. Litt. 16.

45.At this point the APPLICANT has alleged and hopefully established thatFRAUDULENT REPRESENTATIONS have occurred and the

BALANCE OF PROOF regarding preponderance of probability favors

that it is more likely that subject malicious informants are intending to

further provide fraudulent misrepresentation, to induce the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE to further act against the APPLICANT,

than it is to believe the subject malicious informant(s) have been innocently

mistaken, literally one hundred times over the course of five years.


28/75

25

6. Granting Disclosure

46.The law will not intend a wrong.-Legal Maxim, Bacon's Maxims (17, reg. 3)

47.Section 2 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B.2009, c. R-10.6 provides as it relates to the Applicant as follows:

Purposes of this Act2 The purposes of this Act are

(a) to allow any person a right of access to records in the custody orunder the control of public bodies, subject to the limited and specific

exceptions set out in this Act,

(c) to allow individuals a right of access to records containing personal

information about themselves in the custody or under the control of

public bodies, subject to the limited and specific exceptions set out inthis Act,

48.The three provided reasons by the New Brunswick Police Commission, fornot disclosing the subject information are:

1.

Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-

10.6

If access prohibited under another Act and sunsetprovision5(1) The head of a public body shall refuse to give access or disclose

information to an applicant under this Act if the access or disclosure isprohibited or restricted by another Act of the Legislature.

.

5(2) If a provision of this Act is inconsistent with or in conflict with aprovision of another Act of the Legislature, the provision of this Act


29/75

26

prevails unless the other Act of the Legislature expressly provides that

it, or a provision of it, prevails despite this Act.

2.

Police Act, S.N.B. 1977, c. P-9.2

Investigation report

28.2(2) Upon receipt of the documents listed under subsection(1), the chief of police shall

(a) provide a copy of the documents to the Commission, or, if theCommission agrees, make the documents available for viewing during

normal business hours, and

(b) provide a summary of the investigators findings and conclusions

to the police officer and the complainant

3.

Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-

10.6

Unreasonable invasion of third partys privacy

21(1) The head of a public body shall refuse to disclose personalinformation to an applicant if the disclosure would be an unreasonable

invasion of a third partys privacy.

General duty of public bodies

43(1) A public body shall not use or disclose personal informationexcept as authorized under this Division.

49.Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 3967 provides thefollowing definition of REASONABLE

REASONABLE


30/75

27

reasonable,adj.1. Fair, proper, or moderate under the circumstances .

2.According to reason .

50.Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 47793967 provides thefollowing definition of UNREASONABLE

UNREASONABLE

unreasonable,adj.1. Not guided by reason; irrational or capricious.

2. Not supported by a valid exception to the warrant requirement

.

51.In Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002 SCC 42, [2002] 2S.C.R. 559 Justice IACOBUCCI J. provided the following insight into the

Principles of Statutory Interpretation from paragraph 26 though to and

including paragraph 30 as follows:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2002/2002scc42/2002scc42.html

(1) Principles of Statutory Interpretation

26 In Elmer Driedgers definitive formulation, found

at p. 87 of his Construction of Statutes (2nd ed. 1983):

Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an

Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical andordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of

the Act, and the intention of Parliament.

Driedgers modern approach has been repeatedly cited by this Court asthe preferred approach to statutory interpretation across a wide range of

interpretive settings: see, for example, Stubart Investments Ltd. v. TheQueen, 1984 CanLII 20 (S.C.C.), [1984] 1 S.C.R. 536, at p. 578, perEstey J.; Qubec (Communaut urbaine) v. Corp. Notre_Dame de

Bon_Secours, 1994 CanLII 58 (S.C.C.), [1994] 3 S.C.R. 3, at p. 17;

Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Re), 1998 CanLII 837 (S.C.C.), [1998] 1


31/75

28

S.C.R. 27, at para. 21; R. v. Gladue, 1999 CanLII 679 (S.C.C.), [1999]

1 S.C.R. 688, at para. 25; R. v. Araujo, 2000 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2000]

2 S.C.R. 992, 2000 SCC 65, at para. 26; R. v. Sharpe, 2001 SCC 2(CanLII), [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45, 2001 SCC 2, at para. 33, per McLachlin

C.J.; Chieu v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2002

SCC 3 (CanLII), [2002] 1 S.C.R. 84, 2002 SCC 3, at para. 27. I note aswell that, in the federal legislative context, this Courts preferred

approach is buttressed by s. 12 of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.

