justicedonedirtcheap@gmail.com



 




Representations of the Lady of Justice in the Western tradition occur in many places and at many times. She sometimes wears a blindfold, more so in Europe, but more often she appears without one. She usually carries a sword and scales. Almost always draped in flowing robes, mature but not old, no longer commonly known as Themis, she symbolizes the fair and equal administration of the law, without corruption, avarice, prejudice, or favor.


CLICK ON HEREIN BELOW PROVIDED: LAW SCHOOL BOOK IMAGES, SIMPLY SELECT THE SUBJECT OF YOUR INTEREST AND ENTER OUR HUMBLE LAW LIBRARY; THIS IS A CHRONOLOGICAL ARRANGEMENT OF OUR MERITORIOUSLY RESEARCHED TORT LAW (TO REDRESS A WRONG DONE) THEN LISTED A DETAILED ACCOUNT OF THE PRACTICAL EXPERIENCES OF OUR CONTRIBUTING SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANT'S, CONCERNING:
the study, theory and practice of litigation
as it relates to The Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, Provincial Court and The Court of Appeal of New Brunswick; Filing, and Procedure, in general.















       Please find - here below - this Link: My Brief Story - Introduction: Welcome, this is a 'Justice' Blog intended to benefit all;   'Self Represented Litigants'.


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

2013 New Year's Resolution:
To however, cause the Judiciary of New Brunswick to uphold the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Reason being, that, the Charter is applicable in New Brunswick, just as all provinces are bound by the Constitution.
Despite the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was adopted in 1982, it was not until 1985, that, the main provisions regarding equality rights (section 15) came into effect. The delay was meant to give the federal and provincial governments an opportunity to review per-existing statutes and strike potentially unconstitutional inequalities.

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

NOTICE: above provided image is a link to the 'RANT' area of contributing Self Represented Litigants
========================================
=========================================================


Welcome, this is a 'Justice' Blog intended to benefit all;
'Self Represented Litigants'. follow this link to New Brunswick Legal Procedure 101


NOTICE: above provided image is a link to the 'Public Forum regarding our legal and judicial system


NOTICE: above provided image is a link to the 'RANT' area of contributing Self Represented Litigants

Back to Justice Done Dirt Cheap Front Page

Friday, October 12, 2012

Quick Rules of Court - Notice of Application



When Filing a Notice of Application here are some quick rules to follow:



38.01 Application of Rule
This rule applies to proceedings commenced by Notice
of Application (Form 16D).


38.05   Service of Notice
Time for Service
(4) A Notice of Application shall be served within the
time prescribed by Rule 16.08.


16.08 Time for Service
(1) Where an action is commenced by issuing a Notice
of Action with Statement of Claim Attached, it shall
be served within 6 months thereafter.
(2) Where an action is commenced by issuing a Notice
of Action, the Notice of Action and the Statement of
Claim shall be served together within 6 months after the
Notice of Action is issued.
(3) A Notice of Application shall be served at least 10
days before the date upon which the application is to be
heard except where it is served outside New Brunswick,
in which case it shall be served at least 20 days before the
date upon which the application is to be heard.


38.06 Record
Where an application is made on notice, the applicant
shall, at least 24 hours before the hearing of the application,
file with the clerk a record for the use of the court
consisting of
(a) an index,
(b) a copy of the Notice of Application, and
(c) a copy of all affidavits, including those of each
adverse party, or other material to be used on the hearing.
92-3

38.06.1 Pre-Hearing Brief
(1) Unless ordered otherwise, each party to an application
shall prepare a pre-hearing brief containing
(a) a succinct outline of the facts the party intends to
establish,
(b) a concise statement of the issues to be dealt with
by the court,
(c) a concise statement of the principles of law on
which the party relies and citation of relevant statutory
provisions and leading authorities, and
(d) a concise statement of the relief sought by the
party.
(2) Each party shall, at least 48 hours before the hearing
of the application, file with the clerk
(a) the original copy of his pre-hearing brief which
the clerk shall forthwith transmit to the judge who is to
hear the application, and
(b) a copy of his or her pre-hearing brief for each opposite
party who has not exchanged a copy of his or her prehearing
brief with the party filing the pre-hearing brief.
(3) The clerk shall advise each party when an opposite
party files his or her pre-hearing brief. The clerk shall
release the copies filed under clause (2)(b) to any party
who has filed a pre-hearing brief.
(4) Documentary evidence shall not be included with
the pre-hearing brief unless all parties have consented to
its admission as evidence.
86-87; 87-6; 90-20; 99-71; 2010-61

 Rule of Court:

Setting Aside a Consent Order





The law is clear that a consent order can only be set aside on grounds that would vitiate a contract: e.g. common mistake, fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, duress and illegality. There is also the possibility of a “slip” in drawing up the order or an error in expressing the manifest intention of the parties.



See: Gray v. R., 2004 CanLII 47133 (NB CA), <http://canlii.ca/t/1jg0x> 


[13]                                   Accepting that the impugned consent order was entered into with the apparent authority of the applicant’s former solicitor, the law is clear that a consent order can only be set aside on grounds that would vitiate a contract: e.g. common mistake, fraud, collusion, misrepresentation, duress and illegality. See Morencyand Pelletier v. Charest et al. reflex, (1991), 123 N.B.R. (2d) 392 (C.A.) and Chitel v. Rothbart, [1987] O.J. No. 2321 (Ont. S.C.)(QL), Racz v. Mission (Dist.) 1988 CanLII 2937 (BC CA), (1988), 22 B.C.L.R. (2d) 70 (C.A.) and Wagg v. Canada, 2003 FCA 303 (CanLII), [2004] 1 F.C.R. 206 (C.A.). There is also the possiblity of a “slip” in drawing up the order or an error in expressing the manifest intention of the parties: see Beanland v. Beanland 1997 CanLII 14616 (NL CA), (1997), 151 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 51 (Nfld.S.C.(A.D.)) at para. 41 and Paper Machinery Ltd. et al. v. J.O. Ross Engineering Corp. et al., 1934 CanLII 1 (SCC), [1934] S.C.R. 186.


Next Post Previous Post Home