d) Furthermore, in the alternative, to the herein above paragraph c, the appellant asks for an extension of time to issue and

serve a Notice of Appeal in the event that the judge hearing the motion rules that the Order/Decision is not interlocutory e) That the INTENDED RESPONDENT pay costs of the within Motion, f) Such further and other relief as to this Honorable Court may appear just. The appellants grounds for this appeal are as follows: Stay of Proceedings 1. A Charter Challenge is a serious matter, the scope of which,

reasonably, has wide reaching implications, as in this case, assuring security of the person to all New Brunswick residents and or non-resident of New Brunswick, who may be considering doing business within the province of New Brunswick. Therefore, the effect of the subject impugned prohibition Order issued by the Learned Trial Judge Madam Justice Judy Clendening, consequently, in the first instance denies opportunity for Applicant Andre Murray to obtain remedy, moreover, in the second instance eliminates a significant opportunity to establish a precedent, that, which will begin the process of causing New Brunswick legislation to reflect Charter compliance.

2.

The Applicant having dedicated himself in a solemn or thoughtful

manner compiled and filed meritorious substantive material submissions which deserve careful consideration by a Learned Trial Judge of the New Brunswick Court of Queens Bench, however, the herein subject of this motion, for leave to appeal from the Order issued December 17, 2012 Order is the paramount necessity to overturn, quash, and or dismiss the subject Order as impugned (in its entirety).

3.

The subject impugned prohibition Order issued by the Learned Trial

Judge Madam Justice Judy Clendening if allowed to stand, will seriously limit the Applicants access to justice, without good reason or sound judgment. Please Note the extent of the subject Order issued December 17, 2012, indeed must be considered severe, if not draconian, as the scope of prohibition is so wide as to deny any further opportunity to seek remedy, whatsoever, within New Brunswick Court of Queens Bench Trial Division. Such as is found in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7, an excerpt of which is provided herein below:

4.

In the interest of not exacerbating the extent of irreparable harm,

which must reasonably be evident that Intended Appellant will suffer, consequences of the herein above mention subject Court Order issued: December 17, 2012, therefore, these subject Orders must not be permitted to stand.

5.

Furthermore, the Applicant will continue to suffer irreparable harm if

the herein requested Stay is not granted; please Note the herein mentioned

subject Charter Application should have been recognized as the priority issue (Originating Process; Court File Number: FM/27/12) before the lower Court, which, therefore, the subject Charter Application is reasonably being nefariously obfuscated by these subject Motions of the Respondents, which are frivolous and vexatious in substance; however, unfortunately thereafter, was negligently (failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in like circumstances) entertained (with amusement or enjoyment) by the Learned Trial Judge.

6.

Furthermore, in considering irreparable harm what must be foremost

in the minds of any Appellate Judge, is the current uncertain state of the law regarding the award of damages for a Charter breach, it will in most cases be impossible for a judge on an interlocutory application to determine whether adequate compensation could ever be obtained at trial. Therefore, until the law in this area has developed further, (according to the Supreme Court of Canada), it is appropriate to assume that the financial damage which will be suffered by an applicant following a refusal of relief, even though nevertheless incapable of quantification, constitutes irreparable harm. Secondary, nevertheless not any less significantly harmful to the Applicant is the standing Court Order completely prohibiting the Applicants access to the Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick; this is a province wide prohibition, which reasonably constitutes irreparable harm, again, that which cannot be quantified in damages. 7. In this matter the balance of convenience favors the granting of the

Applicants request for a Stay of the order (or decision) of Queens Bench Trial

Division, Learned Trial Judge, Madame Justice, Judy Clendening, Judicial District of Fredericton, Dated the 17th day of December, 2012.

8.