I_21, which provides that every enactment is deemed remedial, andshall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation

as best ensures the attainment of its objects.

27 The preferred approach recognizes the important

role that context must inevitably play when a court construes thewritten words of a statute: as Professor John Willis incisively noted in

his seminal article Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell (1938), 16 Can.Bar Rev. 1, at p. 6, words, like people, take their colour from their

surroundings. This being the case, where the provision under

consideration is found in an Act that is itself a component of a largerstatutory scheme, the surroundings that colour the words and the

scheme of the Act are more expansive. In such an instance, the

application of Driedgers principle gives rise to what was described in

R. v. Ulybel Enterprises Ltd., 2001 SCC 56 (CanLII), [2001] 2 S.C.R.867, 2001 SCC 56, at para. 52, as the principle of interpretation that

presumes a harmony, coherence, and consistency between statutesdealing with the same subject matter. (See also Stoddard v. Watson,1993 CanLII 59 (S.C.C.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1069, at p. 1079;

Pointe_Claire (City) v. Quebec (Labour Court), 1997 CanLII 390

(S.C.C.), [1997] 1 S.C.R. 1015, at para. 61, per Lamer C.J.)

28 Other principles of interpretation such as the

strict construction of penal statutes and the Charter valuespresumption only receive application where there is ambiguity as to

the meaning of a provision. (On strict construction, see: Marcotte v.

Deputy Attorney General for Canada, 1974 CanLII 1 (S.C.C.), [1976] 1

S.C.R. 108, at p. 115, per Dickson J. (as he then was); R. v. Goulis(1981), 33 O.R. (2d) 55 (C.A.), at pp. 59_60; R. v. Hasselwander, 1993

CanLII 90 (S.C.C.), [1993] 2 S.C.R. 398, at p. 413; R. v. Russell, 2001

SCC 53 (CanLII), [2001] 2 S.C.R. 804, 2001 SCC 53, at para. 46. Ishall discuss the Charter values principle later in these reasons.)


32/75

29

29 What, then, in law is an ambiguity? To answer,

an ambiguity must be real (Marcotte, supra, at p. 115). The words ofthe provision must be reasonably capable of more than one meaning

(Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Zang, [1966] A.C. 182 (H.L.), at p. 222, per

Lord Reid). By necessity, however, one must consider the entirecontext of a provision before one can determine if it is reasonably

capable of multiple interpretations. In this regard, Major J.s statement

in CanadianOxy Chemicals Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 1999CanLII 680 (S.C.C.), [1999] 1 S.C.R. 743, at para. 14, is apposite: It

is only when genuine ambiguity arises between two or more plausible

readings, each equally in accordance with the intentions of the statute,

that the courts need to resort to external interpretive aids (emphasis

added), to which I would add, including other principles ofinterpretation.

30 For this reason, ambiguity cannot reside in the

mere fact that several courts __ or, for that matter, several doctrinal

writers __ have come to differing conclusions on the interpretation of agiven provision. Just as it would be improper for one to engage in a

preliminary tallying of the number of decisions supporting competing

interpretations and then apply that which receives the higher score, it

is not appropriate to take as ones starting point the premise thatdiffering interpretations reveal an ambiguity. It is necessary, in every

case, for the court charged with interpreting a provision to undertakethe contextual and purposive approach set out by Driedger, andthereafter to determine if the words are ambiguous enough to induce

two people to spend good money in backing two opposing views as to

their meaning (Willis, supra, at pp. 4_5).

52.The stated purposes of this Right to Information and Protection of PrivacyAct, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 is to (a) to allow any person a right of access

to records in the custody or under the control of public bodies, subject to

the limited and specific exceptions set out in this Act, and (c) to allow

individuals a right of access to records containing personal information


33/75

30

about themselves in the custody or under the control of public bodies,

subject to the limited and specific exceptions set out in this Act.

53.As stated in Bell ExpressVu Limited Partnership v. Rex, 2002, supra byJustice IACOBUCCI J Today there is only one principle or approach,

namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in

their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the

Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.

54.Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13, section 17, is reproducedbellow, as follows:

17 Every Act and regulation and every provision thereof shall bedeemed remedial, and shall receive such fair, large and liberalconstruction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment ofthe object of the Act, regulation or provision.

