From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 07:48:11 -0400
Subject: Yo Dominic Cardy perhaps you nasty neocons should remind the Fat Fred City Finest, their pal Andy Dawson and his baseball buddy Donny Boy Arsenault that I updated my blog this morning
To: briangallant10@gmail.com, premier@gnb.ca, brian.gallant@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, Hamish.Wright@gnb.ca, BrianThomasMacdonald@gmail.com, nick.brown@gnb.ca, carl.davies@gnb.ca, carl.urquhart@gnb.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre@jafaust.com, occupyfredericton@gmail.com, Jacques.Poitras@cbc.ca, jbosnitch@gmail.com, Davidc.Coon@gmail.com, david@lutz.nb.ca, jfetzer@d.umn.edu, jfurey@nbpower.com, wharrison@nbpower.com, serge.rousselle@gnb.ca, rgorman@nbeub.ca, ecdesmond ecdesmond@nbeub.ca, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, paul.adams@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca, bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca, bruce.fitch@gnb.ca, bruce.northrup@gnb.ca, Donald.Arsenault@gnb.ca, kirk.macdonald@gnb.ca, randy.mckeen@gnb.ca, Jack.Keir@gnb.ca, greg.byrne@gnb.ca, Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, dan.bussieres@gnb.ca, Ed.Doherty@gnb.ca, Glen.Savoie@gnb.ca, rick.doucet@gnb.ca, rick.hancox@nbsc-cvmnb.ca, curtis@marinerpartners.com, postur@for.is, Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Tom.Mann@gnb.ca, nmoore@bellmedia.ca, jeremy.keefe@globalnews.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, newsroom@globeandmail.ca, news@kingscorecord.com
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, adawson@acrc.ca, sallybrooks25@yahoo.ca, ht.lacroix@cbc.ca, Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, lee.bell-smith@gnb.ca, david.eidt@gnb.ca, leader@greenparty.ca, darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca, sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca, hon.melanie.joly@canada.ca, Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc@canada.ca, Bill.Morneau@canada.ca
http://davidraymondamos3.blogspot.ca/2017/11/so-who-is-nastier-arshole-rick-doucet.html
---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom newsroom@globeandmail.com
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:39:05 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Dominic Cardy now that you and the Fat Bastard Lamrock are neocons dealing with an election on the horizon I have some advice for you this weekend
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.
If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical support, please contact our Customer Service department at 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com
If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to publiceditor@globeandmail.com
Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com
This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and press releases.
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Adams, Paul" Paul.Adams@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 15:53:34 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Enjoy an email to that Google blocked
To: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
I will be out of the office until Tues. Nov. 14th and will not have
access to my email. For urgent matters, please contact my assistant at
426-5758. Thanks.
---------- Original message ----------
From: MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN)
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:53 AM
To: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Enjoy an email to that Google blocked
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic
correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your
comments.
Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance
électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos
commentaires.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Póstur FOR postur@for.is
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:54 AM
To: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Enjoy an email to that Google blocked
Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
Kveðja / Best regards
Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
Final-Recipient: rfc822; gopublic@cbc.ca
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; Message temporarily rejected. See https://support.google.com/
Last-Attempt-Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2017 02:35:37 -0800 (PST)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jason Kee
Subject: Out of the Office Re: RE CRTC Reference: 770193 and the pending appointment of Ian Scott
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thanks for your message. Please note that I am on vacation from July 17 to July 25 (inclusive) with very limited access to email. I'll respond to your email upon my return. If the matter is urgent, please contact my colleague Colin McKay at colinmckay@google.com.
Many thanks,
Jason
[image: Inline image 1]
>
> • Jason J. Kee
> • Public Policy and Government Relations Counsel
> • Google Canada
> • jkee@google.com
> • M: 613 513 9325
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 15:17:54 -0400
Subject: Fw: CRTC Reference: 770193 Cya in Federal Court Mr Blais
To: jean-pierre.blais@crtc.gc.ca, martine.turcotte@bell.ca, jkee@google.com, sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca, graeme.mcphail@rci.rogers.com, Melanie.Joly@parl.gc.ca
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, pm@pm.gc.ca, Gerald.Butts@pmo-cpm.gc.ca, MulcaT@parl.gc.ca, leader@greenparty.ca, Michael.Wernick@pco-bcp.gc.ca
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: CRTC DONOTRESPOND/NEPASREPONDRE
Sent: Friday, May 26, 2017 10:30 AM
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Subject: CRTC Reference: 770193
Good morning Mr. Amos:
Further to your correspondence of May 19th, and after an extensive
review of the other issues you have raised, we have concluded that we
do not have jurisdiction over these matters.
Therefore, we consider all matters you have previously contacted this
office about to be closed. Please note that we will no longer respond
to any correspondence from you on these subjects.
Sincerely,
Chantal Proulx
Client Services | Services à la clientèle
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission | Conseil
de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0N2
Telephone | Téléphone 1-877-249-2782 / TTY | ATS 1-877-909-CRTC (2782)
Outside Canada | Hors Canada 819-997-0313 / TTY | ATS 819-994-0423
Facsimile / Télécopieur 819-994-0218
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
http://www.crtc.gc.ca
Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/CRTCeng | Suivez-nous sur
Twitter (@CRTCfra): https://twitter.com/CRTCfra
Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/crtceng | Aimez-nous sur
Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/crtcfra
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Date: Fri, 19 May 2017 11:25:30 -0600
Subject: Re: CRTC Reference: 770193 What about all the over issues I sent to your Commissioner's office about CBC, Bell Canada etc since I first ran for Parliament in 2004?
To: CRTC DONOTRESPOND/NEPASREPONDRE crtcdonotrespond@crtc.gc.ca
Cc: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
From: CRTC DONOTRESPOND/NEPASREPONDRE
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2017 11:12 AM
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Subject: CRTC Reference: 770193
Good morning Mr. Amos:
With respect to the issues you have raised in your correspondence of May 4th, 2017 regarding Google and the deactivation of your email account, the CRTC does not intervene in matters relating to the Internet, including email accounts. Internet content and their owners are not under CRTC regulations.
We understand that you have spoken to our Chairman’s office and have informed them that your matter has been resolved with Google. We were glad to hear your case had been dealt with.
Sincerely,
Client Services | Services à la clientèle
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission | Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes
Ottawa, Canada K1A 0N2
Telephone | Téléphone 1-877-249-2782 / TTY | ATS 1-877-909-CRTC (2782)
Outside Canada | Hors Canada 819-997-0313 / TTY | ATS 819-994-0423
Facsimile / Télécopieur 819-994-0218
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
http://www.crtc.gc.ca
Follow us on Twitter https://twitter.com/CRTCeng | Suivez-nous sur Twitter (@CRTCfra): https://twitter.com/CRTCfra
Like us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/crtceng | Aimez-nous sur Facebook : http://www.facebook.com/crtcfra
So who is the nastier Arshole Rick Doucet, Dominic Cardy, Donald Arsenault or Chucky Leblanc?
Survey Says???
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Doucet, Rick (LEG)" Rick.Doucet@gnb.ca
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 01:07:58 +0000
Subject: RE: Final Docs
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Will get right on this.
Always look forward to your brilliant thoughts.
R
Hon.Rick Doucet
Legislative member for Charlotte-the isles
28 Mt.Pleasant Rd.
St.George, N.B. E5C 3K4
Phone / Téléphone : 506-755-4200
Fax / Télécopieur : 506-755-4207
E-mail / Courriel : rick.doucet@gnb.ca
This message is intended for the person to whom it is addressed and is to be treated as confidential or private communications. It must not be forwarded unless permission has been received from the originator. If you have received this message inadvertently, please notify the sender and delete the message. Then delete your response. Thank you for your cooperation.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ce message est destiné à la personne désignée dans la présente et il doit demeurer confidentiel. Il ne doit pas être réacheminé sans la permission de l’expéditeur. Si ce message vous a été envoyé par erreur, veuillez aviser l’expéditeur et effacer le message. Effacez ensuite votre réponse. Merci de votre collaboration.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Adams, Paul Paul.Adams@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca,
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:53 AM
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Subject: Automatic reply: Enjoy an email to that Google blocked
I will be out of the office until Tues. Nov. 14th and will not have access to my email. For urgent matters, please contact my assistant at 426-5758. Thanks.
---------- Original message ----------
From: MinFinance / FinanceMin (FIN) fin.minfinance-financemin.fin@canada.ca
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:53 AM
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Enjoy an email to that Google blocked
The Department of Finance acknowledges receipt of your electronic correspondence. Please be assured that we appreciate receiving your comments.
Le ministère des Finances accuse réception de votre correspondance électronique. Soyez assuré(e) que nous apprécions recevoir vos commentaires.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Póstur FOR postur@for.is
Sent: Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:54 AM
To: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Enjoy an email to that Google blocked
Erindi þitt hefur verið móttekið / Your request has been received
Kveðja / Best regards
Forsætisráðuneytið / Prime Minister's Office
---------- Original message ----------
From: Brian Gallant briangallant10@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 20:36:22 -0800
Subject: Merci / Thank you Re: Yo Dominic Cardy now that you and the Fat Bastard Lamrock are neocons dealing with an election on the horizon I have some advice for you this weekend
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
(Français à suivre)
If your email is pertaining to the Government of New Brunswick, please email me at brian.gallant@gnb.ca
If your matter is urgent, please email Greg Byrne at greg.byrne@gnb.ca
Thank you.
Si votre courriel s'addresse au Gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick, svp m'envoyez un courriel à brian.gallant@gnb.ca
Pour les urgences, veuillez contacter Greg Byrne à greg.byrne@gnb.ca
Merci.
---------- Original message ----------
From: Newsroom
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2017 05:39:05 +0000
Subject: Automatic reply: Yo Dominic Cardy now that you and the Fat Bastard Lamrock are neocons dealing with an election on the horizon I have some advice for you this weekend
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for contacting The Globe and Mail.
If your matter pertains to newspaper delivery or you require technical support, please contact our Customer Service department at 1-800-387-5400 or send an email to customerservice@globeandmail.com
If you are reporting a factual error please forward your email to publiceditor@globeandmail.com mailto:publiceditor@globeandmail.com
Letters to the Editor can be sent to letters@globeandmail.com
This is the correct email address for requests for news coverage and press releases
---------- Original message ----------
From: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2017 05:35:25 -0400
Subject: Yo Dominic Cardy now that you and the Fat Bastard Lamrock are neocons dealing with an election on the horizon I have some advice for you this weekend
To: briangallant10@gmail.com, premier@gnb.ca, brian.gallant@gnb.ca, blaine.higgs@gnb.ca, Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca, Hamish.Wright@gnb.ca, BrianThomasMacdonald@gmail.com, nick.brown@gnb.ca, carl.davies@gnb.ca, carl.urquhart@gnb.ca, oldmaison@yahoo.com, andre@jafaust.com, occupyfredericton@gmail.com, Jacques.Poitras@cc.ca, jbosnitch@gmail.com, Davidc.Coon@gmail.com, david@lutz.nb.ca, jfetzer@d.umn.edu, jfurey@nbpower.com, wharrison@nbpower.com, serge.rousselle@gnb.ca, rgorman@nbeub.ca, ecdesmond@nbeub.ca, jan.jensen@justice.gc.ca, paul.adams@ppsc-sppc.gc.ca, bill.pentney@justice.gc.ca, bruce.fitch@gnb.ca, bruce.northrup@gnb.ca, Donald.Arsenault@gnb.ca, kirk.macdonald@gnb.ca, randy.mckeen@gnb.ca, Jack.Keir@gnb.ca, greg.byrne@gnb.ca, Dale.Morgan@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, dan.bussieres@gnb.ca, Ed.Doherty@gnb.ca, Glen.Savoie@gnb.ca, rick.doucet@gnb.ca, rick.hancox@nbsc-cvmnb.ca, curtis@marinerpartners.com, postur@for.is, Stephane.vaillancourt@rcmp-grc.gc.ca, Tom.Mann@gnb.ca, nmoore@bellmedia.ca, jeremy.keefe@globalnews.ca, steve.murphy@ctv.ca, newsroom@globeandmail.ca, news@kingscorecord.com
Cc: david.raymond.amos@gmail.com, sallybrooks25@yahoo.ca, ht.lacroix@cbc.ca, adawson@acrc.ca, Nathalie.Drouin@justice.gc.ca, mcu@justice.gc.ca, lee.bell-smith@gnb.ca, david.eidt@gnb.ca, leader@greenparty.ca, darrow.macintyre@cbc.ca, sylvie.gadoury@radio-canada.ca, hon.melanie.joly@canada.ca, Hon.Dominic.LeBlanc@canada.ca, Bill.Morneau@canada.ca
Perhaps you professional political dudes should start eating your many
words instead of checking the tally on your butter tarts and timbits
while claiming to be writing a book etc. Scroll down to enjoy 3 of
Kelly Lamrock old blogs after all one of them is about YOU N'esy Pas
Donny Boy Arsenault?
Trust that I thoroughly enjoyed Chucky Leblanc's YouTubes while
commenting within CBC this past week or so. I chuckled quite a bit
when Chucky mentioned the KISS MY ASS PARTY particularly after Chucky
and all the other media people snubbed its leader at the Lt Governor's
Mansion when Gallant made his big annoucement about whatever.
Ask yourselves why CBC blocks my comments or better yet why NBEUB
shuts down their website for the benefit of LIEbranos almost
immediately after I do manage to provide a link to a certain
transcript within CBC.
Need I say that I found it more than interesting that Mr Furey a
former Assistant Attorney General would use a judgment against
Chucky's evil pal Sally Brooks by a Judge who was a partner in Cox
Palmer in order to support his attempt to prove that I am vexatious
too? Small wonder the transcript the NBEUB website went down while the
CBC news article is still very current EH Ms Harrison? Hence for
everyone's benefit I have inserted the text of the entire transcript
below and following that an interesting document provided to me and
all the other Intervenors by you not so clever lawyers speakinng for
NB Power.
As other folks read the transcript don't ya think it kinda strange
that before it opted to bar me from speaking the Energy Utilities
Board ignored its own rules and did not seek the opinion of all the
other Intervenors like it did when most of us wanted rid of the greedy
Mr Hyslop once and for all?
All of the nonsense found below makes me giving up my status as an
Proud Independant and consider joining a political party that won't
Kiss Chucky's Leblanc's nasty arse. Methinks it may be fun to run in
Fat Fred City against his very snobby buddy Davey Baby Coon. What say
you Premier Gallant. I doubt that I could win but my action may cause
a neocon to replace Coon's arsehole warming a seat in the House as he
farts and bullshits about democracy. Your kissing cousin the welfare
bum Chucky "CryBaby" Leblanc and his Fake Left and Green Meanie
buddies must have forgot that I save everything and post a lot of
stuff on the Internet. Coon did say we get the govenments we deserve
so that means him as well N'esy Pas Dominic Leblanc?
Veritas Vincit
David Raymond Amos
Charles LeBlanc Political ADHD Activist
http://oldmaison.blogspot.ca/2006/04/roomers-truly-have-no-rights.html
Saturday, April 01, 2006
ROOMERS TRULY HAVE NO RIGHTS!!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tipHN1HAHI8
David Coon and the media know I am the guy saying that since 2004
32 views
David Amos
Published on Apr 1, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0WEVX9YU6Tc
Speak of the Devil and Cst. Mark Blakely of the RCMP appears
203 views
David Amos
Published on Apr 4, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7c4VjtY3-M
Maritime Lumber Bureau
79 views
David Amos
Published on Apr 4, 2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7Ir55k6kMY
Maritime Lumber Bureau 2
65 views
David Amos
Published on Apr 4, 2013
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/donald-arseneault-lobbyist-liberal-mla-1.4385571
David Raymond Amos
I know for a fact a lot of political pundits have read the Transcript
of the pre-hearing Conference held on All Hallows Eve.by the NBEUB in
Saint John for the benefit of NB Power not the ratepayers However we
political pundits all know that the CBC and Irving Media will never
talk about it. Hence methinks interested folks who need electricity
should read it for themselves. That means nearly everyone who lives in
New Brunswick N'esy Pas?
Here is the Gallant Government link to the aforesaid transcript. Please enjoy.
www.nbeub.ca/opt/M/get_transcript.php?id=560&no=182
File not found
Firefox can’t find the file at
http://www.nbeub.ca/opt/M/get_transcript.php?id=560&no=182.
Check the file name for capitalization or other typing errors.
Check to see if the file was moved, renamed or deleted.
http://www.nbeub.ca/opt/M/findrecords.php?-link=Find%20Matter
NBEUB ToolKit
Home Find Exhibit Find Matter Matters List Exhibit List
Error: 22 - Unknown error
| NBEUB Document Info SIte | Not Used | Find | Record List | Find All |
Doug Leblanc
Was this the plan all along.... to accept the job while an MLA so the
1 year cooling off period was not required, and then abandon his
constituents. Here he is with the local Building Trades Union rep.
http://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/multimedia/mmrenderer.2016.06.2016-06-22_01.jpg.html
Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour , June 22, 2016 - Rothesay
Mentorship program a success
Post-Secondary
Education, Training and Labour Minister Donald Arsenault celebrated the
success of the New Brunswick Mentor Assistance Program at an event in
Rothesay. The program is committed to training 1,000 skilled
tradespeople in 1,000 business days through effective on-the-job
mentorship. At just over 500 days, the program has already helped train
more than 600 mentors. From left: Gary Ritchie, president of New
Brunswick’s Building Trades Unions; Arseneault; Gina O’Rourke-McKay,
chief mentoring officer with the program; and Arlene Dunn, deputy
director of Canada’s Building Trades Unions.
David Raymond Amos
@Doug Leblanc One photo does speak a thousand words
David Raymond Amos
@Doug Leblanc Check out Chucky Leblanc's latest videos with his buddy Arsenault
David Raymond Amos
Content disabled.
@Harold Fitzgerald Here is a news scoop CBC missed today or simply
didn't believe but moving pictures are worth thousands of words.
At the first part of this video Ricky Doucet of the Atcon gang runs
away from Chucky Leblanc and at the end of the video their buddy
Arsenault claims he is writing a book.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRoffRAFnL8&feature=youtu.be
Ministers Rick Doucet, Stephen Horsman and Donald Arsenault hunted
down by Blogger!!!
7 views
Charles Leblanc
Published on Nov 3,.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SvJDgBHT6QI
" Kiss New Brunswick " is the new Political Party in New Brunswick!!!!!
302 views
Charles Leblanc
Published on Mar 20, 2017
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/kiss-nb-political-party-1.4051485
New political party aims to keep it simple
Party advocates for reduced debt, tolls on provincial highways
By Jordan Gill, CBC News Posted: Apr 02, 2017 10:59 AM AT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXTOny5sCBM&t=22s
Premier Brian Gallant doesn't call Provincial Election!!!
41 views
Charles Leblanc
Published on Oct 23, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3-AFmUsagM
MLA Donald Arsenault is confronted by the Blogger about his resignation!
83 views
Charles Leblanc
Published on Nov 3, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRoffRAFnL8
Ministers Rick Doucet, Stephen Horsman and Donald Arsenault hunted
down by Blogger!!!
33 views
Charles Leblanc
Published on Nov 3, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjvMYWRJ5hQ&t=142s
New Brunswick Green Party Leader David Coon chat about Spraying and
other issues!!!
41 views
Charles Leblanc
Published on Nov 3, 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4535SjppEXc
New Brunswick Green Party officials interviews Pain in the Ass Blogger!!!
9 views
Published on Nov 4, 2017
Methinks if Chucky's interviews with his buddy David Coon in his pal's
barber shop and Coon's supporters were not staged I should eat a
certain friend's hat (The dude who got 300 views).
---------- Original message ----------
From: Brian Gallant briangallant10@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 22:06:38 -0700
Subject: Thank you / Merci Re: RE Election predictions Lorne Bozinoff
seems to agree with Chucky Leblanc N'esy pas?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com
Thank you for your email.
During the New Brunswick General Election which is from August 21st to
September 22nd, I will not be able to respond to emails as quickly as
I would like to. As you may be aware, I am crisscrossing the province
as I want to visit as many communities as possible to listen to the
concerns, suggestions and ideas of New Brunswickers all the while
sharing our vision for New Brunswick.
I kindly suggest that if your matter is urgent, you contact Shelby
Thompson at: shelby.thompson@nbliberal.ca.
Thank you for understanding.
Brian
---
Merci pour votre courriel.
Pendant la campagne électorale du Nouveau-Brunswick qui aura lieu du
21 août au 22 septembre, je ne serai pas en mesure de répondre aux
courriels aussi rapidement que je le souhaiterais. Comme vous le savez
probablement, je vais silloner la province, dans le but de visiter le
plus grand nombre de communautés possibles afin d’écouter les
préoccupations, les suggestions et les idées des gens du
Nouveau-Brunswick, tout en partageant notre vision pour la province.
S’il s’agit d’une question urgente, je vous suggères de communiquez
avec Shelby Thompson à l’adresse suivante :
shelby.thompson@nbliberal.ca
Merci de votre compréhension.
Brian
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Cardy, Dominic (LEG)" Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 18:23:57 +0000
Subject: RE: [Possible Spam/Pourriel] Yo Dominic Cardy Butter Tarts me
arse.Give the all the the Fat Bastard Lamrock methinks the nasty
neocons made a huge Faux Pas getting in bed with you two Fake Left
dudes before an election N'esy Pas Donny Boy Arnenault?
To: motomaniac333@gmail.com, "Wright, Hamish (LEG)" Hamish.Wright@gnb.ca
Dear David,
I am so sorry that you are unhappy. I hope the butter tart will help.
Sometimes when I feel sad I'll have two butter tarts. Because we are
fiscal conservatives we can only send you one butter tart so, if you
are very sad, maybe you have a special friend who can help you by
buying the second one? That would be a great example of civil society
in action, and a very real public/private partnership.
There are so many things I want to say right now but, in the end, all
that matters is that we are kind to each other, right?
Yours, etc,
Dominic
---------- Original message ----------
From: "Cardy, Dominic (LEG)" Dominic.Cardy@gnb.ca
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2017 14:23:43 +0000
Subject: RE: Hey Premier Gallant I must thank your computer for an
ethical response However need I say to Hell with your Minister Ricky
Baby Doucet, the "Atcon Six", Dominic Cardy, Chucky Leblanc and all
their Fake Left and Green Meanie cohorts?
To: David Amos motomaniac333@gmail.com, "Wright, Hamish (LEG)"
Hamish.Wright@gnb.ca
Mr. Amos,
I retract my request for butter tarts. Clearly you need them more than
Mr. Wright. We have to be fair and equitable in the distribution of
tasty regional pastries.
If you send me your mailing address Mr. Wright will send you one - or
a pecan tart if you prefer those! - from the Tim's down the street.
Yum.