Furthermore, to the above question of the Balance of Convenience,

the Applicant further believes it is critical in the interest of Justice, as in this case, that the Applicant must be heard, Audi alteram partem hear the other side for this purpose the Applicant must be allowed to provide argument relevant to The Charter application, contrary to the standing Orders as found in paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the subject Orders issued December 17, 2012; nevertheless absence of any would be litigant to be able to seek remedy in a timely manner may reasonably be fatal to any Applicants cause, espevially in matters concerning equity, therefore the subject prohibition Orders will result in a miscarriage of justice moreover an additional Charter Breach. To put it bluntly the Applicant asserts that no greater inconvenience could be experienced by Self Represented Litigant than a complete prohibition from being able to defend ones interest, and or seek remedy through Court of Queens Bench Trial Division.

9.

Furthermore, on the matter of Balance of Convenience, in addition

and or despise the damages each party alleges it will suffer, the interest of the public must be taken into account. In this case, should the Applicant be successful on this subject Charter Application, the public will benefit by all Residential Leasehold Tenants and or home owners no longer fearing being evicted (thrown out into the Street) by Mortgagees who having established a president at law may now with confidence circumvent therefore effectively eviscerate the Charter protected New Brunswick Residential Tenants Rights by crafty nefarious legal technicalities.

10.

This Honorable Court in considering the Applicants request for

Orders granting a Stay of the subject Orders issued December 17, 2012, therefore, suspending the enforcement of the subject impugned December 17, 2012 Orders, which if not stayed will bar the Applicant from a meaningful Hearing of the real matters in dispute, that being the Charter Challenge. Please Note: The Charter Challenge before the lower Court is a clear case justifying an interlocutory injunction against the enforcement of a law on grounds of alleged unconstitutionality. The Applicant argues not only his own private interest, but also the public interest, will be hurt by this Honorable Court not granting the herein requested Orders for a stay. 11. The granting of a stay pursuant to Rule 62.26(3)(a) of the Rules of

Court, therefore, properly exercised will preserve and or restore the status quo. The granting of a stay will not give the Applicant his remedy; only preserve the parties standing until the Charter issues are resolved. 12. A judicial stay of proceedings has been recognized as being

appropriate in circumstances, where prejudice to the applicants right to make full answer and defence cannot be remedied. If the impugned December 17, 2012 Order were to be enforced, prejudice to the applicants right to make full answer and defence will be reasonably blocked therefore a prejudice which potential and or realized harm cannot and or could not be remedied. 13. The herein subject matters which are of paramount importance,

reasonably must be the issue of New Brunswick Legislation being non-Charter compliant, therefore, is impugned Legislation, manipulated by Mortgagees to trample Charter protected Residential Tenants - Tenancy Rights. It is time New Brunswick Legislation, aligns its Statues according to the Charter,

consistent with every other Province in Canada. By granting the Stay as requested, the parties may proceed through due process. If the Applicants request for the subject Stay is not granted, consequently, this denial of a reasonable request in light of the circumstances, will give cause for the public to realize the innate bias of the circumstances, resulting in obvious irreparable prejudice to the perceived integrity of the judicial system of New Brunswick; Once the public loses faith in the Justice system... Bias Rule 14. The Learned Trial Judge failed to understand the facts and arguments

as presented by the Appellant and instead pursued only the arguments, interests and assertions as presented by the Respondents, this predisposition of the Learned Trial Judge toward a particular result, is such that a reasonable apprehension of bias is raised, furthermore, the learned Trial Judge made obviously erroneous statements within the decision which are not supported by Court Filed substantive material evidence, therefore, must represent a bias or predisposition of the Learned Trial Judge to render a decision not found in fact. Abuse of Discretion 15. The Appellant asserts, that The Learned Trial judge did display abuse

of discretion, which is an adjudicator's failure to exercise sound, reasonable, legal decision-making. The Learned Trial Judge alternately rendered a decision which is unsupported by the evidence and clearly based on erroneous findings of material fact.

16.

The learned trial judge erred in law in not keeping with the general

direction as found expressed in the New Brunswick Rules of court Rule 1.03

(2) to secure the just, least expensive and most expeditious determination of every proceeding on its merits.

17.