55.Should the Honorable COURT ORDER the New Brunswick POLICECOMMISSION to grant the APPLICANT right of access to records

containing personal information about the APPLICANT that which may be

in the custody or under the control of New Brunswick POLICE

COMMISSION, said ORDER would be congruent with the stated purpose

of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and

Interpretation Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. I-13.

56.Section 5 (1) and section 5(2) of the Right to Information and Protectionof Privacy Act, S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6, quoted by the New Brunswick

POLICE COMMISSION, provides the following:


34/75

31

If access prohibited under another Act and sunsetprovision

5(1) The head of a public body shall refuse to give access or discloseinformation to an applicant under this Act if the access or disclosure is

prohibited or restricted by another Act of the Legislature.

5(2) If a provision of this Act is inconsistent with or in conflict with aprovision of another Act of the Legislature, the provision of this Act

prevails unless the other Act of the Legislature expressly provides thatit, or a provision of it, prevails despite this Act.

57.Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 3828 provides thefollowing definition of PROHIBIT as follow:

PROHIBIT

prohibit,vb.1. To forbid by law. 2. To prevent or hinder.

58.The relative section of the Police Act, S.N.B. 1977, c. P-9.2, does not infact prohibit, prevent or hinder the POLICE COMMISSION from

disclosure of the subject Police Report. The relative section of the Police

Act, S.N.B. 1977, c. P-9.2 is provided as follows:

Investigation report

28.2(2) Upon receipt of the documents listed under subsection (1), thechief of police shall

(a) provide a copy of the documents to the Commission, or, if the

Commission agrees, make the documents available for viewing during

normal business hours, and

(b) provide a summary of the investigators findings and conclusionsto the police officer and the complainant

59.The key term used here is to provide. The chief of police shall (a)provide a copy of the documents to the Commission, or, if the Commission


35/75

32

agrees, make the documents available for viewing during normal business

hours, and (b) provide a summary of the investigators findings and

conclusions to the police officer and the complainant

60.merriam_webster.com reveals the following definition for provide at thesubsequent URL: http://www.merriam_webster.com/dictionary/provide

provide

transitive verb

1archaic : to prepare in advance

2a : to supply or make available (something wanted or needed); also : afford b : to make something available to

61.The Police Act, S.N.B. 1977, c. P-9.2Section 28.2(2) does not precludeproviding a copy of the Investigative Report to the Applicant.

62.APPLICANT argues that the head of a public body could refuse to giveaccess or disclose information to an APPLICANT under this Right to

Information and Protection of Privacy Act if the access or disclosure is

prohibited or restricted by another Act of the Legislature (namely the

Police Act), which it is not. Consequently APPLICANT argues that the

head of a public body should not refuse to give access or disclose

information to APPLICANT under this Right to Information and

Protection of Privacy Act and has no reason to refuse.

63.Section 84 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 provides that the Burden of proof (section 84(1) in


36/75

33

any proceeding under this Act, is relegated to head of the public body to

prove , as must be done in this matter, that the APPLICANT has no right of

access to the record or part of the record. Since the APPLICANT has

provided that Section 28.2(2) does not preclude providing a copy of the

Investigative Report to the APPLICANT , there is no need for the head of

the public body to prove the position of access refusal or nondisclosure of

information to the APPLICANT therefore unnecessary to prove regarding

Section 28.2(2) of the Police Act, S.N.B. 1977, c. P-9.2. or Section 5 (1)

and section 5(2) of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,

S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6

64.Section 84 of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 provides the following:

Burden of proof84(1) In any proceeding under this Act, the burden is on the head of thepublic body to prove that the applicant has no right of access to the

record or part of the record.

84(2) Despite subsection (1), if the proceeding under this Act concernsa decision to disclose or to refuse to disclose, in whole or in part, arecord containing personal information about a third party, the burden

is on the applicant to prove that disclosure of the information would not

be an unreasonable invasion of the third partys privacy.

84(3) Despite subsection (1), if the proceeding under this Act concernsa decision to disclose or to refuse to disclose, in whole or in part, a

record containing information that is not personal information about athird party, the burden is on the third party to prove that the applicant

has no right of access to the record or part of the record.

65.Since the third and remaining section of RTIPPA quoted by the newBrunswick POLICE COMMISSION proceeding under RTIPPA involves a


37/75

34

decision to disclose or to refuse to disclose, in whole or in part, a record

containing personal information about a third party, the burden of the third

and remaining section of the RTIPPA is on the APPLICANT to prove that

disclosure of the information would not be an unreasonable invasion of the

third partys privacy.