Have a good weekend,
Dominic
http://kellylamrocksrazor.blogspot.ca
Tuesday, May 24, 2016
THE MEETING AND THE DAMAGE DONE
Bill
21, the Gallant government’s bill to limit the ability of the Court of
Queen’s Bench to manage the placement of judges, is a brief piece of
legislation that raises a number of questions.
Those questions are, specifically, “What the hell?”, “Why?”, and “We need this because….?”
To
those exclamations of bafflement, we may now add a fourth, courtesy of
two cabinet ministers Stephen Horseman and Don Arsenault. That question
is “What were they thinking?”
Let's recap
recent events, which have done nothing to enhance the already-shaky
reputation of the Gallant government for being able to pick its
hindquarters out of a police lineup surrounded by holes in the ground.
Near
the start of the legislative session, the government introduced Bill
21. The Bill proposed an end to the power of the Chief Justice of the
Court of Queen’s Bench to move judges to new judicial districts and
require them to establish residence within 50km of their domain. From
now on, should the Bill pass, a judge could only be moved if the
Minister of Justice and the judge themselves agree.
The
problem arose when the Chief Justice of the Court, Mr. Justice David
Smith, stated that he had not been consulted on the Bill and that he
considered it an affront to the principle of judicial independence. The
government had consulted with the acting Chief Justice in his absence,
but the Chief Justice’s reaction was clearly negative.
The
curious part of this chapter is the complete and utter inability to
articulate why the Bill was needed. The Chief Justice articulated his
concerns with the Bill so that, whether one agrees or not, one can know
why he has arrived at his position. For the government’s part, it
appears that Bill 21 somehow made it through drafting, cabinet,
committee and three readings without anyone caring about it, a kind of
Immaculate Legislation. The Justice Minister allowed that he could not
think of a single example of where he would use these new powers to
override the Chief Judge, and no one from the government seemed eager to
provide a statement of why the Bill was needed.
When
governments are determined to have a Bill pass over serious opposition,
but won't say why, people get suspicious. It is like having your
teenage son ask repeatedly if you'll be out of town any weekend soon,
but when asked why he cares says “Oh, no reason.” It gets people on
alert. So the Bill was already under a spotlight when the Legislature
reconvened for a rare event which old people will someday fondly recall
as “legislative sittings, before that young Gallant took over.”
As
the Bill was being debated, the government decided that Energy Minister
Don Arsenault should speak. This was a curious choice. Not only is his
portfolio miles away from the matter at hand, but Don is not known as a
politician with a deep appreciation for the subtleties of legislation.
However,
Don Arsenault began to address the historical tradition of judicial
independence. Asking him to do this is like hiring Tinsel, the Balloon
Animal Clown, for your kid’s party and then asking him to juggle meat
cleavers. He's not had much practice, and there is significant
downside.
Mr. Arsenault launched into what can
only be described as a screed. He read a list of the 13 transfers of
judges’ locations that have happened on Chief Justice Smith’s watch,
predictably said this harmed the North to the benefit of Moncton. He
seemed particularly to focus on judges appointed by Conservative
governments (which I hasten to add, is not the same as “Conservative
judges”). The Minister then added a truly bizarre twist, claiming that
Madame Justice Marie-Claude Blais may wish to move from Moncton, and
that this would likely be arranged “between friends” as the other 13
moves had been.
Where friends meet, some say. OK, Don Arsenault says.
If
there was any proof of any of this, it remained within the fevered mind
of the Minister. A lawyer representing Chief Justice Smith soon pointed
out that this seemed to be a lot of defamation without proof. He also
corrected the record on a few fronts, including the fact that the
Minister claimed that the Acting Chief Justice had approved of the
changes when she actually had warned they might be unconstitutional.
Two
days later, in Question Period, the Justice Minister added another
bizarre chapter to the saga. Asked about the Bill, he noted that the
government was finally "including judges” and that a number of judges
had called him with their support for the bill, out of fear of being
involuntarily moved.
Later, as questions began
circulating about the propriety of speaking with judges, the Minister
called at least one reporter to say that he had “been unclear” when he
claimed that judges had called him, and that no judges had ever called
him. Some unnamed judges had, however, approached him at unnamed social
functions to express their delight at Bill 21.
And
this is where the sage ends for now, with Ministers tying themselves in
knots to pass an absolutely essential bill that will avoid an
unspecified harm and be used in situations that it's sponsor cannot
imagine.
The Facts On Judicial Moves
The
CBC’s Jacques Poitras helpfully reported on the 27 instances in a
quarter century where judges have moved judicial districts. Breaking
these down may help separate fact from spin.
To
understand this, know that there are eight judicial districts in New
Brunswick, as fixed by regulation (which means cabinet could change this
without legislative approval). To be a judicial district is to be
assured, by legislation, that at least one judge must be assigned there
and by law establish a residence within 50 kilometres of the court in
that city or town. The 24 full-time judges of the Court of Queen’s Bench
are right now broken down between the 8 judicial districts as follows:
six judges sit in Moncton and Saint John, four sit in Fredericton, two
each in Miramichi, Bathurst and Edmundston, and one each in Woodstock
and Campbellton.
When there is a vacancy due
to a departing judge, the federal government may appoint a judge. The
appointment will generally specify a judicial district.
If
we look at the 27 judicial moves we could think of a region “gaining”
or “losing” a judge, in one sense. If you wanted to do that analysis,
for instance, in the case where Mr. Justice Bruce Noble was moved from
Saint John to Fredericton, you could say that Fredericton “gained” a
judge and Saint John “lost” one.
If you did
that analysis, you would find that almost every judicial district had
gained and lost a judge at some point. The largest net “gainers” would
be Moncton (+6) and Fredericton (+4). However, contrary to the
government’s expressed concern for Northern New Brunswick, the outflow
is not from the Campbellton, Bathurst or Edmundston centres. The largest
net “losers” are actually Woodstock (-4) and Miramichi (-3). In fact,
the most common moves are Woodstock to Fredericton and Miramichi to
Moncton.
You will also notice that I put
“gain” and “lose” in quotation marks. This is because almost none of
these moves (I can't find one for sure, but I can't trace every move)
actually alter the number of judges in a district. The Judicature Act
already protects smaller districts because they must have a judge. So
if a judge moves from Campbellton to fill a vacancy in Edmundston, the
result is that now the new judge will be appointed in Campbellton.
Of
the changes that have occurred since I joined the bar in 1998, of 50%
appear to be “repatriation” moves, where a judge is returned to the
place where they lived prior to appointment. For example, the fact that
Mssrs. Justice Noble and Morrison moved to Fredericton seems to simply
be a case where they were appointed by the federal government to a place
where they did not live, and they moved back to Fredericton once a
vacancy appeared there. Far from any great conspiracy, it seems to be
usually quite simple. When vacancies arise, there may be judges that are
high on the list of the federal government. To get them into the
judiciary, they will often be appointed wherever there is a vacancy,
serve in that new center, and then ask to go back to their original home
when there is a vacancy.
This is not a bad
thing. For one, it allows new judges to start in smaller centres and
then go to the larger districts as they gain experience. Most (though
assuredly not all) complex litigation will be filed there, if only
because that's where larger businesses and governments exist. As well,
lawyers are even more concentrated than the general public in larger
centres. That's not to say that good lawyers come from big cities, only
that many good small town lawyers still prefer to go where the potential
clients are. And the lawyers who like to do the work that often (though
not always) predicts an interest in becoming a judge often wind up in
government, at universities, or at big firms that allow complete
specialization are even more disproportionately in the big cities.
Again,
that's not to say there aren't excellent lawyers and potential judges
in small centres. There are. They are just disproportionately clustered
in big centres, and if all lawyers are equally good, the place with five
times as many lawyers will have five times as many lawyers who would
want to become judges.
So, to conclude,
changes never really result in a region losing a judge. They may see a
more experienced judge go to a bigger centre to either return home or
expand their professional challenge, and a new judge gets appointed to
fill the old vacancy. It's hard to see the public harm in that.
Judicial Independence
You
may reasonably ask why everyone is so big on judicial independence. Put
simply, it is a hallmark of a functioning democracy. To keep disputes
from being settled by force, systems need a way of settling them that is
credible, so that even when we lose we accept the process. People who
come before judges need to believe that they will have their cases heard
on the merits. Part of that is how the judge comports themselves –
judges avoid comments or interference in politics so that we do not
perceive that they may be judging based upon ideological or partisan
interests. As an example, look at the recent school closure cases. The
judges took great pains to explain that their decision had nothing to do
with whether the government made the right policy choice, only if the
rules were followed. That is how it works.
The
other part of this is that politicians need to do their job and stay the
hell out of situations where they can be perceived as influencing
judges.
When I was Justice Minister and
Attorney-General, I often got calls from people asking me to step in, to
see that charges were brought against someone, or that a custody
hearing went their way, or some bad decision be set right. It didn't
always make me popular, but my job was to make it clear that I could not
do this. While it may be tempting to think of an all-powerful minister
who sets things right, this can destroy the system long-term. If you
get charged with a crime or lose custody of your child because the
complainant lives in the A-G’s riding or threatened to go to the media,
that will destroy faith in the system. So I would explain their rights,
offer any advice I could on getting legal help, and even tell them how
to complain to the Judicial Council of they felt a judge was unfair.
In
other words, ministers have to take care not to give the appearance of
trying to influence judges. This includes using their ability to get
media – you cannot give the appearance that you will open a judge up to
public attack or ridicule if their actions displease you.
The Dangers With Don’s Words
While
Minister Horseman has made the more easily-understood breach, Minister
Arsenault’s intentional trashing of the Chief Justice raises more
serious issues.
For starters, the Minister
abused his parliamentary immunity in the extreme. I see nothing in his
statements that looks like even an attempt to offer proof for what are
serious allegations that the Chief Judge has improperly managed the
judicial system based upon improper considerations, “among friends”. He
has made allegations that are demonstrably untrue on the facts
regarding judicial transfers. And he has impugned Madame Justice Blais
by suggesting based on no proof at all that she is angling for a move
and conspiring with the Chief Justice, which could undermine faith in
her ability to adjudicate disputes in Saint John.
If
the Minister has proof of this, he has the duty to raise the matter
with the Judicial Council, a neutral body that can hear complaints where
actual proof and argument can be made. If he is too cowardly to take
his words there to be evaluated, he must withdraw them fully.
If
he will not do this, it is a tacit admission that he has tried to
intimidate the Court. He sent a message that if a judge displeases him,
he will use his legislative immunity and public profile to launch
attacks on that judge. For judges who may hear cases involving the
government, knowing a minister may do this with impunity could be
perceived as having a chilling effect on the courts. I don't expect Don
Arsenault to learn this at this point in a political career that has
largely been built upon not knowing things that might make him a
less-willing attack dog. But Brian Gallant and Serge Rousselle have
professional duties to change his actions, if not his mind. He has
embarrassed them, or at least they should be embarrassed.
Minister
Arsenault has also failed in his fiduciary duty to the government he is
part of, because he may have singlehandedly given courts a reason to
overturn his government’s law. Minister Horseman may not be able to
articulate a motivation for Bill 21, but Minister Arsenault did.
However, the one he articulated is not a proper one. By raising Madame
Justice Blais’s name, he suggested that the point of the Bill for him is
to make sure that a former political foe cannot move if she wants to.
He didn't articulate why the would be a public interest in this, either,
it seems simply to be based on personal and political animosity. This
is, of course, a completely improper reason for a bill, and legislative
immunity does not mean that it cannot be introduced as evidence in a
court challenge.
If the Premier is too weak to
fire this Minister, both for undermining the justice system and blowing
up his own government’s legislative agenda, then he is not really in
charge of government.
The Curious Case of Minister Horseman
Everyone
gets the obvious problem with Minister Horseman’s comments. It was
false. You don't need me to explain that saying you got more than one
supportive call from judges is a lie if you actually got zero calls from
judges. You also can apply your own test to his later claim that he was
simply “unclear”. To be unclear means that your words can bear more
than one interpretation. I do not know of another meaning for what the
Minister said.
In
the Parliamentary tradition, members are given immunity from being sued
for libel, but this isn't a free pass. The price is that they have a
high duty to not deliberately mislead the House. The reason rules don't
allow a member to accuse another of lying in debate is because it is a
serious breach of a member’s responsibilities, and can must be raised
and reviewed by a Committee on Privileges for discipline. (The reason
you can't just say it in debate is the same reason Arsenault can't just
accuse the Chief Judge of misconduct in debate – in both cases, if
you're not ready to raise a formal complaint and prove it, don't throw
the accusation around).
It would be hard for Speaker Collins to rule against an Opposition privilege motion that the Minister misled the House.
But we all know a lie. What may be less obvious is the breach of duty that Minister Horseman committed as Justice Minister.
In
the parliamentary system, Chief Justices speak for the Court on
administrative matters and he and the Minister may rightly discuss those
matters. Ministers should not be engaging in discussions with judges
otherwise. To discuss the Bill with judges other than the Chief is to
engage in interference with the operation of the Court. To speak of its
merits could be seen as improperly engaging judges on a matter that
might be the subject of litigation. The U.K. a ministerial guide makes
this clear.
A
number of Canadian ministers, and others in the Commonwealth, have
resigned due to phone calls with judges on improper matters. Jean
Charest, David Collennette, John Duncan, John Munro, Irish Minister
Bobby Malloy – all resigned to be honourable after making a mistake and
calling judges.
If the Minister thinks that
changing the talk from a call to a conversation changes that, he is
wrong. After all, it isn't the phone that mattered in those cases, it is
the improper conversation. If someone was discussing a bribe, for
instance, it doesn't matter if it is by phone, in person, over Skype or
by passed notes. It is the substance that is wrong. The same is true
here. The Minister should have ended those conversations, not cited
them.
Further, it is hard to believe a judge
would start that conversation, because legally-trained people know
better. The Minister has not only accused judges of starting
potentially-improper conversations, by refusing to provide details he
has impugned all 24 judges.
The Minister needs
to provide details of these alleged encounters promptly. And if he
indulged those calls, he should step down at least briefly. If he lied
about them, he should step down for quite some time.
A Question of Honour
These
rules can sometimes seem harsh, when a generally well-meaning person
like Stephen Horseman is involved. But ministerial resignations for
serious breaches are a tradition because they recognize that a
minister’s ambition cannot be more important than the integrity of the
system. Duties to protect private information, respect judicial
independence, keep budget details secret to protect investors – when
these are breached a minister steps down even if they didn't mean any
harm. As Bernard LeBlanc said when he resigned after a staffer used his
personal account to send private information, it is a question of
honour to show respect for the system.
It is
tempting, in a partisan atmosphere, to try to dodge consequences. But
governments are not supposed to care only about the game, but about the
integrity of democracy. They are guardians of something bigger than
themselves.
The Premier has watched his
members applaud colleagues for what are attacks on the judicial system.
It is not clear he understands or opposes this, because he has dodged
the issue thus far. Yet if he does not act, or if he tries to shuffle
the two men to new cabinet jobs without consequence, he will be telling
us volumes about his character. Even in the heat of politics, democracy
depends upon respect for certain lines that should not be crossed.
History
has a way of outlasting ephemeral power, and this premier is young
enough that he will live to read early drafts of history’s judgement of
his charge. If he stays silent, this episode will someday be a prominent
exhibit in the story of a premier too callow and too weak to defend the
rule of law he took an oath to uphold. His name will likely be a
cautionary tale of one leader who forgot the warnings of Alexander Pope
for those who try to ignore ethical lines.
Fools! who from hence into the notion fall
That vice or virtue there is none at all.
Is there no black or white? Ask your own heart, and nothing is so plain
’Tis to mistake them, costs the time and pain.
Friday, March 1, 2013
A CHANGE WILL DO YOU GOOD
"Dude, what the hell?"
Actually, a lot of folks have been very supportive and hopeful about my decision to join the NDP. But now that the swirl of interviews is over, I wanted to explain my decision in something longer than a tweet or sound bite. Basically, it's all about ideas. I know it isn't the safe choice, or the politically easy one. But for me, it is the right one.
So, by now you likely know that I've accepted an offer to work with Dominic Cardy and the NDP on an exciting new policy initiative. It's called "Our Province NB", and this will be a substantive approach to developing a platform with citizens from a variety of backgrounds. We seek out ideas from committed, thoughtful New Brunswickers on a variety of important questions. These challenge papers will come from thoughtful people regardless of their partisan background. Once on line, anyone who registers for the process -- whether they join the party or not --can comment, propose changes, and post their own response papers. The party's leadership must directly engage people in discussions. Later, votes on certain policy choices will happen in the open with full transparency, making sure the leader must account for his choices in light of a very open debate and decision-making process.
The initial topics are ones that are urgent, and that the two traditional parties seem to want to ignore. They include finding solutions to some challenges that must be answered in the next few years, such as:
How do we attract new creative economy jobs,people and investment in the sectors that are growing without putting public funds at risk?
How do we make sure that all our citizens can participate in the economy, tackling stubborn problems like poverty and illiteracy within the budget constraints we have?
How do we deal with an aging population, where senior care will require significant new spending, without shortchanging the programmes that keep younger families here and support their opportunities?
How do we make sure that our education system prepares people for the new economy while promoting 21st century skills such as problem solving, creative thinking, collaboration and global awareness?
How do we reform our government and its institutions to restore faith in our democracy, and faith in New Brunswick as a fair and clean place to do business?
The process won't shy away from proposing ideas, or in welcoming constructive debate. It recognizes that the next election will require clear plans and bold ideas from those who seek to lead, and that discussions should happen now so that voters can make an informed choice.
Lately, watching the Legislature has reminded me of that old joke about the two hunters who surprise a bear. When one starts to run, his friend warns him that he can't outrun a bear -- to which the runner replies that he doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun the other guy.
If we don't attract new industry, reach citizens falling out of the economy, improve our schools and reform our democracy, New Brunswick will struggle to keep up. Lately, the two traditional parties have spent a lot of time slamming each other but little time spelling out real clear policy choices. It seems like they just want to outrun the other guy so they can win power, instead of describe what they would do about the bears that threaten our economy and our future. I want to be a part of a party that earns trust through ideas, not by just shutting up and hoping the other guy blows himself up.
I was impressed by the fact that Dominic Cardy wanted people who haven't always been his supporters to get involved and debate ideas with him. A leader who welcomes critics is a leader who won't be co-opted by a few close backroom advisors if he becomes Premier, and Dominic fits that description.
Now, many of you know that I've had a ten year affiliation with the Liberal Party. And, while my choice is more about feeling positive about this new process, I do owe you an explanation about why I couldn't find that same optimism about the place where I was.
There are lots of good people in the Liberal Party. I've long outgrown the knee jerk partisanship that suggests that one party has all the good ideas, or that any party is going to be right all the time. That kind of debate bores me, frankly, and it isn't helpful.
I have struggled since the last half of the previous government's mandate to feel comfortable where I was. I took my mandate seriously and worked within the government to advance the ideas I felt good about, like education reform, early childhood education and poverty reduction. I respected my cabinet oath to work from within, and through our party's renewal process I tried to be clear about the things that should change -- such as making real democratic reforms, rolling back costly tax cuts that didn't work, and depoliticizing economic development. I even backed a leadership candidate willing to support those ideas and add some good ones such as an environmental bill of rights. Some will say I should have given it more time, others will try to use the time I spent trying to make it work to question my sincerity now. There's no perfect time to declare an amicable split, but I do believe the Liberal Party has chosen what it wants to be and made it clear that it does not share the ideas I promoted. I should note that parties have every right to do that, as citizens have every right to decide if they fit with a party.
The Liberal Party has chosen a different route, one that entrenches the things that I thought needed to change. The new leader has made it clear that Liberals will defend the past tax cuts and continue to tell people that the deficit can be tamed by cutting alone. He has made it clear that he does not believe in structural changes to reduce the power of the leader and his advisors, but will keep the same model we had in the last government, where as long as the leader endures public meetings, he may make all the decisions. The Liberal Party will not be quick to support limits on patronage appointments or politicized economic development. Mr. Gallant says he opposes patronage, but he has managed to oppose every actual rule against it, preferring to get elected by saying "trust me to make better backroom choices". And the Liberal Leader stands by his stated opposition to things I believe in, like more financial support for making college affordable and an earned income tax credit to help the working poor. He mocks these as "making more promises", but for some of us, having things we want to accomplish is what makes politics more meaningful than a season of American Idol.
The fact that federally, the front runner for the Liberal leadership has also ran opposing the release of detailed policy options, while Tom Mulcair has sparked real debate on diversifying our economy and reforming our democracy is not lost on me. The Liberal Party is about to elect leaders at both levels who mock the very idea of proposing clear ideas, instead urging people to give them a blank cheque on policy because they are new and exciting people. If we were casting a Disney Channel pilot, I would agree. Because we are governing a country,I cannot. It is clear that we have suffered from Mr. Alward being elected without having to think clearly about what he believed in and what he wanted to do. The solution is not to elect another unprepared leader in anger, but to insist that the next election be fought on substance and ideas.
However, I remain hopeful that this can happen. I worked with Dominic Cardy on the anti-patronage bills and watched as the government yielded to good, solid ideas. I am excited by the fact that here is a party open to ideas and debate from those who don't support it blindly, instead of regarding criticism with suspicion. And I still believe there is room for people who want to enter public life for what they can do there, not what they will be there.
I am less concerned all the time with who gets elected, and more concerned with the urgency of good ideas. I hope that others will join a discussion that puts ideas above party, policy above ambition, and our future above all else. No party has all the answers, but at this critical moment, the leaders in public life best ready to offer an alternative to failed conservative policy and a government prepared to lead are Dominic Cardy and Tom Mulcair.
Actually, a lot of folks have been very supportive and hopeful about my decision to join the NDP. But now that the swirl of interviews is over, I wanted to explain my decision in something longer than a tweet or sound bite. Basically, it's all about ideas. I know it isn't the safe choice, or the politically easy one. But for me, it is the right one.
So, by now you likely know that I've accepted an offer to work with Dominic Cardy and the NDP on an exciting new policy initiative. It's called "Our Province NB", and this will be a substantive approach to developing a platform with citizens from a variety of backgrounds. We seek out ideas from committed, thoughtful New Brunswickers on a variety of important questions. These challenge papers will come from thoughtful people regardless of their partisan background. Once on line, anyone who registers for the process -- whether they join the party or not --can comment, propose changes, and post their own response papers. The party's leadership must directly engage people in discussions. Later, votes on certain policy choices will happen in the open with full transparency, making sure the leader must account for his choices in light of a very open debate and decision-making process.
The initial topics are ones that are urgent, and that the two traditional parties seem to want to ignore. They include finding solutions to some challenges that must be answered in the next few years, such as:
How do we attract new creative economy jobs,people and investment in the sectors that are growing without putting public funds at risk?
How do we make sure that all our citizens can participate in the economy, tackling stubborn problems like poverty and illiteracy within the budget constraints we have?
