For your consideration, found listed herein below please find the following relevant categories:

Introduction to Court of Appeal of New Brunswick

In the introduction, we have various information such as 'The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick is the highest court in the Province of New Brunswick. It is the last avenue of appeal, except in cases where further Application to the Supreme Court of Canada may become necessary, for relief (not yet granted).

Each province and territory has a court of appeal or appellate division that hears appeals from decisions of superior courts (Court of Queen's Bench) and provincial/territorial courts. The number of judges on these courts may vary from one jurisdiction to another, but a court of appeal usually sits as a panel of three. The courts of appeal also hear constitutional questions that may be raised in appeals involving individuals, governments, or governmental agencies.
 

Current Events - this page will be our Current Affairs page where the emphasis is on the Appellate judges serving the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, their conduct in performance of duty 

NOTICE: Our concerns, found expressed herein, are valid, they were carefully
considered by the contributing members of this 'Advocacy Blog' nevertheless the readers will undoubtedly perceive a negative demeanor of contributing members of this 'Advocacy Blog' who have not hesitated to harshly critique the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick. Why you might reasonably ask? Allow me to explain. The reason for this attitude is quite simple; this is a consequence of many years of unsatisfactory results, despite having appropriately requested relief or remedy from Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, the contributing members of this 'Advocacy Blog' as confident that the "FIX IS IN"

contributing members of this 'Advocacy Blog' are (by filing Motions and or Applications) requiring the Court of Appeal of New.Brunswick, to TAKE NOTICE then to CORRECT the past victimization of self represented litigants, who suffered, incidents of (for example)  reasonable apprehension of bias, such the incidents of Court of Queen's Bench, Fredericton, Trial Division and Provincial Court judges blatant disregard for principles of 'HEAR THE OTHER SIDE' wherein judges such as Judy Clendening will not permit self represented litigants to be heard.

For this corrupt purpose colleague judges such as JUDGE Mary Jane Richards has Ordered self represented litigants to be physically removed from the Court Room, which in one such case of Andre Murray who refused to stop his verbal presentation, which was being recorded ON THE RECORD (a digital tape recoding which all Court Rooms must by law have and while on this topic readers should... NOTE !: Court of Appeal of New Brunswick refuses to have hearings ON THE RECORD)

Nevertheless judge Mary Jane Richards year 2012 FRANTICALLY YELLED THAT THE SHERIFFS MUST REMOVE APPLICANT ANDRE MURRAY FROM THE COURT ROOM ! that is of course before Mr Murray can get his evidence recorded ON THE RECORD. This incident resulted in a physical struggle wherein Andre (refusing to be silenced) was holding onto to the bar ( separates the BENCH where the judge sits from the spectator area)  as two Sheriffs attempted to pry Andre's hands from the 'Bar' which eventually resulted in five Sheriffs who where needed to first of all remove Andre's firm grip of the 'Bar' thereafter to literally drag and carry Andre from the Court Room (as Andre continued to verbalize his defence/evidence consequentially being recorded ON THE RECORD) thereafter Andre was escorted from the Court House or JUSTICE BUILDING as it is paradoxically named... this incident occurred in end of year 2012.

Please Note: although empty threats of  CONTEMPT OF COURT were uttered by both judge Mary Jane Richards and Judy Clendening nothing has resulted because Contempt of Court is an non existant - empty threat, not commonly and especially not currently used by Judges to silence self represented litigants, this Contempt of Court is as old as Debtors Priston and equally barbarian as each man or woman has the right to be heard, and quarrelsome - contentious - peevish - shrewish judges should not any such punitive powers other than to manage a Court Room in a Polite manner by calmly instructing and mostly listening. 

Procedural instruction and information for Filing any document with Court of Appeal of New Brunswick

What is Legal Information or procedural instruction you might ask?

Legal information, which is the reiteration of legal fact to a question of reference can not reasonably be considered advise. However, Law Society of New Brunswick has nefariously influenced all lawyers and or legal assistants working at clerical levels within the Court Client Services to believe that any word of assistance can be interpreted as advise. ADVISE is the legal industry swear word unless immediately reciprocated at a rate of perhaps $400.00 per hour  however, legal information can be conveyed by a parking meter, sign or by other forms of notice such as a warning by a law enforcement officer. Printed legal materials, such as directions and how-to manuals, are generally not considered legal advice. Accordingly, directions on how to fill in a motion form and other court documents do not constitute legal advice.Despite these obvious facts there is not a inclination within the Court Client Services of Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick to freely offer advice this appears to be reserved for the lawyers who generally will not give without remuneration, however everywhere else in the British Commonwealth this free advise is normally referred to as being pro bono publico (in the public good), or colloquially, pro bono

The Registrar and Court personnel may:

o Provide public information contained in dockets, calendars, case files, indexes, and
other reports.

o Recite common, routinely-employed court rules, court procedures, administrative
practices, and local rules, and explain generally how the court and judges function.

o Refer self-represented litigants to a law library or the court’s website for statutes, court
rules, or forms.

o Explain the meaning of terms and documents used in the court process.

o Answer questions concerning deadlines or due dates (without calculating due dates).     

o Identify and refer self-represented litigants to court forms.

Unfortunately, the above mentioned parties often do not feel inclined to freely give information,, so here for your information is New Brunswick Legal Information on Court of appeal of New Brunswick.

Procedural law or adjective law comprises the rules by which a court hears and determines what happens in civil lawsuit, criminal or administrative proceedings. The rules are designed to ensure a fair and consistent application of due process (in the U.S.) or fundamental justice (in other common law countries) to all cases that come before a court.