66.Because any active member of the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE,who contributed to the Report as required by this request would be acting

professionally and should not be considered private.

67.RTIPPA provides that the head of a public body shall disclose a record thatcontains information if, in the opinion of the head, the private interest of

the third party in non-disclosure is clearly outweighed by the significant

public interest in disclosure for the purposes of public health or safety or

protection of the environment.

68.The APPLICANT is part of the Public and this is most certainly in theinterest of the health of the APPLICANT to have the head of a public body

disclose a record that which contains information that the APPLICANT

may thereby take reasonable steps to protect himself from these unrelenting

harmful and malicious attacks.

69.An investigation into the volume of FALSE WITNESS REPORT callsmade to the FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, regarding the

APPLICANT (in this matter)_which will demonstrate blatant anomaly

further confirm abuse of the resources of the FREDERICTON POLICE


38/75

35

FORCE into malicious dangerous endeavors therefore targeting the

APPLICANT.

70.Section 22(5) of the Right to Information and Protection of Privacy Act,S.N.B. 2009, c. R-10.6 provides the following example of where the head

of a public body shall disclose a record in the case of where the private

interest of the third party in non-disclosure is clearly outweighed by the

significant public interest in disclosure for the purposes of public health or

safety or protection of the environment as follows:

22(5) Subject to section 34 and any other exception provided for in thisAct, the head of a public body shall disclose a record that contains

information described in subsection (1) or (2) if, in the opinion of the

head, the private interest of the third party in non-disclosure is clearlyoutweighed by the significant public interest in disclosure for the

purposes of public health or safety or protection of the environment.

71.As stated above: Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 3967provides the definition of REASONABLE which is Fair, proper, or

moderate under the circumstancesor According to reason It is

reasonable that this HONORABLE COURT ORDER the head of the New

Brunswick POLICE COMMISSION to provide subject information as

requested so that the Applicant may take reasonable Legal steps to be safe

against this constant Police harassment and inevitable next latest assault

which 6 years of history reasonably indicate will occur, unless the

HONORABLE COURT ORDER is ISSUED .

72.As stated above Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004), the definition ofUNREASONABLE Not guided by reason; irrational or capricious. or

Not supported by a valid exception to the warrant requirement It is

unreasonable that the Applicant (in this matter) be subject to continuous


39/75

36

harassment and endangerment, when all that is required to prevent this is to

have a COURT ORDER requiring that the head of the New Brunswick

POLICE COMMISSION to provide the requested information to the

Applicant.

73.If the Applicant were to request a FREDERICTON POLICE FORCEinvestigation into the matter, the privacy protections protocols of the

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE would again prohibit the Applicant

from knowing the Source of all these harassing Police calls.

74.Invasion of a third partys privacy, is reasonable, when the third party isabusively manipulating privacy laws in order that their hideous actions

may remain hidden, that they may further continue with immunity to make

false and misleading malicious phone calls to the FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE dispatcher thereby manipulating members of said Police

with crafty schemes and or cunning designs for the accomplishment of a

sinister end, designed to harass and endanger the (in this matter)Applicants well being . It is only just that this Court order the head of the

public body to grant the request in whole or in part, in this case POLICE

COMMISSION to comply and surrender relevant material as is requested

by the APPLICANT. .Enough is enough, it is time the FREDERICTON

POLICE FORCE stop being manipulated in the ways as found listed

herewithin above and below, moreover, perhaps to allow circumstances to

remain as circumstances currently are, it stands to reason that eventually

sooner or later the Applicant may be forced to experience as so called

mishap accident because of misapprehension by members of

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE, which said altercations could


40/75

37

eventually end the life of the Applicant. The Applicant in all sincerity

currently lives in constant fear of being accosted by members of

FREDERICTON POLICE FORCE .

75.This Honorable Court in pursuance with RTIPPA Section 66(1) has theauthority to order the head of the public body to grant the request in whole

or in part, and the applicant request this Court to do just that.

7. Security of property

Maxim - Argumentum ab auctoritate fortissimum est in lege - An

argument drawn from authority is the strongest in law.

76.The following is found within giga-usa.com, at the following URL:http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/william_blackstone_a001.htm

SIR WILLIAM BLACKSTONEEnglish jurist(1723 -1780)

So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that itwill not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general

good of the whole community.

The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the

protection of every individual's private rights.