How do we deal with an aging population, where senior care will require significant new spending, without shortchanging the programmes that keep younger families here and support their opportunities?
How do we make sure that our education system prepares people for the new economy while promoting 21st century skills such as problem solving, creative thinking, collaboration and global awareness?
How do we reform our government and its institutions to restore faith in our democracy, and faith in New Brunswick as a fair and clean place to do business?
The process won't shy away from proposing ideas, or in welcoming constructive debate. It recognizes that the next election will require clear plans and bold ideas from those who seek to lead, and that discussions should happen now so that voters can make an informed choice.
Lately, watching the Legislature has reminded me of that old joke about the two hunters who surprise a bear. When one starts to run, his friend warns him that he can't outrun a bear -- to which the runner replies that he doesn't have to outrun the bear, he just has to outrun the other guy.
If we don't attract new industry, reach citizens falling out of the economy, improve our schools and reform our democracy, New Brunswick will struggle to keep up. Lately, the two traditional parties have spent a lot of time slamming each other but little time spelling out real clear policy choices. It seems like they just want to outrun the other guy so they can win power, instead of describe what they would do about the bears that threaten our economy and our future. I want to be a part of a party that earns trust through ideas, not by just shutting up and hoping the other guy blows himself up.
I was impressed by the fact that Dominic Cardy wanted people who haven't always been his supporters to get involved and debate ideas with him. A leader who welcomes critics is a leader who won't be co-opted by a few close backroom advisors if he becomes Premier, and Dominic fits that description.
Now, many of you know that I've had a ten year affiliation with the Liberal Party. And, while my choice is more about feeling positive about this new process, I do owe you an explanation about why I couldn't find that same optimism about the place where I was.
There are lots of good people in the Liberal Party. I've long outgrown the knee jerk partisanship that suggests that one party has all the good ideas, or that any party is going to be right all the time. That kind of debate bores me, frankly, and it isn't helpful.
I have struggled since the last half of the previous government's mandate to feel comfortable where I was. I took my mandate seriously and worked within the government to advance the ideas I felt good about, like education reform, early childhood education and poverty reduction. I respected my cabinet oath to work from within, and through our party's renewal process I tried to be clear about the things that should change -- such as making real democratic reforms, rolling back costly tax cuts that didn't work, and depoliticizing economic development. I even backed a leadership candidate willing to support those ideas and add some good ones such as an environmental bill of rights. Some will say I should have given it more time, others will try to use the time I spent trying to make it work to question my sincerity now. There's no perfect time to declare an amicable split, but I do believe the Liberal Party has chosen what it wants to be and made it clear that it does not share the ideas I promoted. I should note that parties have every right to do that, as citizens have every right to decide if they fit with a party.
The Liberal Party has chosen a different route, one that entrenches the things that I thought needed to change. The new leader has made it clear that Liberals will defend the past tax cuts and continue to tell people that the deficit can be tamed by cutting alone. He has made it clear that he does not believe in structural changes to reduce the power of the leader and his advisors, but will keep the same model we had in the last government, where as long as the leader endures public meetings, he may make all the decisions. The Liberal Party will not be quick to support limits on patronage appointments or politicized economic development. Mr. Gallant says he opposes patronage, but he has managed to oppose every actual rule against it, preferring to get elected by saying "trust me to make better backroom choices". And the Liberal Leader stands by his stated opposition to things I believe in, like more financial support for making college affordable and an earned income tax credit to help the working poor. He mocks these as "making more promises", but for some of us, having things we want to accomplish is what makes politics more meaningful than a season of American Idol.
The fact that federally, the front runner for the Liberal leadership has also ran opposing the release of detailed policy options, while Tom Mulcair has sparked real debate on diversifying our economy and reforming our democracy is not lost on me. The Liberal Party is about to elect leaders at both levels who mock the very idea of proposing clear ideas, instead urging people to give them a blank cheque on policy because they are new and exciting people. If we were casting a Disney Channel pilot, I would agree. Because we are governing a country,I cannot. It is clear that we have suffered from Mr. Alward being elected without having to think clearly about what he believed in and what he wanted to do. The solution is not to elect another unprepared leader in anger, but to insist that the next election be fought on substance and ideas.
However, I remain hopeful that this can happen. I worked with Dominic Cardy on the anti-patronage bills and watched as the government yielded to good, solid ideas. I am excited by the fact that here is a party open to ideas and debate from those who don't support it blindly, instead of regarding criticism with suspicion. And I still believe there is room for people who want to enter public life for what they can do there, not what they will be there.
I am less concerned all the time with who gets elected, and more concerned with the urgency of good ideas. I hope that others will join a discussion that puts ideas above party, policy above ambition, and our future above all else. No party has all the answers, but at this critical moment, the leaders in public life best ready to offer an alternative to failed conservative policy and a government prepared to lead are Dominic Cardy and Tom Mulcair.
2 comments:
- One of the biggest problems that I see with our current "democracy" is exactly something that you pointed out:
"I should note that parties have every right to do that [promote certain ideas], as citizens have every right to decide if they fit with a party."
When the heck did "democracy" become about what a "party" wants. Representatives are supposed to REPRESENT their constituents, ie, the people who voted them into that job. There should NEVER be a mandate to represent what the party wants.. that is NOT democracy.
Here's an idea for you to take forward: until we abolish party politics completely, until we make legislation that REMOVES PARTISAN POLICIES and forces representatives to actually represent their constituents, we are not operating in a democracy.
So if you plan to try and create the second real democratic system on the planet, I'm fully behind you. If not, this move will be nothing more than a political shell game.
Good luck to you! 
like it, Kelly. and as I said at the announcement, welcome!!!
Friday, December 3, 2010
Time For Balance, Not Debt Hysteria
One of the most basic survival skills people have is the ability to be
able to juggle more than one preoccupation at a time. At any given time,
a busy person may have to choose between various challenges at any one
time. You might be worried about your rising credit card balance and
need a plan to balance your household budget. You may worry that you're
not getting to the gym and your waistline isn't what it was in
university. And, at the same time, your three year old may be about to
toddle headfirst down the stairs.
So it has always been. I'll bet an ancestor had to worry about finding food, noticing a chill in the air, and the fact an angry wooly mammoth was about to trample him.
All these things can have a bad outcome at some point, sure. Knowing which one is most urgent is the talent. Put simply, it doesn't take any skill at all to point at a threat and say -- "hey, look at that!". The talent is in focusing on the right thing at the moment, and also being able to deal with more than one threat at a time.
I've said little post-election, because our new government deserves time to define their vision with the flood of new information that greets any new government, and time to explain their theory of where we need to go to the province. Hey, they're my government, too, and the only one we have. I want them to do well.
Having heard a Throne Speech, the Premier's wrap-up, and weeks of priming us for deep cuts to social programs, I'm worried that the new government does not have the ability to grasp that there may be more than one issue that needs our collective attention. In fact, I worry that a little deficit hysteria may be distracting us all from the balanced agenda New Brunswick needs.
We have several deficits. Each must be dealt with, in a concrete way, if we are to hand our kids a better chance at success than we had.
We are spending more than we are taking in, and that cannot continue. Some of that will change as the global economy rebounds some will not This will require raising revenues, cutting expenditures, and (something we don't hear from Mssrs. Alward and Higgs) avoiding future expenditures.
We do not have the skills we need in today's people-powered economy. Too many people cannot read. While we have rebounded from where we were in 2006, when we had the cheapest school system and the least literate children, we still have a lot of work to do on the science, trades, technology and mathematics agenda -- yet the minister has announced that we will begin cutting again. Too many towns are at risk of losing an industry when the population would have few options if the employer goes down. Too many workers have outdated skills and no help affording the upgrading they need.
We have a population deficit -- we will soon have too many people who need to be supported and too few people working, taking risks, and creating the wealth to support tons who cannot. Under current trends, there will not be a mathematical path forward to balance the budget under ideal conditions of frugality and economy. Ministers Arsenault and Byrne led us through our first reversal of population decline, but the trend still isn't where it needs to be.
We also have a health care deficit, with too much money spent on old models of care, too little infrastructure in the areas where demand is, and a backlog of people in critical care facilities that robs them of the care they deserve and makes cost-saving reforms impossible.
Now, if you came with a magic wand and offered me a chance to make one, just one, of those deficits disappear, it wouldn't even be my first choice to attack the fiscal deficit. It's the option that has the most possible other solutions out there, and it isn't the one that makes the others better -- higher literacy rates or population growth make the fiscal deficit better, but eliminating the deficit does not in and of itself attract new people or teach people to read.
Of course, in the real world, we don't just solve one problem, and there are no magic wands. But that's the point -- this is not the time for one-dimensional plans, or a fixation on any one of our deficits. We still need leaders who can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I'm seeing worrying signs that this is not what we have.
The Minister of Education has said little except for a vague order for districts to cut funding for education and cancel teacher training -- this after we were told the PC platform would not require cuts to education. The Ministers of Social Development and Health have had so little to say about what must be done on poverty, on nursing homes, on hospital reform, that they may soon be on milk cartons. Only the new Attorney-General has really given us a sense of what she sees as the social urgencies in her department, and that should be noted.
To be fair, this is not limited to Conservative politicians. To read the Telegraph-Journal or listen to media outlets today, you would think we had only to balance the books and life would be perfect. The TJ even ran an editorial which deemed the education system a "failure" because per student spending had gone up. It was striking that a newspaper that once ran 14 editorials in a year urging action on literacy now deems our schools to be successes or failures with no reference to learning outcomes, just cost. We have seen a number of experts, and one former Conservative premier, come forward and demand spending cuts in the abstract with no willingness to suggest what those might be.
This is, of course, foolish. A cry for cuts in the abstract is every bit as vapid as a demand for more spending in the abstract. After all, only when we see a particular cut can we debate, as a democratic people, whether the expenditure is worth borrowing for, whether it will create wealth or save money in the long run, or whether such a cut would make some other of our deficits worse.
The Conservative government is trying to be against spending in the abstract, without being seen to actually cut anything. What they have done so far is issue a series of orders to others -- municipalities, school districts, departments -- while taking responsibility for no specific cut. However, this across the board approach can't really work as strategy, because not all our spending is equally unnecessary, and not all is equally to blame for the deficit. It is not the case that magically, our school children are 1% overfunded, our seniors are 1% too well cared for, our municipal services 1% too good, and our poor 1% too comfortable. To make the new spending realities match our needs, it will require choices that some things are worth paying taxes for, some things are worth borrowing in the short-term for, and some things we do not deem worth doing either. That, frankly, is governing.
This blog will not be a blog where you'll find the scandal of the day, or personal attacks, or jeering the Conservatives every time they struggle. Look, it's a hard job, and you don't prove yourself worthy of a hard job by just rooting for the other guy to fail. If Liberals are going to be effective in opposition and win back the trust we lost, we need to take this time to define what we are for and what we believe is worth the fighting for. If you want substantive debate beyond the spin, I'd love to have you along for a conversation about where New Brunswick is going.
I'll have more to say about other topics - how to deal with the deficit, what our social deficits require, why my party lost (and just as important, why we didn't) and policy debates that can't get covered in a tweet or a sound bite.
Maybe I'll close with this -- we as New Brunswickers are more than a balance sheet. We are here because we love and believe in this province, and we are bound to it in a way that requires us to hope, dream, and accomplish things together. A government cannot be wholly subsumed by what we cannot do, without awakening us to the things that we can. I do not accept that the fiscal deficit, which even Premier Alward has acknowledged helped New Brunswick weather a recession and which most Western democracies also chose in the short-term, has killed every other dream we have. We still want the best schools for our children, to welcome others to our province, to have a society where everyone can be included and dream of a future a little brighter than the one their parents had.
At some point, the new government will have to move from bemoaning the fiscal deficit and begin speaking to how we keep these other common goals within our grasp. If they cannot or will not, the opposition will have to show people these things are indeed possible. And that little race -- the race to common hopes -- may well be the race that has already begun to decide who will win what no party can take for granted -- the people's trust four years from now.
I welcome your comments on what other goals we must address. U
So it has always been. I'll bet an ancestor had to worry about finding food, noticing a chill in the air, and the fact an angry wooly mammoth was about to trample him.
All these things can have a bad outcome at some point, sure. Knowing which one is most urgent is the talent. Put simply, it doesn't take any skill at all to point at a threat and say -- "hey, look at that!". The talent is in focusing on the right thing at the moment, and also being able to deal with more than one threat at a time.
I've said little post-election, because our new government deserves time to define their vision with the flood of new information that greets any new government, and time to explain their theory of where we need to go to the province. Hey, they're my government, too, and the only one we have. I want them to do well.
Having heard a Throne Speech, the Premier's wrap-up, and weeks of priming us for deep cuts to social programs, I'm worried that the new government does not have the ability to grasp that there may be more than one issue that needs our collective attention. In fact, I worry that a little deficit hysteria may be distracting us all from the balanced agenda New Brunswick needs.
We have several deficits. Each must be dealt with, in a concrete way, if we are to hand our kids a better chance at success than we had.
We are spending more than we are taking in, and that cannot continue. Some of that will change as the global economy rebounds some will not This will require raising revenues, cutting expenditures, and (something we don't hear from Mssrs. Alward and Higgs) avoiding future expenditures.
We do not have the skills we need in today's people-powered economy. Too many people cannot read. While we have rebounded from where we were in 2006, when we had the cheapest school system and the least literate children, we still have a lot of work to do on the science, trades, technology and mathematics agenda -- yet the minister has announced that we will begin cutting again. Too many towns are at risk of losing an industry when the population would have few options if the employer goes down. Too many workers have outdated skills and no help affording the upgrading they need.
We have a population deficit -- we will soon have too many people who need to be supported and too few people working, taking risks, and creating the wealth to support tons who cannot. Under current trends, there will not be a mathematical path forward to balance the budget under ideal conditions of frugality and economy. Ministers Arsenault and Byrne led us through our first reversal of population decline, but the trend still isn't where it needs to be.
We also have a health care deficit, with too much money spent on old models of care, too little infrastructure in the areas where demand is, and a backlog of people in critical care facilities that robs them of the care they deserve and makes cost-saving reforms impossible.
Now, if you came with a magic wand and offered me a chance to make one, just one, of those deficits disappear, it wouldn't even be my first choice to attack the fiscal deficit. It's the option that has the most possible other solutions out there, and it isn't the one that makes the others better -- higher literacy rates or population growth make the fiscal deficit better, but eliminating the deficit does not in and of itself attract new people or teach people to read.
Of course, in the real world, we don't just solve one problem, and there are no magic wands. But that's the point -- this is not the time for one-dimensional plans, or a fixation on any one of our deficits. We still need leaders who can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I'm seeing worrying signs that this is not what we have.
The Minister of Education has said little except for a vague order for districts to cut funding for education and cancel teacher training -- this after we were told the PC platform would not require cuts to education. The Ministers of Social Development and Health have had so little to say about what must be done on poverty, on nursing homes, on hospital reform, that they may soon be on milk cartons. Only the new Attorney-General has really given us a sense of what she sees as the social urgencies in her department, and that should be noted.
To be fair, this is not limited to Conservative politicians. To read the Telegraph-Journal or listen to media outlets today, you would think we had only to balance the books and life would be perfect. The TJ even ran an editorial which deemed the education system a "failure" because per student spending had gone up. It was striking that a newspaper that once ran 14 editorials in a year urging action on literacy now deems our schools to be successes or failures with no reference to learning outcomes, just cost. We have seen a number of experts, and one former Conservative premier, come forward and demand spending cuts in the abstract with no willingness to suggest what those might be.
This is, of course, foolish. A cry for cuts in the abstract is every bit as vapid as a demand for more spending in the abstract. After all, only when we see a particular cut can we debate, as a democratic people, whether the expenditure is worth borrowing for, whether it will create wealth or save money in the long run, or whether such a cut would make some other of our deficits worse.
The Conservative government is trying to be against spending in the abstract, without being seen to actually cut anything. What they have done so far is issue a series of orders to others -- municipalities, school districts, departments -- while taking responsibility for no specific cut. However, this across the board approach can't really work as strategy, because not all our spending is equally unnecessary, and not all is equally to blame for the deficit. It is not the case that magically, our school children are 1% overfunded, our seniors are 1% too well cared for, our municipal services 1% too good, and our poor 1% too comfortable. To make the new spending realities match our needs, it will require choices that some things are worth paying taxes for, some things are worth borrowing in the short-term for, and some things we do not deem worth doing either. That, frankly, is governing.
This blog will not be a blog where you'll find the scandal of the day, or personal attacks, or jeering the Conservatives every time they struggle. Look, it's a hard job, and you don't prove yourself worthy of a hard job by just rooting for the other guy to fail. If Liberals are going to be effective in opposition and win back the trust we lost, we need to take this time to define what we are for and what we believe is worth the fighting for. If you want substantive debate beyond the spin, I'd love to have you along for a conversation about where New Brunswick is going.
I'll have more to say about other topics - how to deal with the deficit, what our social deficits require, why my party lost (and just as important, why we didn't) and policy debates that can't get covered in a tweet or a sound bite.
Maybe I'll close with this -- we as New Brunswickers are more than a balance sheet. We are here because we love and believe in this province, and we are bound to it in a way that requires us to hope, dream, and accomplish things together. A government cannot be wholly subsumed by what we cannot do, without awakening us to the things that we can. I do not accept that the fiscal deficit, which even Premier Alward has acknowledged helped New Brunswick weather a recession and which most Western democracies also chose in the short-term, has killed every other dream we have. We still want the best schools for our children, to welcome others to our province, to have a society where everyone can be included and dream of a future a little brighter than the one their parents had.
At some point, the new government will have to move from bemoaning the fiscal deficit and begin speaking to how we keep these other common goals within our grasp. If they cannot or will not, the opposition will have to show people these things are indeed possible. And that little race -- the race to common hopes -- may well be the race that has already begun to decide who will win what no party can take for granted -- the people's trust four years from now.
I welcome your comments on what other goals we must address. U
1 comment:
A
manifesto for a future run for the leadership of the provincial
Liberals, or just some pent up political thoughts? Either way, a good
read. Thanks for ranting.
New
Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board
Commission de L'Energie et des Services
Publics N.-B.
PARTICIPANTS
- Matter 375
IN
THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation for approval of
the schedules of the rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2018.
held
at the Delta Hotel Saint John, New Brunswick, on October 31, 2017.