In the common law, legal advice is the giving of a formal opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law, usually received from a solicitor, barrister or lawyer, ordinarily in exchange for financial or other tangible compensation. Advice given without remuneration is normally referred to as being pro bono publico (in the public good), or colloquially, pro bono.

'My Files' - A (first to last) chronological review of our contributing member's Documents Filed with The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick

In My Files, one will find images Court of Appeal of New Brunswick files, which are links for seven separate file folders, containing entire submissions to Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, including initial Motion for Leave to Appeal through to the final response of Court of Appeal of New Brunswick as the case matter may have evolved:

HEREIN BELOW ARE THE OPINION OF ANDRE FAUST NOT NECESSARILY ENTIRELY SHARED BY JUSTICE DONE DIRT CHEAP

Appeals to the higher courts are good for public Interest

Contrary to opinions of some of the automatons , Appeals are good for the public, because, Appeals clarify, points of the law which gives guidance to those who either enforce the law or have to apply the law to the facts.

When the appeal court hears a case, the case has to have merit to it; otherwise the appeal is not heard.  Frivolous cases do not make it to the bench.  If Charles appeal would have been seen as not having any serious purpose or value, the judges would have denied the application or would have cited the case as frivolous and terminated the proceeding.  Instead the three justices found that there was substance to the case and rendered a reserved decision. Which means that they have to study the case before them, how they decide will depend on whether or not they can find applicable laws to support Charles arguments, while one can make an educated guess on how the judges will decide, no one can predict with accuracy what the outcome will be?

I read Court Reporter for The Daily Gleaner Newspaper, Don Macpherson's article and he omitted  the core arguments that the Judges are going to decide, Court Reporter - Don MacPherson is a unilateral thinker supporting ultra conservative Ideologies and suppressing the facts that are inconsistent with that Ideology.

Like Sally Brooks of Fredericton, New Brunswick, I was there, and I was able to follow the arguments in both French and English.  Sally’s commentary highlights most of the salient points that were brought up during the hearing, which are the points that are going to be considered by the justices.  The minor points that Court Reporter for The Daily Gleaner Newspaper, Don Macpherson talks about in his article have been discussed and dealt with at the hearing.

For Clarification, at no time, did any, of the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, judges say that If Charles would have made the Rowbotham application it would have been most likely denied,  Judges tend not to speculate, the key words here are Most likely” which implies speculation.  What the Judges said was that the defendant does not need to know Rowbotham to make an application to have the courts appoint a lawyer.  Rowbotham application is used in criminal proceedings here a defendant either has exhausted their finances or have no resources to pay for a lawyer, but as the judge said, the defendant does not have to know of it, all that the defendant has to do is asked the courts to appoint a lawyer, once the request is made then the Judge considers the request and decides whether or not the application is applicable to the defendants situation.  In Charles case there was no request made.  When I believe it was Justice Bell that asked Charles if he made the request, Charles response was “I didn’t know that I could that, I was just told that legal aid said I don’t qualify”.   What the judges have to decide on this point is necessary to inform the defendant that if they can’t afford a lawyer and legal aid will not provide a lawyer, the court has the power to appoint a lawyer to them.

 HERE BELOW NEXT TWO HORIZONTAL LINES IS A JUSTICE DONE DIRT CHEAP INSERT

 ======================================

JUDICIAL NOTICE 

At common law, judicial notice has always been taken of a public Act of Parliament or a provincial legislature.  No evidence has ever been required concerning its passage through Parliament or a legislature, nor of its contents.  The common law rule has been codified and is found in s. 7(1) of the Interpretation Act.  A similar provision in respect to regulations published in The Ontario Gazette is in s. 5(4)(b) of the Regulations Act.  There is no need to prove that a regulation has been published to rely on s. 5(4).  Publication is presumed, subject to proof to the contrary.  Indeed, it can be said that statutes and regulations are the everyday companions of judges and counsel and so it should come as no surprise that a judge is not merely permitted to take judicial notice of these sources of domestic law, but a judge is required to do so.  In addition, various statutory provisions provide that judicial notice shall be taken of the seals and signatures of various persons in official documents, and of certified copies of certain documents: Evidence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. E. 23, ss. 27, 29, 32, 36.

  ==================================================

Two other points that the justices paid attention to was whether or not Charles is guilty plea was voluntary or was it under duress.  The final point that I going to make is in regards to mens rea, the guilty mind, the intent to committee the crime,  In order to get a conviction the crown has to show at minimum that the accused did the act (actus rea) and had criminal intent (mens rea) to committee the crime, it is possible to have the act but not the criminal intent to commit the offense, in Charles case he believed he was protesting and he was exercising his freedom of speech as guaranteed by the charter of rights, that is quite different then having the criminal intent or purpose to commit an offence. 

Charles is not the only one to ever use a blow horn during a course of a protest, whether you are one or 10 thousand  protesters a protest is a protest. So why in one situation is it a criminal offence and not in another situation, both are exercising the constitutional rights.  The charter of rights is not to just be applied when it convenient to apply it, it has to be applied uniformly, if not then the charter of rights is not worth the paper it’s written on.

Interesting that The Daily Gleaner Newspaper, Court Reporter, Don Macpherson article, did not touch on this or another issues that the judges are going to consider in their deliberations, Court Reporter Don Macpherson only reported the issues that were dealt with during the hearing and will not be included in the deliberations.

Could Court Reporter, Don Macpherson, have a conflict of interest, because his wife is a lawyer and Member of the Law Society of New Brunswick !

Whatever the decision, hopefully it will pave the correct path on how the crown and the police shall proceed in similar situations.

André Faust