The claimed findings of fact upon which the Learned Trial Judge

based her decisions stating NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT however upon examination of each of the WHEREAS the substance of fact is not found there within furthermore, each of the WHEREAS are followed by the Learned Trial Judges conjecture (Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence); moreover of the three WHEREAS including the AND UPON the substance of which precede NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT please note there is no substantive material evidence filed in the Court to support any of the claims found therewithin, the herein above mentioned subject WHEREAS including the AND UPON with the exception of the first WHEREAS the respondents filed Motions seeking to have Andre Murray declared a vexatious litigant. Please Note that despite there being Motions seeking declaration of a vexatious litigant-seeking a declaration does not a declaration make, and can hardly be considered a fact worthy of issuing such subject draconian Orders as we have witnessed, further, and copied herein. 18. The Intended Appellant can show that the subject impugned Orders

are unreasonable, based on a material misapprehension of the evidence, and or tainted by a failure and or misapprehension of Court filed substantive material evidence. The effect is significantly unjustified prejudice and or injustice to the Intended Appellant. 19. The Learned Trial Judge, demonstrated that she did not appreciate the

argument or position advanced by the Intended Appellant, consequently failed

or refused to understand the legal principles relied on, in support of the Intended Appellants argument requesting Leave of the Court to therefore obtained Abridgement of Time, to file and serve Court documents, which, despite having already been served upon the respective parties to the action were, according to the rules of Court, technically, exceeding the time limitations for service by 24 hours. The law has recognized for centuries that a COURT OF APPEAL would interfere with the exercise of the discretion of a trial judge when "the trial judge was manifestly wrong" or "substantial injustice" or "serious injustice would result", which the Applicant claims to be evident in this case.

20.

Manifest Abuse of Discretion is demonstrated when a Courts

Discretionary Decision is unsupported by the evidence; further, when a Court alternatively arrives at erroneous finding of material facts, as has occurred in this subject matter, consequently, the Intended Appellant claims that the Learned Trail Judge has demonstrated Manifest Abuse of Discretion, by not granting the Intended Appellants Motion - Leave of the Court for an Abridgement of time to file and serve documents. However, instead the Learned Trial Judge rendered a decision, which in effect grants the Intended Respondent the relief they were seeking, denies the Applicant province wide access to the Court of Queens Bench thereby creates a prejudicial hurtle for the Self Represented litigant. In these circumstances it would be a disservice to the administration of justice to allow this decision to stand.

21.

The Learned Trail Judges Omissions in reasons for judgment, which

amount to material error because they give rise to the reasoned belief that the

trial judge must have forgotten, ignored or simply misconstrued the evidence in a way that affects the Courts conclusions. 22. Like any other discretionary judicial decision, it may be interfered

with on appeal when it is founded upon an error of law, an error in the application of the governing principles or a palpable and overriding error in the assessment of the evidence Error in law The Courts standard of review on pure questions of law must be one

23.

of correctness. Appellate courts require a broad scope of review with respect to matters of law, because their primary role is to delineate and refine legal rules and ensure their universal application. Court Orders issued under statutory authority are valid only when within the scope of authority, however as in this case, the Trial Court did commit a reversible error. The learned Trial judge did not base its decision on any recognizable Statute, Rule of Court or legal principle.

24.

The Court record does not contain any substantive material evidence

and or Court filed submissions which may justify the Learned Trial Judge issuing a Order which Stays the proceedings for six months, inter alia. Findings of Fact 25. The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be

reversed unless the trial judge has made a palpable and overriding error. A palpable and overriding error is one that is plainly seen. However, in this case the Learned Trial Judge evidently based her decision on facts as the Learned Trial Judge expressed could be found within the first 3 WHEREAS paragraphs including the AND UPON paragraph, of which in each

10

respective case of the above subject WHEREAS including the AND UPON the Learned Trial Judge did provide written justification for her findings of fact. Please see excerpts, thereof, provided below.

26.