Henneberry Reporting Service
INDEX
NBP
1.01
- Notice of Application
1.02 - Avis de Requete
1.03 - Evidence
1.04 - Elements Probants
1.05
- Attachment 1 - 2018-19 Budget vs 2017-18 Forecast
Variance 2
1.06
- Pieces jointes 1 - 2018-19 Budget vs 2017-18 F Var2
1.07
- Attachment 2 - 2016-17 Actuals vs 2016-17 EUB Approved
Budget Variance 3
1.08 - Pieces jointes 2 - Analyse de
l'ecart 3 - Revenus pour
2016-17 par rapport au budget approuve par la Commission pour 2016-2017
1.09
- Appendix A i. NB Power Proposed Rates and Schedules
(sections N and O)
1.10
- Annexe A ii. Baremes et politiques
des tariffs (N et O)
1.11
- Appendix C 1. NB Power 10-Year Plan 2019-2028
1.12
- Appendix C ii. 2018-18 10 Year Plan Tables
1.13 - Appendix C iii. Plan decennal
d'Energie NB 2010-2028
1.14 - Appendix C iv. Plan decennal -
Tableaux pour les
exercises 2017 et 2028
1.15 - Appendix D i. NB Power Strategic
Plan 2011-2040
1.16 - Appendix D ii. Plan stratégique d'Energie
NB 2011-2040
1.17 - Appendix E - Mandate Letter 2015
NBP
1.18 - Appendix F i. 2016-17 NB Power
Audited Financial
Statements
1.19 - Annex F ii. États financiers
consolides 2016-2017
1.20 - Appendix G - 2018-19 NB Power
Budgeted Financial
Statements
1.21
- Appendix H - Detailed Financial Statements Redacted
1.22
- Appendix I - Continuous Improvement and Continuity
Schedule of Process
1.23
- Appendix J - Human Resources Overview
1.24 - Appendix J ii. Ressources Humaines
D'Entreprise
1.25
- Appendix K - Continuity Schedule of Regular and
Succession Positions
1.26
- Appendix L - Organizational Charts
1.27
- Appendix M - Nuclear Depreciation Detail
1.28
- Appendix N i. PLNGS Regulatory Deferral Continuity
Schedule
1.29
- Appendix N ii. PDVSA Regulatory Deferral Continuity
Schedule
1.30
- Appendix N iii. AFUDC Continuity Schedule
1.31
- Appendix N iv. AMI Regulatory Deferral Continuity
Schedule
1.32
- Appendix O - 2018-19 PROMOD Input Output Report
1.33
- Appendix P - Generation Reliability Statistics March
2016
NBP
1.34
- Appendix Q - Generation Reliability Statistics March
2017
1.35
- Appendix R - Generation Reliability Statistics May 2017
1.36
- Appendix S i. 2018-2027 Load Forecast Update
1.37 - Annexe S ii. Mise à jour sue la
prévision des charges
de 2018-2027
1.38
- Appendix T - Load Forecast Model (if you have
difficulty opening this file, please
contact the Board
at (506) 658-2504 or by email at
general@nbeub.ca
/ Si vous avez de la difficulté a ouvrir ce fichier,
veuillez communiquer avec la Commission au (506) 658- 2504 ou par courriel à
general@cespnb.ca)
1.39
- Appendix U - 2018-19 Revenue Forecast Model
1.40
- Appendix V - 2018-19 NB Power Capital Projects
1.41
- Appendix W - Baseline and Solar Lease Study
1.42 - Appendix X i. AMI Project
Investment Rationale
1.43 - Appendix X ii. Infrastructure de
mesure avancée (IMA)
1.44 - Appendix Y i. AMI project
Investment Rationale Appendix
G Part i
1.45 - Appendix Y ii. AMI Project
Investment Rationale
Appendix G Part ii
1.46 - Appendix Y ii. AMI Project
Investment Rationale
Appendix G Part iii
NBP
1.47 - Appendix Y iv. AMI Project
Investment Rationale
Appendix G Part iv
1.48 - Appendix Z - AMI Capital Project
Investment Rationale
Model
1.49 - Annexe AA ii. Plan de GAD
2018-2019- 2020-2021
1.50 - Appendix AA i. Three Year Demand
Side Management (DSM)
Plan 2019-2021
1.51
- Appendix AB - DSM EMV Plan 2019-2021
1.52
- Appendix AC - DSM Plan 2019-2021 Technical Reference
Manual
1.53
- Appendix AD-DSM 2019-2021 Model
1.54
- Appendix AE - DSM Program Evaluations 2016-16
1.55
- Appendix AF - DSM Program Evaluations 2016-17
1.56
- Appendix AG i. DSM Plan 2016-17 Actuals
1.57 - Annexe AG ii. Plan de gestion de la
demande - Mise a
jour sur les initiatives 2016-2017
1.58
- Appendix AH - NB Power DSM Long-term Forecast
Methodology
1.59
- Appendix AI i. F-03 Commodity Price FX Risk Policy
1.60 - Annexe AI ii. F-03 Politique de
risque des prix de la
marchandise
1.61
- Appendix AI iii. NBEMC 02 - Market Risk Policy
1.62
- Appendix AI iv. NBEMC 03 - Commodity Price FX Risk
Policy
NBP
1.63
- Appendix AJ - Financial Risk Policies Compliance Audit
report for NB Power 2017
1.64
- Appendix AK - Financial Risk Policies Compliance Audit
report for NB Energy Marketing 2017
1.65
- Appendix AL i EUB Approved 2017-18 CCAS-NBP Exhibit
5.11 updated with Board Approved 2017-18
Revenue
Requirement
1.66
- Appendix AL ii 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at 2017- 18 Rates-Based on Board Approved
2017-18 Cost Allocation
Methodology
1.67
- Appendix AL iii 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at
Proposed 2018-19 Diff Rates-Based on
Board Approved
2017-18 CA Method
1.68
- Appendix AL iv 2018-19 CCAS for the Test year at 2
Percent Uniform Rates-Based on Board
Approved 2017-18
CA Methodology
1.69
- Appendix AL v 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at 2017-18
Rates-Based on proposed 2018-19 CA
Methodology
1.70
- Appendix AL vi 2018-19 CCAS for the Test Year at
Proposed 2018-19 Diff Rated-Based on
proposed 2018-19
CA Methodology
1.71
- Appendix AM - NB Power CCAS Update for the 2018-19 GRA
by Elenchus Research Associates
NBP
1.72
- Appendix AM i 2018-19 CCAS 3.3 Reference Model (RR at
Uniform Rates)
1.73
- Appendix AM ii 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.3 LIREPP Energy and
Demand
1.74
- Appendix AM iii 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 1 No-LIREPP
1.75
- Appendix AM iv 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 2 Adjustment
Removed
1.76
- Appendix AM ix 2018-19 CCAS 3.7 Baseline Model
1.77
- Appendix AM v 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 3 With
Adjustment
1.78
- Appendix AM vi 2018-19 CCAS 3.4.4 LIREPP 4 Recommended
1.79
- Appendix AM vii 2018-19 CCAS 3.5 Edmundston Adj
1.80
- Appendix AM vii 2018-19 CCAS 3.6 CP Change
1.81
- Appendix AM x 2018-19 CCAS Regulatory Deferrals
1.82
- Appendix AM xi 2018-19 CCAS 4.2 Taxes
1.83
- Appendix AM xii 2018-19 CCAS 4.3 Sub-Func of Dist O and
M
1.84
- Appendix AM xiii 2018-19 CCAS 4.4 Class of Dist O and M
1.85
- Appendix AM xiv 2018-19 CCAS 4.5 Class of Poles- Conductors Depr
1.86
- Appendix AM xv 2018-19 CCAS 4.6 EE to Customer
1.87
- Appendix AM xvi 2018-19 CCAS 4.7 EE removed from
Wholesale
1.88
- Appendix AM xvii 2018-19 CCAS 4.8 Recommended Model
NBP
1.89
- Appendix AN Class Cost Allocation Study Methodology
Description
1.90
- Appendix AO - Rate design Model
1.91
- Appendix AP - Proof of Revenue
1.92
- Appendix AQ i. NB Power Rates Schedules and Prices
Manual (6 July 2017)
1.93 - Appendix AQ ii. Baremes et politiques des tarifs de
l'Energie Nouveau-Brunswick (6 juillet 2017)
1.94 - Appendix AR i. Draft GRA Minimum
Filing Requirements
Reference Table
1.95
- Appendix AR ii. Tableau de
reference de l'ebauche des
exigences minimales des elements de preuve
1.96
- Appendix AS i. NB Power Regulatory Compliance Filings
(MFR 3)
1.97 - Appendix AS ii. Déclarations de
Conformité en cours
1.98
- Appendix AT Goals and Objectives
1.99
- Appendix AU i. NB Power Annual Report 2016-17
2.01 - Annexe AU ii. Rapport annuel d'Energie
NB 2016-17
2.02C
- Appendix CONF A - Detailed Financial Statements -
Confidential
2.03C
- Appendix CONF B - 2018-19 PROMOD Input Output Report -
Confidential
2.04C
- Appendix CONF C - 2018-19 PROMOD Input Output Report -
Confidential
NBP
2.05C
- Appendix CONF D - Kent Hills Wind LP Wind Power PPA
Amending Agreement - 2007 07 03 -
Confidential
2.06C
- Appendix CONF E - Kent Hills Wind LP Assignment and
Novation Agreement - 2013 10 31
Confidential
2.07C
- Appendix CONF F - Kent Hills Wind LP Purchase of Wind
Project Output - 2017 06 01
Confidential
2.08C
- Appendix CONF G - Kent Hills Wind LP Right of First
Offer - 2017 06 01 Confidential
2.09C
- Appendix CONF H Kent Hills Wind LP PPA Amending
Agreement - 2017 06 01 Confidential
2.10C
- Appendix CONF I - Kent Hills Wind LP Assignment and
Novation Agreement - 2017 10 02
Confidential
2.11C
- Appendix CONF J - Chaleur Regional Services Commission
PPA - 2017 07 29 Confidential
2.12C
- Appendix CONF K - South East Regional Services
Commission PPA - 2017 07 29
Confidential
2.13C
- Appendix CONF L - WKB Community Wind Farms PPA - 2017
08 07 Confidential
3.01
- Affidavit of Publishing
New
Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board
Commission de L'Energie et des Services
Publics N.-B.
PARTICIPANTS
- Matter 375
IN
THE MATTER OF an application by New Brunswick Power Corporation for approval of
the schedules of the rates for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 2018.
held
at the Delta Hotel Saint John, New Brunswick, on October 31, 2017.
BEFORE:
Raymond Gorman, Q.C. - Chairman
Francois Beaulieu - Vice-Chairman
Michael Costello - Member
NB
Energy and Utilities Board
- Counsel - Ms. Ellen
Desmond, Q.C.
- Staff - John Lawton
..............................................................
CHAIRMAN:
Good morning, everyone. This is a
pre-hearing conference of the New Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board in
connection with Matter 375, which is a general rate application by New
Brunswick Power Corporation pursuant to section 1.03 of the Electricity Act and
a request for approval of a capital project consisting of the procurement and
deployment of advanced metering infrastructure, usually known as AMI, in the
amount of $122.7 million. We have
simultaneous translation available today.
I believe the translation devices have been placed at all of your seats
and I am told that channel 1 will provide English and channel 2 will provide
French.
VICE-CHAIRMAN: Essentiellement ce
que le président
Indiquait c’est on est ici relativement en
conférence
préalable et puis vous avez accès à une
traduction
simultanée.
La fréquence numéro 1 est pour les
anglophones e la fréquence numéro 2 est
pour les francophones. Et pus si vous
désirez adressée le
tribunal dans la langue française, on vous
demande de le
faire.
Merci.
CHAIRMAN:
So at this time I will take the appearances from the people who have
indicated they wish to participate in this pre-hearing conference. So first of all, the applicant, N.B. Power
Corporation?
MR. FUREY:
Good morning, Mr. Chair, John Furey for New Brunswick Power
Corporation. I am accompanied this
morning at counsel table by Stephen Russell.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Furey. David
Amos? Mr. Amos, did you put your
microphone on?
MR. AMOS:
Here.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. Enbridge Gas New
Brunswick?
MR. VOLPE:
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Paul
Volpe, Enbridge Gas New Brunswick.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Volpe. Gerald
Bourque?
MR. BOURQUE:
Gerald Bourque is here.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Bourque. J.D.
Irving, Limited?
MR. STEWART:
Christopher Stewart, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Stewart. New Clear
Free Solutions?
MR. ROUSE:
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris
Rouse, for the record.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Rouse. Roger
Richard?
MR.
RICHARD: Oui, je suis Richard.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Sussex Sharing Club? Not here
today. Utilities Municipal?
MR. STOLL:
Good morning, Mr. Chair. It is
Mr. Stoll. With me is Mr. Garrett and
Ms. Kelly.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Stoll. Utilities
Municipal? Sorry, Public Intervenor?
MS. BLACK:
Good morning, Mr. Chair, Heather Black.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Ms. Black. New
Brunswick Energy and Utilities Board?
MS. DESMOND:
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Ellen
Desmond and from Board Staff, John Lawton.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Ms. Desmond. So
today's pre-hearing conference will deal with the normal issues that we deal
with at pre-hearing conferences, generally is the hearing schedule and
process. But as well we have requests
for intervenor status from eight different entities and we have an objection to
one of those requests for intervenor status and that is the status of Mr.
Amos. So I think that before we get into
the schedule, I think it would be useful to go through the requests for
intervenor status. I am just going to
wait here a moment.
All right, i guess the sound system has been
fixed. So we are on the request for
intervenor status. The Public Intervenor
of course is deemed to be a party pursuant to Section 49.3 of the EUB Act. And then we have requests for intervenor
status from David Amos, Enbridge Gas New Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D.
Irving, Limited, New Clear Free Solutions, Roger Richard, Sussex Sharing Club
and Utilities Municipal. And as I had
indicated, the Board received a written objection to the intervention of Mr.
Amos.
So, Mr. Furey, do you have any issue with
any of the other registered participants today?
MR. FUREY:
No, we don't, Mr. Chair, and the only additional comment I would make
around that is that we recognize that not every proposed intervenor has
necessarily complied perfectly with the provisions of Rule 3.2.4, but those
that have not that we don't object to, we have a general understanding already
of the issues that they would bring to the proceeding.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. The Board has in fact
reviewed the requests that we have received for intervenor status. One of the -- one of the issues that you
raise with respect to Mr. Amos is that he has not indicated in his form -- in
his registration form the reason for his intervention. And in reviewing them, I note that the only
other form where I see that is the form filled out by Mr. Bourque. So at this stage I just want -- Mr. Bourque
perhaps -- you know, you may not have understood that on these intervenor
requests that it's intended that you would indicate why you want intervenor
status, what issues you would be raising at the hearing. Would you be able to provide that information
at this time? I appreciate it's not on
your form.
MR. BOURQUE:
Well I'm not very versed in all these procedures and I was coming to
learn what was going on, and I was -- if there is issues that come up that I don't
agree with, I certainly will speak on it, but I don't have anything prepared
ahead of time.
CHAIRMAN:
So are you a customer of NB Power and what rate class -- if so, what
rate class would you, you know, purport to represent at this hearing?
MR. BOURQUE:
I'm a customer of NB Power and I'm just a resident and -- yes.
CHAIRMAN:
So is your intervention with respect to residential customers or is it
broader than that?
MR. BOURQUE:
I'm basically representing myself and -- yes.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Thank you.
MR. BOURQUE:
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:
So, Mr. Amos, before we get into the discussion with respect to your
status as intervenor, because there has been an objection filed, again your
intervenor request does not set out the reasons for your request to be an
intervenor. So just like I have put
those questions to Mr. Bourque, could you perhaps just expand upon the rate
class that perhaps you are a customer in and what perspective you would bring
to this hearing?
MR. AMOS:
Mr. Gorman, I just became aware of this motion as I entered this
room. I'm just starting to read it
now. I request time to study it before I
argue it. With that said, as I said in
the last hearing, residential class ratepayer, the reason I'm intervening in
this matter is because of my two friends here.
Both have concerns with these rate increases. My friend Roger in particular has to do with
the smart meters and Gerald with the expenses and the debts incurred by NB
Power. Both of these fellows are not
familiar with how court processes work and they asked me to help them with this
matter. I was done with you -- 357 and
preparing to sue you, sir. I said I will
help them intervene because of his concerns about smart meters, his concerns
about the debts involving site meters and other things, and my concerns about
the severe lack of ethics of all the officers of the court in this room. Mr. Furey is familiar with me when he worked
for the attorney General.
Now in the last hearing that I was at I was
invited to a meeting in a boardroom of Stewart McKelvey, the very people that
appear to have filed this motion, saying I don't know my business. At this meeting I wasn't allowed to share
what was said, although all the intervenors, including Hugh Segal's associate,
listened in --
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, if I could just interrupt for a moment --
MR. AMOS:
It has to do with ratepayers --
CHAIRMAN:
No, no. Excuse me, please.
MR. AMOS:
-- and site --
CHAIRMAN:
Please, Mr. Amos --
MR. AMOS:
Your question is site meters, sir.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, could you just hold back your remarks for a moment.
MR. AMOS:
I'm reading this motion. I'm much
offended.
CHAIRMAN:
Look, before we get to the motion, all I have asked you is for you --
MR. AMOS:
Site meters, sir.
CHAIRMAN:
Sorry?
MR. AMOS:
Site meters. $122 million and
then the write-off of the existing meters.
I believe that's in the mandate of this, correct?
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. So you are saying that you
are intending to intervene in this proceeding because of the --
MR. AMOS:
I'm watching you, sir. You are at
the end of your term February 1st. Jack
Keir appointed you ten years ago February 1st.
I wonder --
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, I'm --
MR. AMOS:
-- who the next Chair is going to be.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, could you try to stay on topic here. The question --
MR. AMOS:
I'm checking your integrity in helping my friends with their concerns
about the expenses of NB Power in site meters.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. So, Mr. Amos, are you
telling me that your intervention would be around the advanced meter
infrastructure? Is that the reason that
you want to intervene?
MR. AMOS:
And the rate increase in and of itself is unnecessary.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. AMOS:
I have many reasons --
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Could I --
MR. AMOS:
-- but I think it's a matter for another court after reading this
motion. They mentioned the Federal Court
of Appeal. You must be aware of me in
the Federal Court, right?
CHAIRMAN:
Sir, that's the matter --
MR. AMOS:
Have you read this motion?
CHAIRMAN:
-- that we are now discussing.
Sir, that's not what we are talking about right now.
MR. AMOS:
Well that's what I'm talking about.
CHAIRMAN:
I want to know the reason for your intervention and you have said --
MR. AMOS:
Site meters and this rate increase and the write down of the current
meters.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. So you have indicated that
you are here because you want to assist --
MR. AMOS:
Are you double-talking? That's
exactly what I said. It's on the record. I'm here because I take offence to the deal
with -- what is it, Siemens -- for 122 million and then the cost of installing
these meters so that the ratepayers will have to pay more during certain times
of the day when they use a dryer when Mr. Furey decides it's not proper.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. So --
MR. AMOS:
He forgets who owns NB Power. We
do. You too. We are the ratepayers. As I said in the last hearing, you should
protect your own interest, Mr. Gorman.
CHAIRMAN:
So, Mr. Amos, we are going to set aside the issue of whether or not you
will be an intervenor to give you an opportunity to read that material. I understand that it would have been served
electronically on all parties, at least that's the rule. Mr. Furey, can you --
MR. AMOS:
I never saw it until this morning.
CHAIRMAN:
Can you confirm that it would have been sent to an email address
provided by Mr. Amos?
MR. FUREY:
That's correct, Mr. Chair. It was
sent yesterday morning to the distribution list in this proceeding including
Mr. Amos' email that he had provided.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. AMOS:
I need to remind Mr. Furey that he used to work for the Attorney General
when I served NB Power in 2006. He and I
spoke personally in 2005.
CHAIRMAN:
So, Mr. Amos, we are not going to hear that immediately. The documentation -- I think most of it is
documentation that you previously filed, so I'm assuming that you are --
MR. AMOS:
I'm glad to argue every single word that I filed in 357.
CHAIRMAN:
So I'm assuming that you are familiar with that. It's the --
MR. AMOS:
I'm very familiar with every word that I filed.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, if I gave you 20 minutes to read that, is that enough time?
MR. AMOS:
20 minutes? Could you argue that
document in 20 minutes? Let me take 20
minutes to study it but I don't know what you guys are talking about in the
meantime I should pay attention to.
CHAIRMAN:
So I think what we will do is we will set that aside for a moment and we
will move on to scheduling and we will come back to that.
MR. AMOS:
Because I want to pay attention to every word you are saying this
morning.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, we are going to set this issue aside for now, then we are
going to have a break and I'm going to give you an opportunity to have a look
at it. But my point is that the vast
majority of the material that was filed was material that came from you. So I assume you are familiar with that part
of it.
MR. AMOS:
Let me back up. When I first
introduced myself on a pre-hearing for 357, I was opposing a former public
intervenor wanting to get on the gravy train again. I explained myself when I introduced myself
at that, that every lawyer in the room should know who I was, including
you. I sent you emails where I sent you
emails ten years ago. That said, I know
who I am. I was there to oppose a former
public intervenor wanting to get paid by his own assistant. I opposed that. I can speak on my behalf, Gerald can speak on
his behalf, Roger can speak on his behalf.
Why should anybody be paid?
After that I was invited by NB Power, Mr.
Furey, to a secret meeting to discuss this.
They wanted to pick my brains to see what my issues were. And we couldn't disclose what was said in the
room.
I clearly stated what my issues were,
conflict of interest by law firms. Good
example. The people that filed this
motion today, JDI, Stewart McKelvey, are also employed by NB Power to litigate
to collect for Lepreau. That's conflict
of interest. And then we have McInnes
and Cooper and then we have and then we have and then we have.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos --
MR. AMOS:
So I asked all these questions in confidence. They said it's a matter for the hearing. So then we go to have a hearing and you
cancel the hearing so I can't ask the questions. I said fine, we will see you in another
court. Then my friends asked me for my
assistance over this rate increase and site meters in particular and the rate
increase in general. I said fine, I will
let you guys do the talking and I will advise you because you are not
familiar. Any time that I decide to
speak I will because I have a right to.
But since you people want to attack me, I'm all for it, but I need to
study what you are up to first.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Mr. Amos, I'm going to cut
you off there. So on the request for intervenor status we are going to grant
intervenor status to Enbridge Gas New Brunswick, Gerald Bourque, J.D. Irving,
Limited, New Clear Free Solutions, Roger Richard, Sussex Sharing Club and
Utilities Municipal were the PIs already indicated as deemed to be a party
pursuant to Section 49.3 of the EUB Act.
And, Mr. Amos, we will set aside your request to be an intervenor until
we have dealt with other matters and we will come back to that a little bit later
and I will give you an opportunity to review the material that you would not be
familiar with.
MR. AMOS:
I thank you for that.
CHAIRMAN:
So before I get to the schedule, are there any other matters that need
to be dealt with prior to schedule? Mr.
Furey?
MR. FUREY:
The only other issue -- we don't have to deal with it now, Mr. Chair --
is that we did file as well yesterday -- I filed later in the afternoon a draft
proposed confidentiality undertaking for this proceeding, and the parties may not
have had a full opportunity to review it, but I pointed out the only changes
that have been made from that that was approved in Matter 336. And so if we were able to, before the end of
the day, have an understanding as to whether parties accept that or if there is
any objection to the changes that would be helpful.
CHAIRMAN:
And that was circulated to all parties?
MR. FUREY:
Yes, it was.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Just remind me of that
before I adjourn this for the day if we don't -- if I don't end up coming back
to it.
All right.
So that would leave the other issue to deal with this morning to be the
schedule, and we in fact have seen two proposed schedules, one which was
proposed by the applicant and it would commence on February 5th and it would involve
a hearing of ten days duration, and secondly we have a proposed schedule from
the EUB staff, it would commence a week later on February 12th, and the -- that
particular schedule has a proposal to run for three weeks. That would virtually take us I guess to the
end of February.
I have not -- at least I'm not aware of any
preferences or comments from other parties.
I don't believe anybody has filed anything. But I certainly, you know, will hear from parties. I don't think there is sort of a vast difference
here and I could adjourn and ask the parties to try to come up with something
that's agreeable, but I sense today it may be more useful simply to canvass the
parties here in an open hearing to discuss these issues.
So, Mr. Furey, I'm just -- I'm going to go
to you first. You have commenced --
sorry, you have proposed a commencement date of February 5th for ten days, and
given the hearing schedules that we have done in the past, that does seem like
a fairly aggressive schedule. And as you
are aware, this particular hearing has a lot more complexity to it than some of
the more recent ones have had. Therein I
think lies the concern first of all for the commencement that early in February
and for the length of the hearing. So I
just would ask you to address, you know, your proposal.
MR. FUREY:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I will
focus first on the length of the hearing, and the Chair is correct that there
is more to this year's hearing than the typical hearing in the sense that we
have the proposal for the capital project being the AMI project, and as well an
enhanced level of evidence around the Energy Smart New Brunswick, formerly
referred to as Reduce and Shift Demand.
But the only year in my recollection, Mr.
Chair, where we exceeded a single week for the GRA was the year that we had the
separate pole attachments hearing, and my recollection is that we did five days
of a GRA. We might have done argument on
the Monday morning for the GRA. We might
have. I -- so if we exceeded five days
for the GRA, it was only barely. And
typically we finished at least in five days and in some instances in four days.
So the question I think is do we need two
additional weeks to deal with AMI and the enhanced level of evidence around the
Energy Smart NB spending. And I don't
see how we need two weeks to do those two matters, Mr. Chair. I can't imagine -- I mean, first of all I
think there is a strong link between AMI and the Energy Smart NB evidence. It makes sense to do them together as opposed
to setting aside separate weeks for them.
And we can't imagine that it would take more than a week to deal with
those two issues in a combined way. So
we think two weeks is more than sufficient.
We do have some logistical problems in terms
of timing as we get toward the end of February.
I am not available after February 23rd.
I understand -- but I will let her speak for herself -- I understand
that the public intervenor is not available after February 28th. And we have some witnesses who are similarly
unavailable starting around February 25th.
So we are dealing with some constraints at that end of the hearing.
So I think we can get ourselves to a
position where a start of February 12th works for us as long as we -- as long
as we set two weeks.
The only other thing that causes me just a
small bit of apprehension is that February 19th is a new statutory holiday this
year. So in the two weeks that we would
be talking about, that Monday, February 19th, would be a holiday. So maybe pushing it to February 12th is -- is
-- maybe we should be considering a day early, starting on a Friday. And I know logistically that's a little bit
of a problem but to make sure that we have two full weeks available it may be
worthwhile doing that.
So I think we are not stuck on February 5th,
Mr. Chair, we are prepared to go to the following week, but we do have that
constraint at the end. And I think we
have to be cognizant of the fact that in those two weeks we would only have
nine business days.