77.The Chief Justice of New Brunswick, The Honourable J. Ernest Drapeauexpressed the function of the court in the following from the New

Brunswick Courts Web site at the following address:

http://www.gnb.ca/cour/index-e.asp


41/75

38

A message from the

Chief Justice of New Brunswick

Free and democratic societies are founded on the supremacy of law,

and an independent judiciary is essential to ensure its unbiasedapplication.

Courts play an essential role within Canadas constitutional framework.They constitute the judicial branch of government, a component that

the Constitution of our country compels the legislative and executive

branches to preserve and protect.

New Brunswick courts are called upon, on a daily basis, to judge andapply the appropriate law to disputes and provide a peaceful and

professional mechanism for their resolution."

78.The HONORABLE COURT applies appropriate LAW to preserve andprotect free and democratic societies. To accomplish this task, the

HONORABLE COURT have opportunity to protect and promote dignity

and worth of the human people and the position of the family in a society

of free men and free institutions, by choosing to promote and enforce the

right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment

of property, and insure the right not to be deprived thereof except by due

process of law.

79.The following copy of the Canadian Bill of Rights is found at thefollowing URL:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1960-c-44/32178/sc-1960-c-

44.html

Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44


42/75

39

Canadian Bill of Rights

1960, c. 44

C-12.3

[Assented to August 10th, 1960]

An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rightsand Fundamental Freedoms

Preamble

The Parliament of Canada, affirming that the Canadian Nationis founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of

God, the dignity and worth of the human person and theposition of the family in a society of free men and free

institutions;

Affirming also that men and institutions remain free only when

freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values

and the rule of law;

And being desirous of enshrining these principles and the

human rights and fundamental freedoms derived from them, ina Bill of Rights which shall reflect the respect of Parliament forits constitutional authority and which shall ensure the protection

of these rights and freedoms in Canada:

Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of

the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts asfollows:

PART I

BILL OF RIGHTS

Recognition and declaration of rights and freedoms

1. It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada therehave existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination


43/75


44/75

41

Although drawn up in 1215 between King John and the English

Barons, the Magna Carta was surprisingly modern in the rights it

bestowed.

Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper") was

drawn up in 1215 to limit the power of English Monarchs, especiallyKing John, from absolute rule.

...........................

One of the most important clauses that was to have the long lasting

effect was Article 39:

No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of

his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed,nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal

judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.

This meant the King must judge individuals according to the law, and

not according to his own will.

Equally important was Article 40:

To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay,right or justice.

The importance of these two clauses, the right to be judged by one's

peers, is felt in all English speaking countries today.

................................

The influence of Magna Carta can be seen in the US Bill of Rights,

which enumerates various rights of the people and restrictions on

government power:

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property,

without due process of law.

........................


45/75

42

The American Bar Association acknowledged the importance of Magna

Carta and the debt American law and constitutionalism had to MagnaCarta when in 1957 they erected a monument at Runnymede.

82.Furthermore, a more direct quoted excerpt of the Fifth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution found at the following URL

(http://www.constitution.org/billofr_.htm ) which states as follows:

Article the seventh [Amendment V]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise

infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a

Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces,or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public

danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to

be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelledin any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be

deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just

compensation.

83.The following excerpt of the Magna Carta, section 39 is found here:http://www.constitution.org/eng/magnacar.htm

39. No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in

any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except

by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

84.The following informative definition, for the worddisseize, is found at thefollowing URL: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disseised

disseizedisseize also disseise (ds_sz)

tr.v. disseized also disseised, disseizing also disseising, disseizes

also disseises Law


46/75

43

To dispossess unlawfully of real property; oust.

[Middle English disseisen, from Anglo_Norman disseisir, variant of

Old French dessaisir : des_, dis_ + saisir, to seize; see seize.]

Usage samples from TheFreeLibrary.com

The right can be traced back to 1215 from the Magna Carta: "No

freeman shall be taken, imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, banished, or inany other way destroyed, nor will we proceed against or prosecute him,

except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.

Untruthful jurors in the federal courts: have we become comfortably ...

by Press, Joshua S. / St. Thomas Law Review

When tenant in fee simple, fee tail, or for term of life, was put out, and

disseised of his lands or tenements, rents, find the like; he might sueout a writ of assize

In Focus : Considering King Henry II by The Star (Amman, Jordan)

a judgment, it not infrequently disseised itself of jurisdiction.

Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice by

Bjorklund, Andrea K. / American Journal of International Law

85.The following definition of the wordDISSEISE is found at Black's LawDictionary (8th ed. 2004), at Page 1425, as follows:

disseise (dis-seez), vb. To wrongfully deprive (a person) of thefreehold possession of property. Also spelled disseize.

86.The English MAGNA CARTA, The United States CONSTITUTION andthe Canadian CHARTER OF RIGHTS stated clearly the relationship

between life, liberty, and property; arguably there is no property moresacred than a mans home. The violation of ones home constitutes a serious

affront to human dignity.


47/75

44

The Applicant deposes that the actions of the FREDERICTON POLICE

FORCE have thus far evidentially, acted contrary to the seriousness

represented by Violation of the Sanctity of a Person's Home. The Right to

information and protection of Privacy Act should be read and broadly

construed, with the Applicants purposed notion of maintaining in mind, the

dignity and integrity of the individual. For the benefit of the Court coming

to a fair and balanced decision, all these previously referred to documents

enshrine the most important principal of law, expressed in the following

maxim:

The welfare of the people is the supreme law.

Broom's Legal Maxims(max. 1-10), also Bacon's Maxims (reg.

12)

87.In Somwar v. McDonald's Restaurants of Canada Ltd., 2006 CanLII 202(ON S.C.) SUPERIOR COURT JUSTICESTINSON J. addressed the right

to privacy in Canada and how is it protected from paragraph 23 through to

an including paragraph 30 as follows:

[23] I turn to this aspect of the rule 21.01(1)(b) test inlight of arguable uncertainty of the existence of the tort of

invasion of privacy in Ontario. In seeking an answer to this

question (apart from the jurisprudence discussed above) it is

useful to address a more fundamental one: is there a right toprivacy in Canada and how is it protected? InHunterv.

Southam Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (S.C.C.), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145

(S.C.C.), the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged theexistence of such a right. Dickson J. (as he then was) held that

the purpose of the right against unreasonable search or seizure

contained in s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights andFreedoms was the protection of the privacy of the individual. In

effect, s. 8 is the constitutional embodiment of the right to be

let alone by other people.


48/75

45

[24] The importance of privacy as a value worthy of

constitutional protection was emphasized in another Supreme

Court decision,R. v. Dyment, 1988 CanLII 10 (S.C.C.), [1988]2 S.C.R. 417 (S.C.C.). In that case La Forest J. described three

zones or realms of privacy, which included rights involving

territorial or spatial aspects, rights related to the person, andrights that arise in the information context. With respect to

privacy in relation to information, La Forest J. wrote (at para.

22):

This too is based on the notion of the dignity and integrity of

the individual. As the Task Force [Privacy and Computers, theReport of the Task Force established by the Department of

Communications/Department of Justice (1972)] put it (p.13):This notion of privacy derives from the assumption that allinformation about a person is in a fundamental way his own, for

him to communicate or retain for himself as he sees fit. In

modern society, especially, retention of information aboutoneself is extremely important. We may, for one reason oranother, wish or be compelled to reveal such information, but

situations abound where the reasonable expectations of the

individual that the information shall remain confidential to thepersons to whom, and restricted to the purposes for which it is

divulged, must be protected .

[25] There has also been judicial recognition of a

constitutional right to privacy in the civil context, as Robyn M.

Ryan Bell noted in her article, Tort of Invasion of Privacy Has its Time Finally Come? in Todd Archibald & Michael

Cochrane,Annual Review of Civil Litigation (Toronto:

Thomson Carswell, 2005) at 225. Among other decisions, Bellcited Canadian AIDS Society v. Ontario1995 CanLII 7116 (ON

S.C.), (1995), 25 O.R. (3d) 388 (Gen. Div.), aff'd 1996 CanLII

1139 (ON C.A.), (1996), 31 O.R. (3d) 798 (C.A.), a case

involving a Charterchallenge to mandatory reporting of

medical information. In that case Wilson J. concluded that thereis a right to privacy in the civil law context; after balancing the

privacy rights of individuals and the state objective ofpromoting public health for the safety of all, however, she

found no breach of either s. 7 or s. 8 of the Charter.