First whereas: WHEREAS the respondents filed motions seeking

Andre Murray declared a vexatious litigant; The Applicant respectfully asserts this is cannot be considered a finding of a relevant fact, as there has never been a determination as to the validity of the Respondents claims, therefore can hardly justify what has occurred by issuing prohibition Orders consequently in this case the Applicant is guilty until proven innocent 27. Second whereas: AND WHEREAS the Applicant filed documents

with the Court of Queens Bench on Friday, 14 December 2012 requesting an adjournment of both his and the respondents Motions; The Applicant asserts there is no proof thereof, Applicant filed documents with the Court of Queens Bench on Friday, 14 December 2012 requesting an adjournment is false, therefore this is not decision based on fact. 28. Third whereas: AND WHEREAS this matter was originally scheduled

for and ready to proceed on 13 July 2012 and was adjourned by the Court do to a conflict; The Applicant asserts there is no proof thereof therefore this so called decision is not based on fact, however if in deed there was a conflict the Court has never revealed and or advised the Applicant of any circumstances equivalent to a conflict, nevertheless, an unknown conflict occurring 13th of July 2012 can hardly be a fact worthy of

11

denying the Intended Appellant any access to New Brunswick Court of Queens Bench for 6 months with further outrageous Orders forbidding any contact between parties.

29.

AND UPON the Applicant Notifying the Court on 17 December

2012, that because of illness he was unable to appear; The Applicant asserts there is no proof thereof; the Applicant has absolutely never notified the Court on, before and or after December 17, 2012, that because of an illness he was unable to appear, therefore this is not decision based on fact, instead this is a decision based on falsehoods, misapprehension and or misrepresentations, as found throughout the subject impugned Order.

30.

The Court failed/omitted to write in the Order that the Applicant had

Court filed Date Stamped May 31, 2012, with Court of Queens Bench Client Services a Charter Challenge Application, which was originally scheduled to be heard July 13, 2012, then without explanation rescheduled be heard December 17, 2012.

31.

The two of three Motions which the Court has referred to, were filed

by the Respondents, moreover, were filed late and could reasonably be recognized as motivated only for the purpose of collaterally attacking the Charter proceedings, therefore the Respondents have succeeded in another attrition tactic against the Applicant in their effort to prevent a most significant matter of a Charter Infringement from being heard in the New Brunswick Court of Queens Bench.

12

32.

Obfuscation of the facts by the Learned Trial Judge is palpable and

overriding as found in the Learned Trial Judge decision - Second WHEREAS which December 13, 2012 the Applicant notified the Court of the Applicants unfortunate situation, The Court failed to include in the impugned decision the fact that the Applicant asked for an adjournment because of a unfortunate debilitating computer malfunction and consequential loss of integral legal data. True the situation which was exacerbated by the stressful circumstances of loss of data due to a computer hard drive failure, which was made abundantly clear that despite the stressful situation the Applicant was sincerely endeavoring to file on time despite having to resort to various notes inter alia. Applicant, at that time of the email, the Applicant was unsure if the appropriate documentation would be filed on time for the December 17, 2012 scheduled Hearing, once again any mention of health was only to place emphasis on the Applicants sincerity and determination to see this thing through. An adjournment was a obvious short term remedy for the Applicant to recover data not for health reasons. 33. Please Note that the subject hearing December 17, 2012, was

scheduled to commence at 9:30 AM, it is reasonable to say that by the time all who are attending the subject Court Hearing have been identified and the matters to be determined have been declared and or identified nothing less than 10 minutes would have transpired, this would place the actual discovery of the substance of the matters to reasonably begin to be explored at 9:40, furthermore, one must remember that the originating process and 3 separate Motions were at issue, having said this I would bring this honorable Courts attention to the fact as found as an exhibit within my Affidavit a confirmation that the Clerk of the Court refused to accept delivery of substantive materials,