Mr. Chair, the other point that I wanted to
raise -- and this may change the Chair's view as to whether or not it would be
worthwhile for the parties to have an opportunity to discuss -- up until this
point it had been NB Power's anticipation that the IRP would be approved and
filed with the Board -- I can't remember precisely the date that we thought it
would be available, but that has turned out to be an incorrect assumption, and
we are now in a circumstance where the Executive Council which is required to
approve the IRP has 90 days to do so, and that 90 days does not expire until
January 16th. So that presents an issue
in terms of ensuring that parties have an opportunity to pose interrogatories
around that document. What we are proposing is that we set the schedule on -- I
won't say the assumption but the hope that we would an approved IRP by early
December. And while that would mean that
the first round of IRs would not be able to focus on the IRP, it would allow
for the second round of IRs to do so. If
it turns out that Executive Council does not approve the document before the
Motions Day following the first round of IRs, which would be some time in the
first week of December, then I think we have an issue, and I think we will have
to deal with that at the Motions Day and provide the parties and the Board with
an opportunity to set the process for IRs around that document. I would suggest that maybe parties might not
need IRs, but I think Mr. Rouse would strongly disagree with that. I think Mr. Rouse will certainly want IRs around
the IRP. If I'm wrong then maybe this is
not as much of an issue as I think, but -- but I wanted to make the Board and
parties aware of that because I think that is an issue that we will have to
deal with in the scheduling.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Furey. I would be
surprised if Mr. Rouse was the only party that wanted IRs on the IRP and that
is definitely an issue.
I raised this issue with you with at the
rate design pre-hearing I believe with respect to the AMI application as to
whether or not it could be severed, and it wasn't my intention to raise that
again today, but just after hearing from you this morning about restrictions in
terms of expert witnesses, counsel for the applicant and other logistical issues, the public intervenor's
schedule that I believe you said it was maybe the 28th or 29th of -- 28th of
February, maybe that she wasn't available after that. So I think, you know, in June when we talked
about this, you may have said something like, well maybe I will go back and
look at this and see how we might be able to handle the fact that the GRA has
embedded in it costs that would be related to that infrastructure and to see
how -- if there was a way in which, you know, as I say, these could be severed. So that for example, you know, the GRA could
go in February and there would be no question, there would be plenty of time,
and perhaps the AMI in March. But if it
impacts on the GRA on the revenue requirement, I'm not sure I see a path to
severing them but I want to know if you have given that some thought.
MR. FUREY:
I have, Mr. Chair, and when it comes to the specific line items in the
-- when it comes to specific line items in the GRA and now sub-line items, so
there is some OM&A in the 18/19 year that relates to AMI. The capital
doesn't come until later. So there is a
direct link.
The only -- I have no better answer in terms
of solving that problem on a line item basis.
The only -- so I don't have a better answer today because the two are
linked. So approval of -- I mean, we
would be arguing the merits of it. I
mean, one argument I could make at the hearing is to say, well look, the
request for 2 percent is based on an earnings level and a total revenue
requirement and the fact that there might be -- and I don't know the exact
dollars -- but say $5 million of OM&A or $10 million of OM&A shouldn't
affect the rate increase granted for the particular year because it's more
about meeting the debt to equity targets and those kinds of things. But that goes to the merits, and so I can't
really -- I can't assume that the Board would go that direction. So in terms of the specific line items, I
don't have a better answer today.
I also have some concern -- I don't think a
March hearing around AMI would present a problem, but I would have concern
about any further delay because operationally there are plans in place to move
forward based on assumed approvals obviously that would stop if it wasn't
approved, but delay will cost money in the sense that if the AMI project were
to be delayed by several months, then there would have to be a stop and start
that would cause additional expense.
CHAIRMAN:
And the other option of course is this will take whatever amount of time
it takes but it certainly -- if it turns out that the Board finds that NB Power
is entitled to the applied for increase or some increase, it could amount to a
delay in the commencement of that increase and that has been an issue that the
Board certainly has been attempting to diminish that possibility. But it strikes me that that possibility looms
in this matter every bit as much as it perhaps did in others if we don't get
all of the hearing days in in February.
MR. FUREY:
I agree with that 100 percent.
That is a real risk, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN:
So just before I move on and hear from other parties, and we did talk
about the month of March, I believe that this information may have been in an
affidavit in terms of the proposed schedule going forward, and my recollection
is that NB Power was talking about filing something on Lepreau in November with
a possible hearing in March, and this was a process hearing. Perhaps you could tell me where we are with
that because that would give us an idea as to what time might be available.
MR. FUREY:
So, Mr. Chair, I think practical realities have led us to revisit that
as well, and we wouldn't anticipate filing of the Mactaquac procedural
application until the conclusion of this GRA.
So I think we can remove that from the equation in terms of concerns
about timing during the course of the hearing process.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. Mr. Amos, do you have
a preference on a start date between the 5th or the 12th of February?
MR. AMOS:
No preference at all. Whatever
suits NB Power.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. And in terms of the length of
the hearing, do you have a -- you have to turn your microphone on -- any
preference or any comment on the --
MR. AMOS:
No. Whatever suits the Board and
NB Power and the other intervenors suits me.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. Mr. Volpe?
MR. VOLPE:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We don't
have any preference between the start dates.
The only thing I would add regarding the schedule is it seems that there
is very little time allowed between the rebuttal evidence and the start of the
hearing considering the amount of intervenors involved.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Bourque, any
comments on the start date or the schedule?
MR. BOURQUE:
No. Whatever date set up we will
try to accommodate. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. Mr. Stewart?
MR. STEWART:
I'm not sure particularly which, you know, the 12th or the 5th and
obviously we want to make sure that everybody has a fair opportunity to make
whatever presentation they wish to make during the course of the hearing. And like Mr. Furey, I'm mindful of the
holiday that kind of fits in there as well, and that kind of cuts both ways in
terms of it also gives you another day potentially in the middle of the hearing
to help, you know, move things forward which sometimes can be helpful.
I guess my only concern I would have about
setting a three week time frame is that sometimes we tend to expand to fill the
container, and, you know, this is -- the whole process is not inexpensive. And so certainly I guess -- I'm not sure
there is anything profound about this, but we need enough time to complete the
hearing but not any longer than we need to.
And frankly, certainly our -- we would make the commitment to, you know,
go a little later, start a little earlier if that's necessary in order to get
it done in a shorter time frame.
CHAIRMAN:
That's helpful, Mr. Stewart. Have
you looked at the sort of time frames that are set out in both of those options
and are you okay with the time frames that lead up to the February 5th
commencement?
MR. STEWART:
The short answer is yes.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. Mr. Rouse?
MR. ROUSE:
Good morning, Mr. Chair. As far
as the start date, I don't really have any preference. I think I would side with Mr. Stewart
regarding the length of the -- the length of the hearings. For him it's an expense, for me it's my
personal vacation time. So if we can
keep it shorter, I would rather work later, start earlier type of process.
Would now be a good time to -- I have a
couple of comments about the submission of the IRP as well, so speak now or
later?
CHAIRMAN:
Certainly. This would be a good
time.
MR. ROUSE:
I'm just wondering if a draft of the IRP could be submitted at least --
it's a big document, a lot of time to digest, and it will either be approved or
not approved or deemed approved, you know, by the date it is, but if we could
have a draft now, maybe not allow IRs on it or maybe allow IRs, I'm not sure,
but at least to have the draft document to be able to digest -- the time to
digest it, I guess is the issue. It's a
pretty comprehensive document, usually in the range of three or 400 pages.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Furey, can you comment on that?
MR. FUREY:
Mr. Chair, there is no IRP until it's approved by Executive
Council. There is nothing to provide. I mean, there is a document that has been
submitted but that's not what the Board is called upon to consider when setting
rates. So until Executive Council
approves the document, we do not have an IRP.
CHAIRMAN:
So again, short answer is no.
MR. FUREY:
I mean, I guess if the Board ordered us to, we would have to do that,
but I don't see the point to it. It
doesn't exist yet.
CHAIRMAN:
All right. Anything else, Mr.
Rouse?
MR. ROUSE:
No. That's it.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Richard?
MR. RICHARD:
Oui. Monsieur président. Tandis que les lois et règlements pour
intervenir auprès d’une commission sont devenu très compliquer pour les gens
qui ne sont pas familiers. Attendu que infrastructure de messagerie avancée et
diffères aspects complexes donc beaucoup de documents et beaucoup de
préparation pour préparer des questions et supporter un plaidoirie. Cette instance 375 IMA est très important
pour le Nouveau Brunswick pour deux raisons, à compte d’autres. Nous sommes au bord
d’une gaffe économique. Nous sommes au
bord d’une gaffe environnementale. C’est
deux gaffes commencent déjà à être ressenti par la population. Il est dit attendu que c’est difficile pour
un particulier non émacier de trouver le moyen financier et le temps pour
participer complément dans tout le processus.
Je propose donc que l’horaire et l’audience de dépôt soit modifié pour
tenir compte de ces raisons. Par
exemple, peut-être que le 6 et 16 novembre pour les demandes de renseignements
est correct mais, pour le 17 janvier je vois que ça serait un peu vite a déposé
les preuves des intervenants. Merci.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Richard. Mr.
Stoll?
MR. STOLL:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. As far as
the 5th or the 12th, we can start either day.
We are caught in the same dilemma I think Mr. Stewart raised as far as
we need adequate time but we don't want too much time allotted and just fill
the void.
One of the I guess comments I would make on
the schedule, which goes to kind of the first thing out of the gate, is when
the first set of interrogatories would be due.
And I think under the original or the earlier schedule, we have one week
to file interrogatories as opposed to potentially two weeks. We haven't gone through the confidentiality
undertaking, et cetera, which would probably take a day or two by the time we
get information out to even study it. So
to the extent that there can be some relief from that first October 8th date or
-- that would be appreciated, to give us a little bit more chance to make
better use of the first round of IRs.
As far as whether it's -- at the end of the
day, whether it's going to be ten days or 14 days, kind of hard to tell right
now until we get through some of the interrogatory processes and we see who is
filing intervenor evidence. So my
inclination is we start on the 5th and go as long as we need to to get it done
to accommodate some of the other schedules.
CHAIRMAN:
So, Mr. Stoll, essentially you would be okay with the 5th. It's that first IR date that you find that to
be a little early, so if somehow we were to push that out a little bit, that
November 8th date, the rest of the schedule --
MR. STOLL:
No, no --
CHAIRMAN:
-- the rest of that schedule would work for you?
MR. STOLL:
That's correct, sir.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. Ms. Black?
MS. BLACK:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will just
start with a comment about the first IR deadline. I agree with Mr. Stoll. My consultants were all lined up to be ready
to submit IRs on the 8th but because of the timing of the pre-hearing and the
necessity of sort of withholding the confidentiality agreement until now, we
would certainly appreciate at least a few extra days in order to digest the
confidential information once we sign the undertaking. That said, that's the
only specific issue that we have with either one of the proposed
schedules. I think ideally we would
start on the 5th for all the reasons that everyone has talked about so
far. We are okay with the 12th as well. I get concerned about heading towards the end
of February for the reason you brought up earlier, pushing closer to that April
1st date, and I will confirm that I am unavailable starting March 1st. So with all that said, we are generally
flexible and happy with either schedule as far as the start date of the hearing
but would appreciate a few extra days on round 1 interrogatories. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Ms. Black. You have
been to a number of hearings now and I would like your view on whether or not
you think 10 days would be adequate given really the added complexity to what
we have to deal with at this hearing, do you think that's a reasonable ask?
MS. BLACK:
I think the reality is it's difficult to tell. I think it's possible
that 10 days is sufficient. I liked Mr.
Stewart's suggestion of perhaps early starts and late finishes, especially for
the first few days until we get our feet under us. You know, there is -- that can really make a
difference as far as saving even a day or two of hearing. And I think what Mr. Furey said about hearing
the DSM portion and the AMI portion together makes sense. And I also agree with Mr. Stoll and Mr.
Stewart's concerns about, you know, the goldfish fitting the size of the bowl
kind of thing. The hearing being too
long and not being -- not being any improved effectiveness just because it's
longer.
So I think we are all struggling to be
comfortable with the 10 days, but I don't think it's unreasonable.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. Ms. Desmond?
MS. DESMOND:
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. I will
start first by making a couple of introductory comments. I do want to make the parties aware that
Board Staff have just recently retained an expert, Synapse Energy Economics
Inc. And so they have just recently come
on board to assist Board Staff. And, of
course, we are trying to be mindful of their schedule.
Secondly, I do want to raise the fact that
this is the first major capital hearing the EUB has held. So this will be a new process for the Board
and we do want to approach this with the appropriate degree of prudence and
caution to make sure that we are tackling this major filing in a way that's
proper.
I will speak now to the dates that have been
proposed. When we looked at NB Power's
schedule -- I think certainly speaking for myself and I think for Board Staff,
there are two major concerns. The first
is around the filing of the first round of IRs.
Mr. Stoll and Ms. Black have commented on that date and it does concern
Board Staff as well for a number of reasons.
It's only now another eight days away for the filing of the IRs. There is a bulk of material. Many parties have not had access to the full
filing. So that likely is not very
realistic that parties can file IRs on the materials that have been made
available in that short time frame.
The second major problem I see with the NB
Power filing is around when intervenor evidence is due. Looking at the NB Power schedule, the second
round of IRs, the responses come in on December 20th, which is just shortly
before Christmas, as we know. And then
intervenor evidence is filed January 9th.
That puts the expectation on intervenors and their experts to
essentially review all of those responses and prepare their intervenor evidence
over the Christmas holiday. I don't
think that's very reasonable or fair to the intervenors. And keeping in mind that for Board Staff that
evidence will need to be translated. So
that -- if we make any exception at all for the Christmas holidays, that only
gives intervenors essentially a week -- maybe a little better than a week to
get their evidence filed and translated if they are to look at the complete
package of the IR responses.
So those are fairly critical milestones,
which I think just simply don't work, they are not realistic. If we wanted to move the IR responses such
that they were provided sooner, then maybe that would give extra window of time
for the intervenor evidence to be filed.
So that still will put a lot of pressure on our experts, but you know,
if there was an opportunity that those responses were coming in sooner and the
experts had more time, maybe that's a date that could be discussed.
The second -- so that speaks to the existing
dates that are circulating on the NB Power schedule. So we had provided a little more window of
opportunity for the experts and for the filing of IRs.
Turning now to the length of the hearing,
last year we did have a five day hearing, but I am sure many of the parties
here, who did participate, would agree that those days were quite long and
difficult. And we did end up, even over
those five days just on a revenue requirement filing, having extended hearing
days. So we will probably with all -- if
experience is useful to us, we will probably use those five days for the
revenue requirement hearing. If we are
to at least save one day for argument, that only gives us four days to deal
with a major request on a capital filing, plus energy efficiency. So I think we -- again, we have got to be
really careful that we are not trying to jam this into a schedule without
giving it careful consideration.
When Board Staff put their schedule
together, I guess we looked at the dates we had. We -- I think we had been advised that the PI
would likely be unavailable after the 28th.
So our thinking was that we would start on the 12th, which would give us
five days. The next week there is a
public holiday, so we would have four days.
And then the following week, assuming the PI was unavailable after the
28th, there would be three days. So in
total we would have 12 days. It looks
like three weeks, but recognizing everybody’s' availability, it gave us in
essence 12 days of hearing time. Again,
if we consider closing arguments, and we take at least a day for that, that
gives us 11 days of full hearing with evidence and cross-examination. Recognizing we have an expert, likely other
people -- other intervenors will have experts.
I would submit that that's a more realistic schedule to work with and
allow parties to fully vet and understand the information.
My final comment is around the IRP. That is a critical document. My initial review of the information that has
been filed to date, there is many references to the IRP and our experts have
asked to see that document. They have
identified it as a critical piece of evidence that they will need to see. I think Mr. Furey indicated that January 16th
might be the date on which it could potentially be available, but based on the
NB Power schedule, intervenor evidence would need to be filed in advance of
even seeing the IRP. So I just don't
know how that could possibly work. So I
would ask the Board to proceed with caution.
This is the first major capital filing we have had and I think it
requires a careful review and due process.
Those are our comments. Thank
you.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you.
MR. ROUSE:
Excuse me, Chair?
CHAIRMAN:
Yes, Mr. Rouse?
MR. ROUSE:
May I just add something to what the Board Staff mentioned about the
IRP. Mr. Furey indicated that there was
no IRP, but they have referenced it in their evidence. And the IRP, according to the legislation, is
something that the Board must -- must consider in their deliberations. So there is a bit of a -- you -- the Board
has to consider an IRP and we need to figure out which IRP you are going to be
considering. I think this was a bit of
an issue at the last hearing of which IRP we should be looking at. So I think the fact that one doesn't exist,
according to Mr. Furey, but they have referenced it in their evidence.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Rouse. So, Mr.
Furey, having canvassed the room, it strikes me that the November 8th date
seems to be of concern to more than one participant, that that seems to be just too early on in
the process.
The second issue seems to be the timing of
filing of intervenor evidence. It
follows that Christmas season so closely as to perhaps create some
difficulties. So I wonder if there might
be an opportunity here to do a couple of things that might help. So if the November 8th date was pushed out by
a few more days, you know, that would obviously make it appear that the hearing
would automatically go to the 12th. I
don't think that's necessary. I think if
it's possible to squeeze some time in other areas, it may be that although not
-- we wouldn't commence on the 5th, I wonder if it's possible that we would use
even the Thursday and Friday of that week?
And one of the items that I see in the proposed schedule that when I
started doing this job, wasn't there, and it's now there quite routinely and
it's something called rebuttal evidence.
And I am not suggesting that rebuttal evidence can't be filed, but by
the very nature of rebuttal evidence, you know, it seems to me that it -- you
know, you are not allowed to raise anything new. It has to deal with -- you know, with new
issues that have been raised by the intervenors -- that I wonder why that's
filed on the 1st of February and then the hearing is five days later. I am not suggesting we take out of the
schedule the right to file rebuttal evidence, but I am not sure that I completely
understand why we would need, you know, four or five days to consider it. Any rebuttal evidence we have had in the
past, has been short, to the point, very succinct and often is covered almost
by way of opening statement.
MR. FUREY:
So, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I fully understood. Are you suggesting that rebuttal evidence
could be filed at any time prior to the hearing or -- I didn't understand if
you wanted it early or later?
CHAIRMAN:
Well I suppose in a perfect world, there wouldn't be any need for
rebuttal evidence so --
MR. FUREY:
Oh, agreed.
CHAIRMAN:
-- and as I said, the schedules, if you go back into the hearings in
2004, 2005, I don't think the schedules actually even provided for rebuttal
evidence. I think it's something that
has kind of crept into the system and it adds time, because if you look at the
additional responses for Motions Day on January 30th, you know, then there is
this period of time to allow for the filing of rebuttal evidence, but it's
actually -- well I guess you are really -- the filing time is noon, so you are
really talking about a day and a half to file it. I don't why the hearing couldn't start the
next day. I am not suggesting we push it
back. But that, for example, is a time
lapse that isn't necessary, in my view.
And if we were to move the November 8th date forward, and maybe I would
have to canvass the parties, and maybe this might be an opportunity to have a
bit of a break so that -- because I think if the November 8th date was moved by
a week or whatever, I mean I think the parties will give you very quickly their
view on where that needs to go to and where the opportunity -- I have heard
from several parties that were concerned about the filing date for intervenor
evidence. I think at least three of
them. So if that could change and we
could do something with the rebuttal evidence, we may be able to come up with a
schedule that's a bit of a hybrid, you know, of all these -- the concern I
have, I understand and I appreciate the comments if we book 15 days, we will
use it. Hopefully, you know, that's not
the case. I am more concerned really
about the other side of this is that we book only 10 days. We really needed 11 or 12 and parties just
can't seem to find the time to come back until March the 18th or something like
that, because their schedules have filled up.
Nobody is going to hold this time for this hearing just in case. So I really wonder if, you know, we would be
cutting it too close. I think -- I mean,
certainly the panel is willing to work long days, you know, whatever is
necessary, but there is a point where you start to lose some efficiencies. You know, if you are starting very early, and
you are going very late, I wonder if the people who are participating late in
the day about the third or fourth day you are doing that, you know, are you
getting the same level of attention as somebody else who is participating when
you are fresh. So I mean, you can only
work those hearings, those long days so long until a little bit of fatigue, you
know, settles in and I don't want any party to be disadvantaged by that.
So I am going to take a brief adjournment
here, say 20 minutes or so, that will give Mr. Amos an opportunity to read the
material that was filed yesterday. And
since Mr. Amos has indicated that he is okay with whatever schedule is set,
then perhaps the parties that have been declared to be intervenors in this
matter can just provide their input. I
think this is very doable to work within those constraints. I am -- I share Ms. Desmond's concern about
the AMI. I would very much liked to have
seen AMI come as a separate and distinct hearing, because it is the first
capital project this Board has been asked to approve, and as everybody knows,
we have a major capital project coming in Mactaquac. And so in a sense, this would have been very
helpful to have us hone our skills on the capital spend. So I am very mindful, and I am very much in
agreement, quite frankly, with what she said.
With those comments, I am going to adjourn for -- it's 10:35. We will come back at 11:00 o'clock, unless
the parties have -- well I am going to give Mr. Amos at least 20 minutes
anyway. So we will come back at exactly
11:00 o'clock. Hopefully, we will have a
schedule that can work and then we will hear argument with respect to Mr. Amos'
status in this matter. Thank you.
(Recess)
(Recess)
CHAIRMAN:
All right, well that -- I guess that break took more like an hour but we
have given Mr. Amos a little more time to review the documentation pertaining
to him. So my understanding is that
perhaps the parties have come up with a suggested schedule. Is that correct, Mr. Furey?
MR. FUREY:
That is correct, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN:
And anybody here disagree with that?
All right, do you want to read into the record the schedule as it would
be proposed that it would be set?
MR. FUREY:
Certainly. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. I will go through the proposed
schedule in its entirety, starting with the application, the evidence being
filed on Thursday, October 5th. The
board order 20 day notice, Tuesday, October 10th, pre-hearing conference being
today Tuesday, October 31st. And then we
start with what is to come. Round 1
interrogatories to the applicant, Thursday, November 16th. And I will just depart for one second, Mr.
Chair, to say that all of the times, with one exception, will be the standard,
noon filing dates, 9:30 for ADR and Motions Day.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you.
MR. FUREY:
So the round 1 interrogatory responses, Monday, December 4th, the Notice
of Motion, Wednesday, December 6th, the ADR and Motions Day, Thursday, December
8th. Sorry, Thursday, December 7th. The round 1 additional responses, Monday,
December 11th, round 2 interrogatories, Wednesday, December 13th, round 2
interrogatory responses, Monday, January 8th, Notice of Motion, Wednesday,
January 10th. The ADR Motions Day,
Thursday, January 11th, round 2 additional responses, Friday, January
12th. And this is the exception, Mr.
Chair, because that is only a single day, that time would be at 4:00 o'clock
p.m. Then carrying on, intervenor
evidence Thursday, January 18th, interrogatories on intervenor evidence due
Tuesday, January 23rd, interrogatory responses due Tuesday, January 30th. The Notice of Motion by Wednesday, January 31st,
the ADR and Motions Day, Thursday, February 1st, additional responses, Monday,
February 5th, rebuttal evidence also Monday, February 5th. And the hearing would then commence on
Wednesday, February 7th. So the intent
would be we would have three days in the week, the 7th, 8th and 9th. We would have five days the following week,
and we would have four days in the final week starting again on February 20th,
for a total of 12 days.