49/75

46

[26] InHill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, 1995

CanLII 59 (S.C.C.), [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130 (S.C.C.), Cory J.

discussed the approach that should be followed when a commonlaw rule is alleged to be inconsistent with the Charter. Writing

for the majority, he stated (at para. 92):

Historically, the common law evolved as a result of the courts

making those incremental changes, which were necessary in

order to make the law comply with current societal values. TheCharterrepresents a restatement of the fundamental values

which guide and shape our democratic society and our legal

system. It follows that it is appropriate for the courts to makesuch incremental revisions to the common law as may be

necessary to have it comply with the values enunciated in theCharter.

[27] Although the Charterdoes not apply to disputes

between private individuals, I agree with the views expressedby Bell, in her article, supra, at p. 229:

The introduction of the Charterhas impacted upon thedevelopment of the tort of invasion of privacy in two ways.

First, the values underlying the Charterinclude respect for an

individuals dignity and autonomy, values which are, in turn,

closely tied to respect for and protection of an individualsprivacy. Second, the Supreme Court has made it clear in cases

asM. (A.) v. Ryan, 1997 CanLII 403 (S.C.C.), [1997] 1 S.C.R.157, that the common law must develop in accordance with

Chartervalues.

[28] Provinces such as British Columbia, Manitoba,

Newfoundland, and Saskatchewan have created a statutory tort

of invasion of privacy. See John D.R. Craig, Invasion ofPrivacy and Charter Values: the Common-Law Tort Awakens

(1997) 42 McGill L.J. 355, footnote 2. In Quebec, s. 5 of the

Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, R.S.Q., c. C-12, whichprovides that every person has a right to respect for his privatelife, is directly enforceable between citizens. In Ontario,

however, there is no statutory remedy for unreasonable

intrusion into an individuals private affairs.


50/75

47

[29] With advancements in technology, personal data of

an individual can now be collected, accessed (properly and

improperly), and disseminated more easily than ever before.There is a resulting increased concern in our society about the

risk of unauthorized access to an individuals personal

information. The traditional torts such as nuisance, trespass, andharassment may not provide adequate protection against

infringement of an individuals privacy interests. Protection of

those privacy interests by providing a common law remedy fortheir violation would be consistent with Chartervalues and an

"incremental revision" and logical extension of the existing

jurisprudence.

[30] Such a development in the common law has beenviewed as appropriate by many legal commentators: see, forexample, the articles by Bell, and Craig, supra. Bell wrote (at p.

235):

The emerging social realities of twenty-first century life in

Canada include the use of technology that increasingly

facilitates the circulation and exchange of information, cellularphones that can be used to take photographs, and the seemingly

ever-increasing desire by the public at large for media stories, to

name but a few examples. A broad embracement of a common

law tort of invasion of privacy would reflect an updating of thecommon law to reflect these emerging social realities.

88.Furthermore, in R. v. Dyment, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 417, Justice La Forest J.stated, regarding the right to privacy and its relationship to human dignity

at the following paragraphs 15 through to and including paragraph 23 as

follows:

15. From the earliest stage of Charter interpretation, this

Court has made it clear that the rights it guarantees must beinterpreted generously, and not in a narrow or legalistic fashion;seeR. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd., 1985 CanLII 69 (S.C.C.), [1985]

1 S.C.R. 295, at p. 344. The function of the Charter, in the words

of the present Chief Justice, then Dickson J., inHunter v. Southam


51/75

48

Inc., 1984 CanLII 33 (S.C.C.), [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at p. 155 "is

to provide ... for the unremitting protection of individual rights

and liberties". It is a purposive document and must be soconstrued. That case dealt specifically with s. 8. It underlined that

a major, though not necessarily the only, purpose of the

constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizureunder s. 8 is the protection of the privacy of the individual; see

especially pp. 159-60. And that right, like other Charter rights,

must be interpreted in a broad and liberal manner so as to securethe citizen's right to a reasonable expectation of privacy against

governmental encroachments. Its spirit must not be constrained by

narrow legalistic classifications based on notions of property and

the like which served to protect this fundamental human value in

earlier times.

16. Indeed, it may be confusing means with ends to view

these inherited rights as essentially aimed at the protection of

property. The lives of people in earlier times centred around thehome and the significant obstacles built by the law againstgovernmental intrusions on property were clearly seen by Coke to

be for its occupant's "defence" and "repose"; see Semayne's Case

(1604), 5 Co. Rep. 91 a, 77 E.R. 194, at p. 91 b and p. 195respectively. Though rationalized in terms of property in the

august 11, 2011, referral. the applicant’s pre hearing brief, rules of court, rule 38.06.1 for...

Documents