13

intended for submission to the relevant Court File, of which is our topic. Furthermore, the Affidavit Exhibit points to a fact that at precisely 10:56 AM the Clerk of the Court was already refusing to accept the filing of the Applicants substantive material submissions. The point the Applicant intends to make here is the improbability that a Court Order had been printed and or even signed as early as what reasonably would have to have been 10:30AM. It has occurred to the Applicant that there may be collaboration between the Clerk of the Court Craig Carleton and Learned Trial Judge Judy Clendening, which is insincere for what else could it be to behave in such a manner. 34. The resulting impugned Orders are draconian, oppressive, biased,

overbreadth, and if left to stand, will bring New Brunswick administration of Justice into disrepute. Conclusion 35. Madam Justice Judy Clendening metaphorically speaking performs,

mental gymnastics in that Justice Judy Clendening: finds a means of pole vaulting over top of the Applicants Originating Process, Court Filed with Court of Queens Bench, Fredericton , Trial Division, Client Services, thereby, Date Stamped May 31, 2012,; please kindly cooperate with the Applicants metaphorical analogy however, further, as mental gymnasts Judy Clendening hurtles over top of (in this case) the Originating Process, she actually succeeds to bypass the Originating Process, consequently, the substance of which Judy Clendening entirely ignored, subsequently as, upon descending down the other side of (the metaphorical ) pole vault Madame Justice Judy Clendening is careful to land on and or address only two of the three Motions, Court filed laid down for Justice Judy Clendening; nevertheless in considering this subject maneuver of

14

Madame Justice Judy Clendening, it becomes abundantly clear that the subject two (filed by Respondents) of three Motions were the only Motions Madame Justice Clendenning intended to consider. However, facts are: an abuse of Court Discretion has occurred, whereby, the Learned Trial Judge Madame Justice Clendening did seriously error by not considering the substance of the Motion filed by the Applicant Andre Murray, found therein requesting relief - Orders for Leave of the Court and Abridgment of time to Court file and Serve Court Documents for the previously scheduled December 17, 2012, Court Hearing of a Charter Application. Consequently, the Intended Appellant asserts that this Court may find ample reason to declare that the Learned Trial Judge Madame Justice Clendening displays a reasonable apprehension of Bias when considering matters which concern Andre Murray.

36.

The Intended Appellant offers that herein provided analogy of mental

gymnastics is most appropriate; for Madame Justice Clendening to have necessarily achieved such a obfuscation of the priorities; furthermore, which however, may not justify abuse of Court process and or jurisprudence by Madame Justice Clendening relying on her inherent discretion. 37. So vivid is the determination and or bias of Justice Judy Clendenning,

against Applicant Andre consequently, therefore, since Justice Judy Clendenning clearly proceeds to abuse her discretion in deeds not recognizable within the Rules of Court and nor Jurisprudence, consequently, the Intended Appellant has found it necessary to resort to analogies such as found herewithin, which the Applicant is respectfully referring to as mental gymnastics.

15

38.

Furthermore, one can see that Judy Clendening appears to believe that

she is capable of levitating above and beyond reason. There is no requirement for as material pole to accomplish the mental gymnastics pole vault over and therefore, ignore the Applicants Originating Process of Charter Challenge Application ,that is as in this case when the presiding judge is prepared to abuse the Courts discretion; moreover, the Applicants Originating Process was properly Court filed by the Applicant, therefore, requesting the hearing of a Charter Challenge; instead Judy Clendening simply levitates above and beyond her worldly obligations, consequently shirks her responsibility to adhere to well established jurisprudence in these such matters; further it appears as though Justice Judy Clendening arrogantly relies upon her legal sentencing which has not to date hypnotized the Intended Appellant, to for that purpose cause the Intended Appellant loss of consciousness of Andre Murrays Charter Rights which Madame Justice Clendening continues to whimsically violate. 39. In summary, please kindly consider, that, the Applicants Originating

Process was completely ignored by Madame Justice Clendening, however, Madame Justice Clendening favored two Court filed Motions, both, of which are detrimental to the Applicants cause, while at the same time ignoring one of the Court filed Motions, wherein the Applicant is seeking relief, the Applicant is seen to be appropriately asking for an Abridgement of Time for Service, of further substantive material submissions, as the situation may require.

16