CHAIRMAN:
So the final day that we would set aside would be the February the 25th?
MR. FUREY:
23rd.
CHAIRMAN:
23rd.
MR. FUREY:
I think that is correct, Friday, the 23rd.
CHAIRMAN:
Yes, sorry, yes, no, sorry, 23rd.
Thank you. And the only comment I
will make is that I would hope that 12 days is more than adequate. If we run out of time and knowing the time
constraints of the participants, we may get into a situation where we need to
have written argument or something like that.
And most people don't seem to like that.
So hopefully the 12 days will be enough.
All right, so that will be the hearing schedule. Now I understand there is one issue?
MR. FUREY:
I am sorry, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay, we are going to get to that.
MR. FUREY:
I meant to address it at the end and --
CHAIRMAN:
Yes, okay.
MR. FUREY:
-- and then it just slipped my mind.
So I think the way that the parties would describe it is that the
schedule up until the -- up until the Motions Day on Thursday, December 7th, is
fine, but thereafter I think the intervenors would regard it as conditional on
receiving the IRP by Monday, December 4th at 12:00 o'clock. And if the IRP is not in a position to be
filed at that time, then we would treat the Motions Day scheduled for Thursday,
December 7th also as a day to revisit the schedule in light of the
unavailability of the IRP. I hope I have
captured that accurately but that is my understanding.
CHAIRMAN:
All right. And with respect to
that date of I believe you said December the 4th would be the date the IRP is
to be filed by and if it isn't, there will in fact be a motion to deal with
potentially rescheduling everything, you know that the hearing room in our
Board premises of course isn't large enough to conduct these hearings so we are
going to have to commit -- people are always concerned about cost and expense
so we are going to have to commit to 12 days of hearing space from a commercial
vendor such as the hotel that we are in now and that is very expensive. I know this is out of your control, that it
is now I believe with Cabinet, but I would encourage you to at least make sure
they are aware that if in fact this document is not approved on or before that
date, you know, there could be quite a cost, you know, that may be incurred if
in fact the dates end up being scrapped.
You know, there will be hearing room space that will have to be paid
for. So I think that -- I appreciate
that is all you can do is make sure that they are aware of that.
MR. FUREY:
And that will -- those messages will be passed along, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN:
All right. So the schedule as --
Ms. Desmond, I think you were about to --
MS. DESMOND:
Yes, if I could just make two additional comments, Mr. Chair. Certainly those dates I think are agreed to
by the parties. But I just noticed Mr.
Furey did not comment on the public session which is the week of December
11th. So I believe those dates are still
in play. And then secondly, there was
some discussion, but no agreement, on how the days would be used, whether AMI
and final arguments would take place before GRA or if the final arguments would
be at the end of those 12 days. So I
just kind of throw that up for consideration as well.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. With respect to the public
day or days, it is the intention of the Board to do this part of the session. We have had some suggestions from many of the
participants that it would be very useful to hear from the public perhaps not
just on the day of -- on a hearing day but perhaps in advance, and we are
currently looking at whether or not we may be able to do one or more than one,
and that seems to be the week that works the best. So we will simply advise when it is. I know that the applicant, for example,
always wants to be present and it may or may not work out for certain people
within the organization that feel it's important for them to be there, but this
is the week that we will be scheduling either one or two sessions.
And at this point in time I'm not sure where
it will be. I can tell you that it will
not be in Saint John. It will be
somewhere else in the province for sure.
The other thing is with respect to how we
structure the hearing, I don't think that we necessarily need to do that
today. I think we need to set the days
aside. I think it would be -- I am going
to encourage the parties to see if in fact they can attempt to come up with a
schedule that works best for all concerned.
We know that there are experts that have been retained by a couple of
the intervenors and perhaps it will be by more than a couple of
intervenors. And so to try to schedule
it so that again it minimizes costs I think would be useful. So rather than establishing a date to do
that, you know, along the way, for example, there are motions days that don't
get used or just some other time, it doesn't need to be formal, but I think it
would be useful for parties to talk about that.
We -- the intention of the Board would be that we would start with the
GRA and move on to the capital project, you know, second, but, you know, if
parties want to do it differently then, you know, we need to hear that.
So just I guess going down the list of
things that we need to talk about, the confidentiality agreement has been
circulated. Also there was a three line
explanation of the changes in this confidentiality agreement from previous
confidentiality agreements. So I don't
know if the parties have had enough time to consider the form of that agreement
or not or have any comments. So I will
just go down through the list. Mr. Amos,
have you looked at the agreement?
MR. AMOS:
Yes. I had just a -- I had a
quick glance at it and I had an issue with it in the 357 matter.
CHAIRMAN:
Yes.
MR. AMOS:
And I sent an email to Mr. Furey, et cetera, and I said don't give me
anything that's confidential, and therefore I can't be accused of disclosing
something I shouldn't.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. So --
MR. AMOS:
He never answered me.
CHAIRMAN: Okay.
So your position really is you are not signing it no matter what form
it's in if it requires you to keep information --
MR. AMOS:
This is a public hearing. This is
a publicly owned corporation billing the public, and if you don't want the
public to know something, then I don't want to know.
CHAIRMAN:
I understand. So you don't have a
position of the form itself. You are not
going to sign a confidentiality document.
MR. AMOS:
I find the form offensive in and of itself.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Volpe?
MR. VOLPE:
No other comment, Mr. Chair.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Bourque?
MR. BOURQUE:
I understand that these are public hearings and that why is this
information being kept from the public is my question.
CHAIRMAN:
Well, Mr. Bourque, the issue here really is the form of the
confidentiality agreement. Legislation
provides for information that of a certain nature can be -- there can be a
claim for confidentiality. There can be
challenges to those claims. But there is
a process. So the issue really is the
form. Do you have any issue with the
form?
MR. BOURQUE:
I'm not really sure on that.
CHAIRMAN:
All right. Thank you. Mr. Stewart?
MR. STEWART:
Mr. Chairman, to be honest, I haven't really had much of an opportunity
-- I know Mr. Furey sent that yesterday afternoon -- to have a look. So I did note in his email, you know, the
difference, but I'm really not in a position to say I'm fine with it at this
particular moment in time.
CHAIRMAN:
So are you asking for some additional time to provide comments to the
Board or are you satisfied if the Board makes a decision this morning?
MR. STEWART:
I'm satisfied if the Board makes a decision.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. Mr. Rouse?
MR. ROUSE:
No comments.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Richard?
MR.
RICHARD: Oui monsieur président. Mais je pense que je
n’ai pas reçu la formule moi aussi parce que j’ai trompé
en être poursuivi.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr. Stoll?
MR. STOLL:
We are satisfied if the Board just makes a decision this morning.
CHAIRMAN:
Ms. Black?
MR. BLACK:
I have no issues with the form.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. Ms. Desmond, Board
staff don't need to sign it anyway, do they?
MS. DESMOND:
We don't, no, Mr. Chair, although I will just make one comment and that
is I think under our Rules of Procedure there is a confidentiality undertaking
pursuant to Rule 6.5. So I appreciate
this is perhaps a document we have used historically but it may be something
going forward the Board may want to turn its mind to whether or not there is a
standard undertaking that can be used for all matters.
CHAIRMAN:
That's an excellent idea and perhaps we might even do a practice note or
something with reference to that. Okay.
Well having heard from the parties this
morning, the document that has been put forward as the proposed confidentiality
agreement in fact will be the one that will be approved for use in this
proceeding.
One other preliminary issue would be the
exhibit list. We typically mark the
documents that have been filed up to the present time as exhibits in this
matter. Anybody have any objection to
that? All right. There being no objection then, the exhibit
list that has been circulated and for the benefit of the court reporter, that
is a five page document entitled, Exhibit List, and it starts with exhibit
1.01, Notice of Application, and it goes right through to document 3.01,
Affidavit of Publishing, and each of those documents will become an exhibit in
this proceeding under the heading NBP 1.01, NBP 1.02, et cetera. So I don't think, since nobody has any
objections, it's necessary to read out the entire list.
I also understand that -- I believe it's in
the list here -- that the affidavit -- just for the record, exhibit 3.01, the
Affidavit of Publishing has been filed verifying that in fact NB Power has
complied with the Board Order with respect to publishing a notification of this
matter.
So other than the issue relating to Mr.
Amos' status as an intervenor, are there any other issues that we need to deal
with this morning?
MR. FUREY:
I don't believe so, Mr. Chair.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. So turning then to the
objection to Mr. Amos being named as an intervenor or becoming an intervenor in
this matter -- all right. So, Mr. Furey,
we have looked at your notice of objection to the intervenor request and if I
may attempt to summarize it, it really relies on two grounds, and I think the
first three paragraphs in your notice of objection deal with Rule 3.2.2 of the
Rules of Procedure indicating the party must demonstrate a substantial interest
in the proceeding and an intent to participate actively and responsibly. And so there is a responsibility there to
show what their interest is. The second
part of your objection here deals with the requirement to participate
responsibly.
With respect to the first part of your objection,
Mr. Amos this morning clarified, you know, the basis of what his interest is in
the proceeding and essentially how that interest justified the granting of
intervenor status. Do you have anything
further to say on that aspect of it or is essentially most of the objection --
certainly by volume here most of the objection seems to be on the contention
here that perhaps he may not participate responsibly.
MR. FUREY:
Yes. That would be the focus of
my submissions here this morning.
CHAIRMAN:
And would you agree that Mr. Amos has in fact essentially fulfilled the
obligations of the first part of what had been your objection?
MR. FUREY:
I would.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. So with respect to the duty
to participate responsibly, you filed documentation which has been provided to
all the parties and the Board of course has read it, as I'm sure others
have. Do you -- I guess it's your
objection. So is there anything that you
want to highlight here or anything further you want to add?
MR. FUREY:
Yes. If I might have a few
minutes to do that, I would appreciate it, Mr. Chair.
So I mean, I guess the starting point is
what -- what is the requirement -- what is the content of the requirement to
participate in a responsible fashion, and the rules don't -- don't give us any
further guidance on that. But I would
suggest that the content of that requirement is that it is an obligation of an
intervenor to raise issues that are relevant to the jurisdiction of the Board in
the proceeding and not issues that are extraneous or completely unrelated, and
to do so -- while recognizing that we are in an adversarial process, to do so
in a respectful and civil fashion. And
our submission is that the material on which we rely, which is all Mr. Amos' --
either all of Mr. Amos' documents or the transcript of a motion that was argued
on October 5th of this year demonstrates I would say quite clearly that Mr.
Amos is not capable of that type of reasonable participation in the process.
And generally, and I said this in paragraph
5 of the notice of the objection -- generally a review of Mr. Amos' documents
discloses a pattern of behaviour that is confrontational in nature and is
characterized by unsubstantiated allegations of unethical or illegal behaviour
by various political figures, judges, lawyers, law enforcement officials.
I think it's worth noting that Mr. Amos' own
documents show that he has, on at least one occasion and perhaps two, been
banned or barred from the grounds of the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly on
the basis of harassment of MLAs, officers and staff of the Legislative
Assembly. Having been so barred, he
brought a complaint against the members of the Fredericton City police force to
the Police Commission, that was subsequently dismissed, relating to their
involvement in barring him from the Legislative Assembly.
I am going to spend a little time, Mr.
Chair, with respect to Mr. Amos' complaint against Judge Henrik Tonning to the
New Brunswick Judicial Council, and that appears at appendix D of the objection. And in particular two pages in, there is an
affidavit that Mr. Amos submitted in a provincial court case. And in that affidavit -- and I'm going to
very quickly move through this -- at paragraph 9 he first deals with Prosecutor
James McAvity and he indicates that Prosecutor McAvity should have been
questioned as to his malice and/or competence.
So he is questioning the malice and competence of the Crown
Prosecutor. He goes on to say he
certainly would not wish the likes of Ms. Gallagher defending his rights or
interests before the court. At paragraph
22 he states, it appears to me that not only are the actions of David Lutz
malicious, but they are fraudulent as well.
In my opinion he has no right to practice law for a fee but in fact he
should be in jail. And at paragraph 31
he speaks of a response he got from the RCMP External Review Committee which he
viewed was predictable and unsatisfactory.
And just to go back to the beginning of that
appendix, the initial complaint on the first page of that appendix, at the end
of the -- at the end of the first -- second full paragraph, Mr. Amos makes it
clear in his complaint that he is referring to proceedings in order to cover up
the wrongful acts of the court and David Lutz.
In the next paragraph he points out that he is already complaining about
Brad Green and his conduct. Now at that
time Brad Green would have been Attorney General.
So I wanted to take a moment to point those
out because that is the pattern of Mr. Amos' involvement in legal proceedings. It is to question the ethical or legal
behaviour of virtually every lawyer or decision maker involved in the
proceeding. That is his pattern. It continues.
If you go to the next exhibit, or next appendix, Appendix F, is a
direction obviously from a judge of the Federal Court of Appeal to the Appeal
Registry. Please advise the parties that
Mr. Amos has the right to submit a brief summary not to exceed five pages, to
explain the exact conflict that in his view arises in this matter with any of
the judges assigned to this appeal and to submit any additional documents that
are relevant to the issue.
So in an ongoing -- and this is dated June
8th 2017 -- in an ongoing action or appeal in the Federal Court of Appeal, Mr.
Amos is alleging conflict of the judges assigned to the appeal. And that pattern continues, I would submit,
in the present -- in his appearances before this Board. The final appendix, Appendix I, to the notice
of objection is a copy of the transcript of the hearing of Mr. Amos' motion in
Matter 357. And I think it's useful to
remember that that motion was a motion to deal with the timing of the hearing
of Matter 357. The Board had previously
granted NB Power's application or motion to adjourn the proceeding on terms and
Mr. Amos essentially wanted that reheard.
So not something that you would regard as a contentious matter being the
timing of the hearing.
But Mr. Amos' comments to the Board on that
occasion again can only be characterized as confrontational. I reviewed the transcript several times
before today. There is not really an
argument in there that was germane to the issue of the timing of the
hearing. There was a lot of extraneous
material. And at the conclusion of his
remarks, and I have specifically placed this in the notice of objection, when
the Board Chair asked Mr. Amos if he had anything further to say, his reply was
essentially to suggest to the Board Chair, and I will read what he said.
Yes.
Can you think of one good reason why I don't sue you, Mr. Gorman? You have my documents. Do you understand what are on file in your
Board? Do you not see where I am already
in federal court suing the Queen? Did I
not properly introduce myself before you allowed me to be an intervenor? Did I not explain my issues to this Board in
no uncertain terms on June 15th? And he
is referring to an email that he had sent to a number of parties on June 15th.
I think we can expect, and we have seen it
again here this morning, we can expect more of the same, arguments unrelated to
the issue before the Board presented in a confrontational manner, which will, I
would suggest to you, eventually turn to actions in other courts. The pattern is that when Mr. Amos runs
against a lawyer who acts against him, runs against a decision-maker who
doesn't agree with him, then that issue is relitigated in other courts. And while I think the standard here is simply
one of is Mr. Amos likely to participate in a reasonable fashion, I do think
it's useful to compare the situation to situations where courts have dealt with
so-called vexatious litigants.
So I am not suggesting that that's the
standard that be applied here -- that's not the standard to be applied
here. But I did submit to the Board
yesterday afternoon a copy of a decision of Mr. Justice Morrison. It's a very recent decision in which he dealt
with an issue of determination of a vexatious litigant. And at page -- the page numbering is a little
weird in this document. I am looking at
paragraph 34 of the decision. It's on
what's referred to as page 68, but it's paragraph 34 of the decision. And Mr. Justice Morrison noted that counsel
on that hearing were unable to provide him with any New Brunswick cases
considering the concept of a vexatious litigant, but they were able to refer
him to an Ontario decision in Lang Michener Lash Johnston v Fabian. And in that case, there is an outlining of
the factors to be considered in determining whether or not a party meets the
threshold of a vexatious litigant. And I
won't go through all of them, there are seven principles set out there, but (d)
in my view is of particular application here.
And Justice Henry said, it is a general
characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues raised tend to
be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and supplemented, often
with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for or against the
litigant in earlier proceedings.
And that's precisely Mr. Amos' pattern in
the documents that he, himself, has disclosed to the Board. While he has here this morning indicated to
the Board that his interest revolves around issues of AMI in particular, and
the expenses and capital associated with the AMI, I submit he is not capable of
putting those positions forward in a cogent, respectful, reasonable
manner. His own history demonstrates
that and his conduct before this Board to date confirms it.
And so while we are reluctant to make a
request of this nature -- I mean, we have had many lay participants in my time
before the Board. Mr. Rouse is here with
us again this year. I have never had any
doubt about the issue that Mr. Rouse wanted to talk about. He has always been very clear. Mr. Hickey has been with us in the past. Mr. Smith, on behalf of the Sussex Sharing
Club is with us. I have no doubt as to
what the issue Mr. Smith wants to raise.
All have -- while there certainly have been some adversarial proceedings
around those interventions, all have proceeded in a respectful fashion. And so while it is not a step that we like to
take, my submission is that it is in the public interest not to permit Mr. Amos
to participate as an intervenor. He will
delay and frustrate this Board, and he will harass the participants -- other
participants in the proceeding. He will
cause unnecessary aggravation and probably expense. And so for those reasons, Mr. Chair, we
submit that he not be granted intervenor status.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Mr. Furey. So, Mr.
Amos, now you were provided this morning with an hour to review Mr. Furey's
documents that he filed with the Board, and I think it was three or four pages
of documents. The balance of documents
were ones that you had filed in the past.
So you have had an opportunity to review his submission?
MR. AMOS:
Absolutely.
CHAIRMAN:
And you, of course, heard Mr. Furey's comments that he has just
concluded. So you know what the issue is
that he raises?
MR. AMOS:
I heard every word he said.
CHAIRMAN:
Okay. So do you have a -- do you
have some comments about what he is asking for?
MR. AMOS:
Yes, Mr. Gorman, I do. First off,
I am grateful that he filed my documents in this matter. However, he shouldn't cherry pick. If he is going to file my documents, he
should file all that he has received.
But dealing with the exhibits that he has filed, he has now made a
federal case out of a 2 percent rate hike.
I remind Mr. Furey that murder is a capital crime and when he worked for
the Attorney General of New Brunswick in 2004, who was Brad Green, his boss
received evidence of murder. Brad Green
acknowledged it. He now sits on the
bench of the Court of Appeal.
Anyway, I had ran for Parliament in 2004,
the 38th Parliament against a member of your Board, John Herron. That was when it was the Public Utilities
Board. David Young, who worked for
another Crown Corporation, who is a senior advisor to your Board now, I believe
got fired because I complained of him, because he wouldn't allow me to speak on
the radio and give me equal time as my political opponents, just like Mr. Furey
doesn't want me to speak before the Board today, even though I am a stakeholder
in this hearing. He has no more standing
here than I do, other than he collects a big pay cheque that my taxpayer funds
are paying. But as an officer of the
court, he is obliged to uphold the law.
He filed my documents in this matter.
I did not. He did. Then he says I am vexatious. I am surprised he didn't call me frivolous as
well. The Crown usually calls me
that. I understand the term, vexatious. He is the man who is vexatious.
In the 357 Matter, if we go first things
first, there is a transcript, which I have uploaded, you can review it or I can
read it to you. You asked me why I was
intervening. Exhibit A of his documents, I didn't know who Mr. Furey was. I had no idea what lawyers or what was going
on in 357, except on June 14th I heard on the radio Mr. Hyslop had a motion
before this Board in a pre-hearing to be paid to help his assistant. I saw red.
I remembered Mr. Hyslop from the PUB.
I remember Mr. Hyslop when I ran in Saint John Harbour, while he run
against Abe LeBlanc. I remember I was
intervening in an NEB hearing and arguing Cedric Haines of NB Power while he
worked for the Attorney General. I
remember talking to him about murdered Indians.
That said, all I had issues with was Mr. Hyslop wanting paid again. I had checked from CBC and some years he was
paid like $700,000. I had issues with
him in 2006. David Young wouldn't let me speak before the PUB Board even in a
public hearing. So I had to send a farmer. That said, I am asking Hyslop, you are the
Public Intervenor, what do you know of my concerns? I had concerns about the refurbishment of
Lepreau, Coleson Cove. If you go on
Charles LeBlanc's blog from April of 2006, you can even see I was dealing with
a lawyer named Richard Costello -- same last name as you, sir -- who worked for
McInnes Cooper, who was hired by Venezuela to check with the PUB as to when a
pipeline went from the Irving refinery to Coleson Cove. I wanted to know about that too. So I talked to Mr. Costello. The email between Mr. Costello and I is still
in Charles LeBlanc's blog from 2006.
While I was running for Parliament in
Fredericton, and I doubt that Mr. Furey voted for me, I was running against
Andy Scott, Minister of Indian Affairs and he worked for the Attorney General
for Indian Affairs. Now I went to high
school with Andy Scott. Barb Baird used
to be Brad Green's boss. I went to high
school with her too. Now I don't know if
you guys know who I am, but many people in this neck of the woods do. My brother-in-law's law firm partner helped
Peter MacKay merge with Mr. Harper's party. When I sued Americans over taxation
and about improper tax accountants like KPMG, Grant Thornton, ringing any
bells? That was in 2002. I am glad he
brought up the Department of Homeland Security.
Those are the guys that tried to take me to Cuba in 2003 after I started
winning lawsuits. You are right, I sue people that don't do their job. Particularly, the people that are well paid
to act in our best interests. I file
whistle-blower forms with the U.S. tax man and they try to arrest me. You are right, I sue them. A lawyer calls me a liar, well he better
check my work before he goes too far.
Anyway, NB Power, they have a mandate to
uphold. It's a Crown corporation. David Alward, 2013 comes out with a new
Act. Got to follow the Act,
fellows. Now this hearing 357 was
supposed to be within three years. Now I
don't know -- I don't pretend to know something I don't. All I heard was Hyslop wanted on the gravy
train. I took issue with that. I email the guy that speaks for the Chairman
of the Board. I have spoke personally to
Ed Barrett, personally. I have spoken to
Mr. Scott, his assistant. He has a very
funny voice mail. Mr. Scott loves
hearing me speak on the radio and on television. Mr. Scott was the guy I knew had the ear of
the Chairman. Now I served Derek Burney, who used to work with Mr. Mulroney,
just like his partner, Hugh Segal, right.
I had served Derek Burney my stuff after I ran for Parliament in 2006,
got a signature. Why would I do
that? Because NB Power had hired Simpson
Bartlett & Thatcher in New York to sue Venezuela. Do you realize that Robert Mueller's lawyer
comes from Simpson Bartlett & Thatcher?
