Court of Appeal File Number: 82 - 10 - CA (Court File Number: F/C1l04/09) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK

BETWEEN:

ANDRE MURRAY
INTENDED APPELLANT (Plaintiff)

-and-

BETjIY ROSE DANIELSKI

INTENDED RESPONDENT (Defendant)

The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick Room 202, Justice Building 427 Queen Street P.O. Box 6000 Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5H1 Telephone: (506) 453-2452 Facsimile: (506) 453-7921 Attention of the Registrar Dear Mr. Michael J. Bray, Q.C. Kindly bring to the Court of Appeal, the following to assist the deliberation. The appellant understands that the tradition of the legal system in Canada, orders the losing side to pay the winning side's costs. This awarding of costs acts as a significant disincentive to bringing forward unnecessary court cases. Circumstances, as truly exist in this particular situation and case, the winning party is not able to recover from the losing party, the full amount of his own costs, and has to pay the shortfall out of his own pocket. The appellant respectfully requests that costs be awarded against the Respondent pursuant to Rule 62.24 (1) (c) FAlLURE TO COMPL Y WITH RULE;. in the matter of the following Motion for Orders of continuance et cetera: 1. the first significant reason for awarding costs in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant - Respondent is as follows: the Plaintiff after having appropriately requested of the Defendant (in that matter of the Mechanics Lien Action) that the Respondent consent to the Plaintiff s request of a Continuance of the Mechanics

Lien Action, however, the Respondent refused or neglected to respond to the faxed document for which a affidavit of service has been filed by the Appellant. 2. The here within above mentioned circumstances as elaborated in the Brief of the Motion to for Orders to Adduce Fresh Evidence Et cetera was Court File Date Stamped and presented before the Court of Appeal November 9,2010. 3. The Respondent's behaviour in Court has been complaisant marked by an inclination to please or oblige the Court with disregard for a fair trial for both parties to the Action. 4. Irrespective of fairness the respondent appeared to be satisfied as hearsay information was submitted by that party, while at the same time acting under the guaranteed knowledge of the outcome, as was promised by the Learned Trial Judge. This behaviour in it self must be reprehensible, meriting condemnation or blame, especially as wrong or harmful, and unbecoming of an officer of the Court. 5. May it please the Court of Appeal the Respondent had three notable foregone opportunities to assure, that a fair trial be experienced by both parties to the action, alternatively the Respondent choose to take unfair advantage of a self represented litigant, at each and every opportunity, prior to and during the litigation: Initially denied the request of Consent for a Continuance Subsequentially, at the hearing of the Motion requesting Orders granting the Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action, the reprehensible behaviour of the Solicitor for Respondent meriting condemnation or blame, especially as wrong or harmful, and unbecoming of an officer of the Court. Consequential Leave to Appeal hearing, which only became necessary, because of non cooperation of the Respondent's side in the first and second place as above listed here within, furthermore, which the Respondent's again attempted to not allow. Finally the shameful refusal of the Respondent Party, who did finally condescend reluctantly, but would not deign to voluntarily withdraw, instead, stood against the Appellant's Appeal, resisting to the very conclusion of the Appellate Process, that which is commonly and readily granted a fellow member of the Law Society when requested. A Continuance. 6. The Appellant in this matter respectfully requests that costs be Awarded against the Respondent for cause, although the actions of the Respondent are otherwise legal, these acts, as here within above mentioned, should be considered by this Honourable Court of Appeal as performed by the Respondent in at least an illegal fashion and certainly unbecoming of an Officer of the Court deserving of reprimand and distinguished by an award of costs based on a Solicitor Client bases or thereabouts.

7. May it please this Honourable Court the here within above mentioned chronological of the circumstances are elaborated in a Brief submitted on Motion for Orders to Adduce Fresh Evidence Et cetera and was Court File Date Stamped presented before the Court of Appeal November 9, 2010.