Are you realizing what's going on?
Have you read the emails I sent you?
He talks about me in federal court on June 8th. You are right I was in federal court, May
24th. Have you reviewed the documents I filed in federal court since that time?
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, I am going to interrupt you for a moment.
MR. AMOS:
Murder is a capital crime, sir.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, the issue that Mr. Furey raises --
MR. AMOS:
Is that I am vexatious.
CHAIRMAN:
Well he says that he is reluctant to make this objection, but he -- in
his view, he says you are not capable of putting positions forward in a cogent
manner. You are not --
MR. AMOS:
Are you saying that?
CHAIRMAN:
-- you are not speaking to the issue, which -- can I --
MR. AMOS:
All right. Am I -- am I a person
born and raised in this province?
CHAIRMAN:
The issue here --
MR. AMOS:
Did I run for Parliament five times?
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, it would be appreciated --
MR. AMOS:
Are you aware of why I am barred?
He brought it up.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, it would be appreciated if you would just listen for a
moment. So the issue here is whether or
not you can stick to the issues that have to be dealt with in this particular
matter, which is a general rate application.
We are dealing with the spending --
MR. AMOS:
Have you read the filings in this matter?
CHAIRMAN:
Sir, would you just wait till I finish, please?
MR. AMOS:
No, I am arguing him and you. You
are on his side clearly. Now your
Vice-Chair will probably have the job in February, used to work for City
Hall. Do you remember Mr. Nugent and I,
sir?
CHAIRMAN:
Sir, do you want to provide us with your --
MR. AMOS:
You have many of my documents that he did not file. I sent them to you by email. Do you remember receiving the emails from me
in 2007, sir?
CHAIRMAN:
So one of the things that Mr. Furey says is --
MR. AMOS:
Do you remember when Jack Keir appointed you? I introduced myself to you then.
CHAIRMAN:
Sir, excuse me, but one of the things he says is you are not able to
react in a --
MR. AMOS:
You can't answer a question.
CHAIRMAN:
-- in a respectful fashion and you are not paying attention to the
protocol here today.
MR. AMOS:
All right. Let me ask you a
question, sir?
CHAIRMAN:
No, that's not what we are here for.
MR. AMOS:
Have you understood one word I have said any time we have met?
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, do you have anything to add to the record with respect to your
respectful participation in this matter, in this process? Mr. Furey says that you don't have the
ability to stay on topic.
MR. AMOS:
Are you saying that?
CHAIRMAN:
I am telling you what the argument is that has
been put forward.
MR. AMOS:
I know what he said. I am asking
you?
CHAIRMAN:
And the argument that has been put forward is you don't have the ability
to --
MR. AMOS:
I heard what he said. I told you
that.
CHAIRMAN:
-- stay on topic and to act in a respectful manner.
MR. AMOS:
All right.
CHAIRMAN:
Can you give me any information on that issue?
CHAIRMAN:
You are the Chairman of the Board.
This is not your decision solely.
There is a Vice-Chair and another man.
One man is an accountant and the other a lawyer. Now I don't know if the other two fellows
read my documents. I certainly hope that
they did. The man who is a chartered
accountant should understand about Kevin Dancy and I. He should certainly have understood what I am
doing in federal court. Now I thanked
him for filing documents, but one interesting document he brought up in
particular was the man I went to college with, Henrik Tonning. He is a personal friend of mine.
Now if he had read that entire affidavit, I
had been summoned to the court by a lawyer to file an affidavit. He failed to mention that. But Henrik Tonning and I were once very good
friends. That affidavit that he just put
in this matter no longer exists in provincial court. That's fraud practiced against me by the
court. Yes, I have contempt against
officers of the court that fail to uphold the law. Yes, I do not hesitate in suing lawyers. I have sued more lawyers, and law firms, and
attorney generals than probably anyone else on the planet. I am before the federal court right now and you
guys will be mentioned in my next lawsuit that will be filed by Christmas. Thank you for making it a federal
matter. That said my two friends have
standing in this matter as much as I do.
You work for us.
I have my rights to my opinion and I don't
have to suffer insults. Ms. Harrison
signed this document. I wonder if she
has even read it, but I consider it her insult.
He is merely her lawyer. Now his
name is Furey. I served Brian Furey in
Newfoundland. He was President of the
Law Society in Newfoundland. I served
George Furey, he is Speaker of the Senate.
He is from Newfoundland. I know
where this is going, federal court. As I
told you, you are not a court. And if
you want to argue my documents, we will argue before a judge that I do not have
a conflict of interest with.
Now I have a bone to pick with many judges
in federal court and a lot in the Court of Queen's Bench of New Brunswick, but
not all. And not every judge or every
lawyer is a crook. Some of them are
actually friends of mine. Only problem I
have with them is they think I can't pull this off. That the system is just too powerful. Well could be. Call me crazy if you wish, I can be as crazy
as I want to be. How do you explain my
having FBI wiretap tapes of the mob and three weeks after he mentioned about me
being in federal court, the outgoing Commissioner of the R.C.M.P. said beware
of the mob. Bob Paulson said that. And I am the guy with all the tapes. You got a huge ethical dilemma, sir. You are an accountant. You don't.
You do. You are probably the next
Chair.
You can do with me what you will. I will still advise my friends about their
concerns about this 2 percent rate hike and his concerns about meters we don't
need. They are ratepayers. They have the right to their opinion and they
have the right to have me for a friend and take my counsel whether you want to
argue me or not. Now he can insult
me. You haven't yet. I was grateful on the 14th when I emailed Bob
Scott. I didn't email Ms. Harrison. I emailed David Young, who I knew, your
senior advisor. And I emailed Bob Scott,
the guy who likes to make fun of me. Ed
Barrett's spokesperson. I did not think
I could intervene in 357. The nice lady
acting as Clerk said what, would you like to intervene? I said what, can I? She said well the hearings haven't started
yet. It's up to the Board. It was a surprise to me. I wasn't looking to intervene. And I said sure, I would love to. I love to argue lawyers. It was Mr. Hyslop that was my target. That said I come, I give the nice lady my
intervenor form. Mr. Furey sees no
problem with me. He has a problem with
my friend, because he is a leader of a political party, but you guys have no
problem allowing David Coon to be an intervenor and he is a seated MLA. That said, it is what it is. You guys allowed me to intervene with exactly
the same information verbatim that I did this time. It was the same document. That said, you allowed me. I was grateful. When I introduced myself, he more or less
quoted me. Anyway I can -- you can
review the transcript or I can read it into the record in this matter, but I
was grateful and I said -- well let me read it, I should put it in the record
then.
This is from the transcript of the 15th
after you were done with my friend, Mr. Bourque. Chairman -- this is page 7, line 21 of the
transcript, June 15th. Chairman. Thank you.
I don't see anything similar on Mr. Amos' intervenor request. So Mr. Amos, just to clarify you -- clarify,
you are also requesting to intervene personally on behalf of an
organization? That was your
question. Page 8, line 1. I am here in my own name, speaking on my own
interests in this matter. And most of
the other intervenors and their lawyers know exactly who I am and why I am
here. And I emailed them -- I emailed
Mr. Toner, Mr. Hyslop. I emailed Bob
Scott. I didn't know who Mr. Furey was
from a hole in the wall, right. Well,
Mr. Amos, are you a ratepayer of NB Power?
Mr. Amos: I was born and raised
in this province. I have paid my share
of power bills and taxes that support this Board and NB Power. I have issues with NB Power and this Board.
And I was speaking mainly of John Herron,
the guy I ran against in 2004, and David Young, your senior advisor. I didn't know you. Didn't know the rest of you.
So your intervention though is in relation
to the rate design application? My
interest in this matter, I stand and speak only for myself. No Public Intervenor appointed by the Province
or this Board speaks for me. I speak for
myself. Now the lady is the Public
Intervenor, she is with McInnes Cooper, same law firm as Richard Costello. The same law firm as Len Hoyt, the guy that
picked the Cabinet. He is also the
lawyer for Enbridge. I see a little
conflict of interest going there. I see
NB Power hires Stewart McKelvey to litigate over Lepreau problems and yet the
same law firm is hired by J.D. Irving to muscle this Board to get Mr. Irving
wants. He brought up Mr. Hickey. I have talked to Mr. Hickey for hours. Mr. Hickey has some pretty serious issues.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, please hear me out. We
have listened to you now for 20 minutes or so, still haven't heard your
response to how you can participate in this proceeding in a respectful manner
and stick to the issues. The issue here
really is whether or not you will stick to the issues if you are granted
intervenor status and whether or not you will act in a respectful manner. I need to have your response to that issue. Everything else you have talked about is off
topic.
MR.
AMOS: You just interrupted me, sir. Now I was respectful the whole time any
matter in this. Mr. Hyslop, you asked
for submissions, I gave submissions. You
guys made the decision. Mr. Hyslop
wasn't allowed his pay cheque. Then I
thought I was done. He and Mr. Russell
invited me to a hearing at a Stewart McKelvey boardroom to talk to Mr. Todd
about his report --
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, I am sorry, I am going to have to interrupt again. You are not talking --
MR. AMOS:
You are interrupting me because you don't want me on -- to put this on
the record.
CHAIRMAN:
-- you are not talking about --
MR. AMOS:
I am trying to address your question.
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, I am directing you to talk about this -- the issue before us
--
MR. AMOS:
I am telling you my answer.
CHAIRMAN:
-- in this matter?
MR. AMOS:
I am telling you my answer. I was
invited to a hearing, Chatham House Rule, so to speak, nothing leaves the room. Mr. Furey and Mr. Russell -- Mr. Furey wanted
me to talk to him before this meeting. I
saw NB Power on my websites downloading my documents. I go to this hearing. I am saying to Mr. Russell, where is Mr. Furey?
He don't call. He don't write. I am not going to sign any disclosure
document, right. Don't allow me in the room
if there is something you think I am going to spill the beans on. I talked to Mr. Todd before he came from
Toronto. That said, they picked my brain
at the hearing. I say conflict of
interest, McInnes Cooper, Stewart McKelvey, et cetera, et cetera. I want to know things having to do with 20
percent equity, where they arrived at that number, what the equity was? Now I had many questions in confidence. Mr. Todd -- I am asking Mr. Russell these
questions -- Mr. Todd keeps interrupting me and says that's a matter for a
hearing. I said fine, I will ask the
hearing -- I will ask before a hearing.
So then after that, Mr. Furey files a motion kill the hearing.
CHAIRMAN:
So, Mr. Amos, one --
MR. AMOS:
Kill the hearing.
CHAIRMAN:
-- Mr. Amos --
MR. AMOS:
You are the guy who killed the hearing.
CHAIRMAN:
-- Mr. Amos, one last time I am going to give you an opportunity to
address the issue of how you can participate in a respectful and responsible
manner. If you don't want to talk about
that topic, then we will take an adjournment and we will consider the request
that Mr. Furey has made.
MR. AMOS:
Have I been disrespectful to this Board?
CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Amos, can you stick to --
MR. AMOS:
Have I been disrespectful to this Board?
CHAIRMAN:
-- sir -- sir, can -- sir, would you -- you have interrupted constantly
and I would like you to --
MR. AMOS:
All right.
CHAIRMAN:
-- do you --
MR. AMOS:
I will leave it in your hands.
CHAIRMAN:
-- do you have anything --
MR. AMOS:
You decide.
CHAIRMAN:
Thank you. All right. We will take a brief recess.
(Recess)
CHAIRMAN:
All right. I will now give the
decision of the Board on this matter.
Mr. Amos seeks intervenor status in Matter
375. NB Power objects to his
intervention claiming his conduct during the hearing of a motion in Matter 357
was confrontational and that his arguments lacked any connection to the issues
before the Board. The Board agrees with
that assessment.
In the present matter, Mr. Amos was given
ample opportunity to put forward a case that would support a respectful and
responsible intervention. He failed to
do so, rolling forward issues raised in Matter 357 and not addressing the issue
before us today.
Mr. Amos states that the interests he would
bring before the Board are those raised by Mr. Bourque and Mr. Richard. The Board is satisfied that those two
intervenors can adequately represent those issues. In addition, those issues will undoubtedly be
addressed by the Public Intervenor and others.
The Board finds on a balance of probability
that Mr. Amos will not participate in this matter in a respectful and
responsible manner. As a result, the
Board will exercise its discretion and refuse intervenor status to Mr.
Amos. Intervention is encouraged but it
must be responsible.
Mr. Amos may participate in the public
session which date will be announced shortly.
But again he is reminded that any presentation must be done in a
respectful and responsible manner.
Finally, Mr. Amos had indicated that he
wished to assist his two colleagues that are sitting with him today. And certainly the Board has no issue with
that at all. But Mr. Amos will have no
status at the hearing in terms of cross-examination or making any argument.
So that is the decision of this Panel with
respect to the status of Mr. Amos.
Are there any other issues to deal with
today? There being no other issues, then
we will adjourn.
(Adjourned)
Certified to be a true
transcript of the
proceedings
of this hearing as
recorded
by me, to the best of
my ability.
2017 NBQB 83
New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench
Brooks v. Fredericton City Police Force et al
2017 CarswellNB 233, 2017 CarswellNB 234, 2017 NBQB 83,
280 A.C.W.S. (3d) 638
SARAH ELIZABETH BROOKS (Plaintiff) and THE FREDERICTON
CITY POLICE FORCE, in particular, DANA ROBERTS of the Fredericton City Police
Force, DAVID BANKS of the Fredericton City Police Force, STEFEN DECOURCEY of
the Fredericton City Police Force, MATTHEW FLEMMING of the Fredericton City
Police Force, Chief of the Fredericton Police Force BARRY MacKNIGHT, Detective
Constable BRAD BOURQUE, Staff Sergeant BRIAN FORD, Staff Sergeant DANIEL COPP,
THE CITY OF FREDERICTON, WILLIAM CORBY, Law Society of New Brunswick and
Canadian Bar Association member, DARLENE BLUNSTON, Law Society of New Brunswick
and Canadian Bar Association member, HILARY DRAIN, Law Society of New Brunswick
and Canadian Bar Association member (Defendants)
Terrence J. Morrison J.
Heard: November 30, 2016
Judgment: May 9, 2017
Docket: F/C/30/2012
Counsel: Sarah Elizabeth Brook — per se
Matthew T. Hayes, for Defendants, City of Fredericton and the
Fredericton Police Force and certain of its members
Heather Doyle Landry, Q.C., for Defendants, William Corby, Darlene
Blunston and Hilary Drain
Subject:
Civil Practice and Procedure; Constitutional; Public; Torts; Human Rights
Civil practice and procedure
III
Parties
III.2
Vexatious proceedings / Abuse of process
Law enforcement agencies
I Police
I.2
Duties, rights and liabilities of officers
I.2.d
Statutory protection of police from civil liability
I.2.d.iii
Statutes other than Criminal Code
Public law
I Crown
I.3
Principles of tort regarding Crown
I.3.a
Liability of Crown for torts of servants
I.3.a.iv
Liability for specific torts
I.3.a.iv.A
Action for malicious prosecution by Crown officers
Law enforcement agencies --- Police — Duties, rights and
liabilities of officers — Statutory protection of police from civil liability —
Statutes other than Criminal Code
Plaintiff alleged her former
counsel in family dispute conspired with her husband’s counsel to defraud her
of spousal support — Plaintiff alleged police failed to properly investigate
her complaint and were party to conspiracy to cover up fraud — Plaintiff was
subsequently detained by police and taken to hospital under Mental Health Act —
Plaintiff brought action against police defendants and Crown prosecutor
defendants for relief for various causes of action — Defendants brought motion
for order striking out statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of
action — Motion granted — Sections 66(1) and (2) of Act constituted complete
bar to plaintiff’s action in relation to her detention under Act — Section
66(1) of Act required consent of Attorney General to bring action, but no
consent had been obtained — Section 66(2) of Act provided six-month limitation
period that had expired — Accordingly, it was plain and obvious that
allegations in relation to detention under Act did not disclose reasonable
cause of action — Plaintiff had not pleaded any bad faith to overcome statutory
immunity provided by s 33.1 of Police Act in relation to negligent
investigation.
Public law --- Crown — Principles of tort regarding Crown —
Liability of Crown for torts of servants — Liability for specific torts —
Action for malicious prosecution by Crown officers
Plaintiff alleged her former
counsel in family dispute conspired with her husband’s counsel to defraud her
of spousal support — Plaintiff alleged police failed to properly investigate
her complaint and were party to conspiracy to cover up fraud — Plaintiff was subsequently
detained by police and taken to hospital under Mental Health Act — Plaintiff
brought action against police defendants and Crown prosecutor defendants for
relief for various causes of action — Defendants brought motion for order
striking out statement of claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action —
Motion granted — Plaintiff had not pleaded Crown prosecutor defendants had
acted outside course of their official duties to overcome statutory immunity in
s. 4(8) of Proceedings Against the Crown Act (PACA) — Pleadings fell far short
of what was required to make out cause of action for malicious prosecution — No
notice had been given under s. 15(1) of PACA in any event.
Civil practice and procedure --- Parties — Vexatious proceedings /
Abuse of process
Plaintiff alleged her former
counsel in family dispute conspired with her husband’s counsel to defraud her
of spousal support — Plaintiff alleged police failed to properly investigate
her complaint and were party to conspiracy to cover up fraud — Plaintiff was
subsequently detained by police and taken to hospital under Mental Health Act —
Plaintiff brought action against police defendants and Crown prosecutor
defendants for relief for various causes of action — Defendants successfully
brought motion for order striking out statement of claim as disclosing no
reasonable cause of action — Police defendants brought motion for order
prohibiting plaintiff from continuing proceedings without leave of court —
Motion granted — Order was extended to prohibiting plaintiff from continuing or
commencing proceedings without leave of court — Plaintiff had launched various
proceedings in New Brunswick Provincial Court, Court of Queen’s Bench, and
Court of Appeal — Plaintiff clearly refused to accept any decision or ruling
that prevented her from prosecuting this futile litigation — There was every
indication that plaintiff would relentlessly continue to pursue defendants and
would not stop unless she was stopped — Terminating this litigation was also in
best interests of plaintiff so she could focus her talents and energy on things
that might be of benefit to her instead of squandering them on hopeless cause.
Cases considered by Terrence
J. Morrison J.:
Armstrong v. Tygart
(2012), 886 F.Supp.2d 572 (U.S. W.D. Tex.) — considered
Brooks v. Brooks (2012), 2012 NBQB
401, 2012 CarswellNB 713, 1028 A.P.R. 361, 397 N.B.R. (2d) 361 (N.B.
Q.B.) — considered
Brooks v. Brooks (2012), 2012 NBCA
50, 2012 CarswellNB 332, 2012 CarswellNB 333, 1011 A.P.R. 94, 390 N.B.R. (2d)
94 (N.B. C.A.) — referred to
Brooks v. Brooks (2014), 2014 NBCA
29, 2014 CarswellNB 198, 2014 CarswellNB 199, 1090 A.P.R. 326, 419 N.B.R. (2d)
326 (N.B. C.A.) — referred to
Brooks v. Fredericton City
Police Force (2013), 2013 NBBR
204, 2013 NBQB 204, 2013 CarswellNB 315, 2013 CarswellNB 316, (sub nom.
Brooks v. Fredericton Police Force) 1050 A.P.R. 175, (sub nom.
Brooks v. Fredericton Police Force) 405 N.B.R. (2d) 175 (N.B.
Q.B.) — referred to
Brooks v. Law Society of New
Brunswick (2015), 2015 NBCA
18, 2015 CarswellNB 134, 2015 CarswellNB 135, (sub nom. Brooks v.
Fredericton Police Force) 1130 A.P.R. 371, (sub nom. Brooks v.
Fredericton Police Force) 433 N.B.R. (2d) 371 (N.B. C.A.) —
referred to
Cram v. Nova Veterinary
Clinic Ltd. (2016), 2016 NSSC
181, 2016 CarswellNS 680, 1185 A.P.R. 66, 376 N.S.R. (2d) 66 (N.S.
S.C.) — considered
Deer Island Credit Union
Ltd. v. Simson, Cumming, Webber, a Partnership (2012), 2012 NBCA
92, 2012 CarswellNB 635, 2012 CarswellNB 636, (sub nom. Deer Island
Credit Union Ltd. v. Simson, Cumming, Webber) 1023 A.P.R. 76, (sub
nom. Deer Island Credit Union Ltd. v. Simson, Cumming, Webber) 395
N.B.R. (2d) 76, 356 D.L.R. (4th) 306 (N.B. C.A.) — referred to
Greene v. New Brunswick (2014), 2014 NBBR
168, 2014 NBQB 168, 2014 CarswellNB 626, 2014 CarswellNB 627, (sub nom.
Greene v. New Brunswick (Attorney General)) 1116 A.P.R. 204, (sub
nom. Greene v. New Brunswick (Attorney General)) 428 N.B.R. (2d) 204
(N.B. Q.B.) — referred to
Hamalengwa v. Bentley (2011), 2011 ONSC
4145, 2011 CarswellOnt 7392 (Ont. S.C.J.) — referred to
Knight v. Imperial Tobacco
Canada Ltd. (2011), 2011 SCC
42, 2011 CarswellBC 1968, 2011 CarswellBC 1969, 21 B.C.L.R. (5th) 215, [2011]
11 W.W.R. 215, 25 Admin. L.R. (5th) 1, 86 C.C.L.T. (3d) 1, (sub nom.
British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.) 335 D.L.R. (4th) 513, (sub
nom. British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.) 419 N.R. 1, (sub
nom. British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.) 308 B.C.A.C. 1, (sub
nom. British Columbia v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd.) 521 W.A.C. 1, 83
C.B.R. (5th) 169, [2011] 3 S.C.R. 45 (S.C.C.) — referred to
Kvello v. Miazga (2009), 2009 SCC
51, 2009 CarswellSask 717, 2009 CarswellSask 718, 69 C.C.L.T. (3d) 1, [2010] 1
W.W.R. 45, 395 N.R. 115, 337 Sask. R. 260, 464 W.A.C. 260, (sub nom.
Kvello Estate v. Miazga) 313 D.L.R. (4th) 330, (sub nom. Miazga
v. Kvello Estate) [2009] 3 S.C.R. 339 (S.C.C.) — referred to
Lang Michener Lash Johnston
v. Fabian (1987), 16 C.P.C.
(2d) 93, 59 O.R. (2d) 353, 37 D.L.R. (4th) 685, 1987 CarswellOnt 378
(Ont. H.C.) — considered
Moncton Family Outfitters Ltd.
v. Schelew (2005), 2005 NBQB
273, 2005 CarswellNB 442 (N.B. Q.B.) — considered
Murray v. New Brunswick
Police Commission (2012), 2012
CarswellNB 355, 2012 CarswellNB 356, 1008 A.P.R. 372, 389 N.B.R. (2d) 372
(N.B. C.A.) — considered
Nelles v. Ontario (1989), 69 O.R.
(2d) 448 (note), [1989] 2 S.C.R. 170, 60 D.L.R. (4th) 609, 98 N.R. 321, 35
O.A.C. 161, 41 Admin. L.R. 1, 49 C.C.L.T. 217, 37 C.P.C. (2d) 1, 71 C.R. (3d)
358, 42 C.R.R. 1, 1989 CarswellOnt 963, 1989 CarswellOnt 415, 69 O.R. (2d) 448
(S.C.C.) — referred to
Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse (2003), 2003 SCC
69, 2003 CarswellOnt 4851, 2003 CarswellOnt 4852, 19 C.C.L.T. (3d) 163, 233
D.L.R. (4th) 193, 312 N.R. 305, 180 O.A.C. 201, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 263, 11 Admin.
L.R. (4th) 45, 70 O.R. (3d) 253 (note), [2004] R.R.A. 1, 2003 CSC 69
(S.C.C.) — considered
Pension Coalition NB v. New
Brunswick (Attorney General) (2014), 2014 NBBR
248, 2014 NBQB 248, 2014 CarswellNB 618, 2014 CarswellNB 619, 64 C.P.C. (7th)
291, 1119 A.P.R. 58, 429 N.B.R. (2d) 58 (N.B. Q.B.) — referred to
R. v. Brooks (2012), 2012 NBQB
227, 2012 CarswellNB 383, 1011 A.P.R. 392, 390 N.B.R. (2d) 392 (N.B.
Q.B.) — referred to
Sewell v. Sewell (2007), 2007 NBCA
42, 2007 CarswellNB 280, 2007 CarswellNB 281, 53 C.C.L.I. (4th) 48, 314 N.B.R.
(2d) 330, 812 A.P.R. 330 (N.B. C.A.) — considered
University of New Brunswick
Student Union Inc. v. Smith (1987), 81 N.B.R.
(2d) 397, 205 A.P.R. 397, 1987 CarswellNB 302 (N.B. Q.B.) —
considered
University of New Brunswick
Student Union Inc. v. Smith (1988), 224 A.P.R.
39, 1988 CarswellNB 261, 88 N.B.R. (2d) 39 (N.B. C.A.) — referred to
Statutes considered:
Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part I of the Constitution
Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11
Generally — referred to
Courts
of Justice Act, 1984, S.O. 1984, c. 11
s. 150 — considered
Mental
Health Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-10
Generally
— referred to
s. 9
— considered
s.
10 — considered
s.
66(1) — considered
s. 66(2) — considered
Police
Act, S.N.B. 1977, c. P-9.2
s. 33.1 [en. 1996, c. 26, s.
4] — considered
Proceedings
Against the Crown Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. P-18
Generally
— referred to
s.
4(8) — considered
s.
15 — considered
s. 15(1) — considered
Rules considered:
Rules
of Court, N.B. Reg. 82-73
R.
22 — considered
R.
22.01(3) — considered
R.
22.04 — considered
R.
22.04(1)(a) — considered
R.
22.04(1)(b) — considered
R.
23 — considered
R.
23.01 — considered
R.
23.01(1)(b) — considered
R.
27 — considered
R.
27.09 — considered
R.
37.10 — considered
R.
37.10(a) — considered
R.
76.1.02 [en. 2009, c. 28, s. 11] — considered
R.
76.1.02(1)(a) [en. 2009, c. 28, s. 11] — considered
R. 76.1.02(1)(b) [en.
2009, c. 28, s. 11] — considered
Forms considered:
Mental
Health Act, R.S.N.B. 1973, c. M-10
Form 1 — considered
Words
and phrases considered:
abuse
of process
A
pleading will constitute an abuse of process if it is brought for an improper
purpose or if the Court’s process is misused.
frivolous
and vexatious
[A]
pleading which is without substance or cannot reasonably succeed can be
considered frivolous and vexatious.
scandalous
pleadings
Scandalous pleadings
are those which make immaterial or unfounded allegations of misconduct, bad
faith or impute improper motives to the defendants.
MOTION
by defendants for order striking out statement of claim as disclosing no
reasonable cause of action and prohibiting plaintiff from continuing
proceedings without leave of court.
Terrence
J. Morrison J.:
I. INTRODUCTION
1
The plaintiff, Sarah Brooks, commenced an action
against the Fredericton City Police Force, individual named police officers
(the “Police Defendants”) and individual named crown prosecutors (the
“Prosecutor Defendants”). The plaintiff’s claim relates to two specific events
which the plaintiff claims are inter-related. First, the plaintiff alleges that
her former legal counsel in a family dispute conspired with her ex-husband’s
counsel to defraud her of spousal support. Ms. Brooks reported the alleged
fraud to the Fredericton City Police and she claims that the police failed to
properly investigate her complaint and were party to a conspiracy to cover up
the fraud. The second event occurred on February 6, 2010. On that date officers
of the Fredericton Police Force responded to a call at the plaintiff’s home. An
altercation ensued and the plaintiff was detained and taken to hospital where
she was admitted on a Form 1 under the Mental Health Act. The plaintiff
claims that the police officers unlawfully and forcibly entered her home,
physically overpowered and assaulted her. As a result of this incident the
plaintiff filed complaints against members of the Fredericton Police Force. The
plaintiff alleges that the police falsified police reports and submitted them
to Crown Prosecution Services in an attempt to intimidate her into withdrawing
her complaints. Ms. Brooks alleges that the crown prosecutor launched a
malicious prosecution in collusion with the Fredericton Police Force to coerce
the plaintiff into withdrawing the complaint she made against the Fredericton
Police Force and her divorce legal counsel. This theory espoused by the
plaintiff will be referred to herein as the “Conspiracy Theory”. The plaintiff
claims that she suffered physical injuries as a result of the altercation with
police and that her detention and subsequent prosecution has exacerbated her
mental illness and cost her financial losses as a result of her inability to
work.
2 The Police Defendants brought a
motion (the “Police Motion”) requesting the following relief:
(a)
an order that the plaintiff’s statement of claim be struck for failing to
disclose a reasonable cause of action pursuant to Rule 23.01;
(b)
alternatively, that the plaintiff’s pleadings be struck as being scandalous,
frivolous or vexatious and an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 27.09 with a
companion motion for judgment pursuant to Rule 37.10;
(c)
summary judgment pursuant to Rule 22.01(3) and 22.04; and
(d) that the
plaintiff be prohibited from continuing this proceeding pursuant to Rule
76.1.02(b).
An almost identical motion is brought by the Prosecutor Defendants
(the “Prosecutors’ Motion”) except that relief under Rule 76.1.02 is not
requested.
3 In response to the Police Motion
the plaintiff filed a “Notice of Constitutional Issues” dated April 14, 2016
wherein she opposes the relief sought by the Police Motion and the Prosecutors’
Motion and seeks, among other remedies, the following relief:
a)
that the Police Defendants file a further and better Affidavit of Documents;
b)
leave to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits filed in support of the
Police Motion;
c) a
finding that the plaintiff’s Charter rights have been violated; and
d) a request to
further amend her pleadings.
4 In response to the Prosecutors’
Motion the plaintiff filed a “Notice of Motion/Counter Motion” dated April 25,
2016 wherein she seeks relief similar to that requested in the Notice of
Constitutional Issues.
5 The matter first came before me on
April 29, 2016. At that time I heard representations from the plaintiff and
counsel for the Police Defendants and counsel for the Prosecutor Defendants. I
concluded that the plaintiff’s request to amend her pleadings must await the
outcome of the summary judgment motions. I also concluded that the plaintiff’s
allegations that her Charter rights were violated goes to the question
of whether the defendants should be permitted summary judgment. That left the
plaintiff’s request that the defendants file and serve further and better
Affidavits of Documents and the question of whether the plaintiff would be
permitted to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits filed in support of
the defendants’ motions. I heard argument with respect to these latter two
issues and the matter was adjourned until May 24, 2016. I advised the parties
that I would render a decision on these latter two issues on the return of the
motion. Subsequent to the appearance on April 29, 2016 the matter was adjourned
with the consent of all parties until November 30, 2016.
6 On November 22, 2016 I issued a
decision dismissing the plaintiff’s motions for cross-examination on the
affidavits and for further and better affidavits of documents from the
defendants. The hearing with respect to the defendants’ motions for summary
disposition proceeded on November 30, 2016. Prior to the commencement of the
hearing the plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion dated November 18, 2016 wherein
she seeks, among other things, orders restoring the Law Society of New
Brunswick, Peter Seheult and the New Brunswick Police Commission as defendants
on the basis that the decisions of Justice Clendening and the Court of Appeal
dismissing the actions against them were “beyond their jurisdiction and
constitute a miscarriage of justice”. In that motion the plaintiff also seeks,
among other relief, a declaration that section 33.1 of the Police Act is
unconstitutional. I refused to hear the plaintiff’s latter motion until after
the defendants’ motions for summary disposition were determined. This is the
Court’s decision with respect to the defendants’ motions requesting summary
disposition pursuant to Rules 22, 23 and 27 with companion motions for judgment
under Rule 37.10 and the Police Motion for relief under Rule 76.1.02.
II. ANALYISIS AND DECISION
A. Motions Under Rule 23.01(1)(b)
7
The correct approach to a motion to strike
pleadings under Rule 23.01(1)(b) was set out in Sewell v. Sewell, 2007 NBCA 42
(N.B. C.A.) at paragraph 26:
The principles that
inform the determination of a defendant’s motion to strike under Rule 23.01(1)(b)
are well settled and can be summarized as follows: (1) the only question for
judicial resolution is whether it is plain and obvious that the Statement of
Claim fails to disclose the essential elements of a cause of action tenable at
law. That conclusion should be reached only in the clearest of cases; (2)
correlatively, absent exceptional circumstances, the court must accept as
proved all facts asserted in the Statement of Claim and abstain from looking
beyond the pleading itself and any documents referred to therein (see Hogan v. Doiron (2001), 243 N.B.R.
(2d) 263, 2001 NBCA 97 (N.B. C.A.), para. 38 and Boisvert v. LeBlanc (2005), 294 N.B.R.
(2d) 325, 2005 NBCA 115 (N.B. C.A.), para. 21). To
expand the exercise beyond those limits would operate to morph the motion under
Rule 23.01(1)(b) into an application for summary judgment under Rule 22, the
appropriate vehicle to determine prior to trial whether there is factual merit
to a claim; (3) the Statement of Claim is to be read generously to accommodate
drafting deficiencies; and (4) where a generous reading of its provisions fails
to breath[e] life into a pleading, all suitable amendments should be allowed
(see Rule 27.10(1) and LeDrew v.
Conception Bay South (Town) (2003), 231 Nfld.
& P.E.I.R. 61, 2003 NLCA 56 (N.L. C.A.)). Those
principles reflect the Legislature’s injunction that the Rules be “liberally
construed to secure the just, least expensive and most expeditious
determination of every proceeding on its merits”: Rule 1.03
8 In Odhavji Estate v. Woodhouse, [2003] 3 S.C.R.
263 (S.C.C.) the Supreme Court of Canada reiterated the test to be
applied to motions to strike under a rule similar to Rule 23.01(1)(b) at
paragraph 15:
An
excellent statement of the test for striking out a claim under such provisions
is that set out by Wilson J. in Hunt v. T & N plc, [1990] 2 S.C.R.
959 (S.C.C.), at p. 980:
...assuming that the
facts as stated in the statement of claim can be proved, it is “plain and
obvious” that the plaintiff’s statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause
of action? As in England, if there is a chance that the plaintiff might
succeed, then the plaintiff should not be “driven from the judgment seat”.
Neither the length and complexity of the issues, the novelty of the cause of
action, nor the potential for the defendant to present a strong defence should
prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with his or her case. Only if the action
is certain to fail because it contains a radical defect...should the relevant
portions of a plaintiff’s statement of claim be struck out...
The test is a
stringent one. The facts are to be taken as pleaded. When so taken, the
question that must then be determined is whether there it is “plain and
obvious” that the action must fail. It is only if the statement of claim is
certain to fail because it contains a “radical defect” that the plaintiff
should be driven from the judgment. See also Inuit Tapirisat of Canada v.
Canada (Attorney General), [1980] 2 S.C.R.
735 (S.C.C.).
(See also Knight v. Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., 2011 SCC 42
(S.C.C.) at para. 17; Deer Island Credit Union Ltd. v. Simson, Cumming,
Webber, a Partnership, 2012 NBCA 92
(N.B. C.A.) at paras. 6-8)
9 Generally speaking, the defendants
seek summary judgment under Rule 22 and in the alternative that the entire
claim be struck pursuant to Rules 23 and 27. The defendants ask that the
plaintiff’s claim be struck on the basis that the pleadings, as a whole, do not
disclose a reasonable cause of action and they rely on Rule 23.01(1)(b) in this
regard. However, in support of their general proposition they also argue that
certain statutory provisions afford a defence thus eviscerating the plaintiff’s
alleged cause of action rendering it unreasonable. The defendants also maintain
that the plaintiff’s pleading be struck in its entirety pursuant to Rule 27.09.
I will deal first with the Police Motion under Rule 23.01(1)(b) then move on to
address the Prosecution Motion for the same relief.
10 As far as I am able to glean, the
allegations against the Police Defendants fall into two separate categories:
1.
Allegations of assault and false arrest against the officers who detained the
plaintiff at her home on February 8, 2010; and
2. Allegations against
the officers who investigated the plaintiff’s complaints.
The former allegations are contained in paragraphs, 56-62, 65,
72-79, 84-86, 102-103 and 149 and of the Amended Statement of Claim and the
latter in paragraphs 47-49, 132-139, 142-143 and 163-164. The defendant police
officers Roberts, Banks, DeCourcey and Flemming are the officers who responded
to the plaintiff’s residence. They allege in their Statement of Defence (para.
6) that the police were responding to a call from Fredericton Mental Health
Clinic when they attended at the plaintiff’s home and therefore were operating
under the authority of the Mental Health Act. The plaintiff acknowledges
that the police were acting pursuant to the Mental Health Act but not
pursuant to s. 10. She argues they should have proceeded under s. 9, but that
they acted improperly in arresting her when they had no power or grounds to do
so under the Mental Health Act. (see para. 69 of Amended Statement of
Claim and paras. 5, 7 and 8 of Notice of Constitutional Issues).
11 The Police Defendants argue that
the Attorney General has not consented to the commencement of the plaintiff’s
action and thus section 66(1) of the Mental Health Act is a complete
defence. Section 66(1) provides as follows:
No action, prosecution
or other proceedings shall be brought or be instituted against any officer,
nurse, clerk, attendant or other employee of a psychiatric facility, or against
any other person, for an act done in pursuance of execution or intended
execution of any duty or authority under this Act or the regulations, or in
respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such duty or
authority, without the consent of the Attorney General.
12 The Police Defendants also plead
and rely on section 66(2) of the Mental Health Act which provides as
follows:
All prosecutions
against any person, for anything done or omitted to be done in pursuance of
this Act, shall be commenced within six months after the act or omission
complained of has been committed or occurred, and not afterwards.
13 The only plaintiff’s pleadings
which are disclosed on the record are the Amended Notice of Action and Amended
Statement of Claim filed on January 27, 2012. However, the Clerk’s Office has a
record of a Notice of Action having been filed on February 6, 2012. In any
event, the plaintiff’s action was filed well outside the statutory limitation
period.
14 In my view, the above statutory
provisions constitute a complete bar to the plaintiff’s action against the
defendants. Accordingly, it is plain and obvious to me that the plaintiff’s
allegations against these defendants do not disclose a reasonable cause of
action and are hereby struck.
15 The allegations against the
remaining Police Defendants, MacKnight, Bourque, Ford and Copp, are with
respect to their investigation of the plaintiff’s complaint of spousal support
fraud and collusion by two family law lawyers and for failing to diligently
investigate her complaint against the four police officers who responded to her
home on February 6, 2010. As far as I can discern from the plaintiff’s
pleadings the claim against these defendants is based in negligence in failing
to conduct a proper investigation. My review of the paragraphs in the Amended
Statement of Claim pertaining to defendants MacKnight, Bourque, Ford and Copp
reveals no allegations of bad faith. The Police Defendants rely on section 33.1
of the Police Act which provides as follows:
No
action lies for damages or otherwise against any of the following persons in
relation to anything done or purported to be done in good faith, or in relation
to anything omitted in good faith, under this Act by the person:
(a)
the Commission;
(b)
the chair or a former chair of the Commission;
(c)
the vice-chair or a former vice-chair of the Commission;
(d)
any other member or former member of the Commission;
(e)
any employee or former employee of the Commission; and
(f) an investigator
appointed to investigate a conduct complaint under Division C of Part III or
Division B of Part III.1.
16 As mentioned, the plaintiff’s
pleadings do not set out any facts that would constitute bad faith on behalf of
these defendants. The plaintiff’s failure to specifically plead bad faith or
any facts from which an inference of bad faith can be drawn is fatal to her
claim against these defendants (Hamalengwa v. Bentley, [2011] O.J. No.
3477 (Ont. S.C.J.); Brooks v. Fredericton City Police Force, 2013 NBQB 204
(N.B. Q.B.) at paras. 4-9 affirmed [Brooks v. Law
Society of New Brunswick] 2015 NBCA 18
(N.B. C.A.) at para. 18). Given that the plaintiff’s claim with respect to
these defendants is statute-barred it is plain and obvious that the allegations
against them disclose no reasonable cause of action and are hereby struck.
There are no specific causes of action alleged against the City of Fredericton
or the Fredericton Police Force in the Amended Statement of Claim. Any exposure
to liability for these defendants would be vicarious. Given that the claims
against their servant police officers have been struck then the claims against
the City of Fredericton and The Fredericton Police Force must also fail.
17 I will turn now to the motion
under Rule 23.01(1)(b) brought by the Prosecutor Defendants. As far as can be
determined from the plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim, the allegations
against the Prosecutor Defendants are found in paragraphs 36, 39, 41, 140, 148
to 155, 158, 159, 161 and 162 thereof. They fall basically into two categories:
negligence and malicious prosecution. (I will deal specifically with the issue
of malicious prosecution later.) The allegations all relate to things done or
omitted to be done by the Prosecutor Defendants in the course of their duties.
The Prosecutor Defendants therefore plead and rely upon section 4(8) of the Proceedings
Against the Crown Act (”PACA”) which provides as follows:
Notwithstanding any
provision of this or any other Act, no proceedings lie directly against an
officer or agent of the Crown, in the name of the officer or agent or in the
name of his or her office, in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by
the officer or agent in the course of the performance or purported performance
of his or her duties.
18 In my view, in order for the
plaintiff to advance a legitimate claim against the Prosecutor Defendants
personally she would have had to plead material facts demonstrating that they
were acting outside the course of their official duties. As mentioned, all of
the allegations relate to things done or omitted to be done by the Prosecutor
Defendants in the course of the performance of their duties. Accordingly, the
claims against the Prosecutor Defendants are statute-barred by virtue of
section 4(8) of PACA.
19 I will turn now to what appear to
be allegations of malicious prosecution. These are found in paragraphs 140,
149, 150, 152, 154 and 155 and read as follows:
140 Blunston
was negligent when she filed a letter with the court stating that she knew of
no “case law” requiring Charter Rights to be provided when a person is
involuntarily detained to hospital and she failed to state sections 7.4 and
10.1 of the NB Mental Health Act, which both state the requirement for
both the hospital and police to immediately inform of Charter rights to retain
and instruct counsel or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms requirement for the
same - Blunston was either negligent or willfully misleading the Court and
Plaintiff.
149 Roberts,
Banks, Fleming and Decourcey, Corby, Blunston and Drain knowingly instigated
and proceeded with charges and a prosecution against the Plaintiff based on
falsified police reports and since the reports were written to be submitted as
evidence to a court of law, the Plaintiff maintains this constitutes perjury
and abuse of process.
150
Corby frivolously and vexatiously accepted the charges against the Plaintiff
for prosecution without lawful grounds and (the following being examples and
not a comprehensive list of his failure to properly pre-screen the charges and
FPF investigation):
• in
spite of there being no public interest in so doing,
• in
spite of Corby having to alter the charges from resisting “arrest” to resisting
“lawful detention” in order to contrive a charge that was even vaguely
plausible
• in
spite of there having been no lawful grounds to arrest the Plaintiff,
• in
spite of Corby having evidence before him of police misconduct resulting in the
Plaintiff being charged with “Assault with intent to resist arrest” where there
were clearly no legal grounds for arrest of the Plaintiff
• in
spite of the FPF reports, constituting disclosure, stating the FPF
officers material to the incident had never informed the Plaintiff of any
intention to arrest or detain her yet they charged her with resisting the same
• in
spite of the clear evidence from the FPF that the officers themselves initiated
assault and battery against the Plaintiff
• in
spite of the evidence that the Plaintiff was suffering from mental conditions
of anxiety and severe depression,
• in
spite of having full knowledge that criminal charges and prosecution would
cause further extreme mental distress to the Plaintiff,
• in
spite of the Plaintiff not having any criminal record or criminal tendencies,
• in
spite of the five reports and dispatch records comprising the Disclosure
document confirming that the officers’ reports each conflicted in their
descriptions of the facts and
• in spite of the FPF
dispatch records confirming the time-frame of one minute and fifty eight
seconds between the four FPF officers arriving at the Plaintiff’s home and
completing her arrest precluded any possibility of the police having conducted
themselves in a manner to preserve, uphold and protect the Plaintiff’s Charter
Right and Freedom not to be subjected to arbitrary search and seizure,
unnecessary and arbitrary, violent home invasion, assault and battery with
aggravating circumstances, detention and imprisonment and confirm there was no
possibility of the Plaintiff having premeditated any acts against the invading
officers of the FPF, which is a requirement under the Criminal Code of Canada
for the criminal act of assault to have been committed.
152 Corby
altered and amended the police charges from two counts of “Assault with
intent to resist arrest” - which had no lawful substantiation and could not
have been prosecuted - to “Assault with intent to resist lawful detention”
and therefore contrived to create charges that did not exist and which the
evidence could not substatiate, thereby instigating a malicious and unlawful
prosecution with no reasonable or just grounds and in spite of the Plaintiffs
mental ill health and overwhelming evidence that is was in fact the Plaintiff
who was a victim of FPF wrongdoing.
154
In knowingly accepting charges against the Plaintiff for prosecution that had
no lawful grounds, knowing the Plaintiff’s Charter Rights to counsel were
violated, knowing that the FPF reports submitted as evidence of the “crimes
were fabricated and/or implausible, and knowing the charges were to be prosecuted
against a mentally distress person, Corby has behaved negligently and breached
public trust and disobeyed a statute.
155 Blunston and
Drain later proceeded to accept the case and continue to prosecute the
Plaintiff, thereby participating in the malicious prosecution, until 22nd June
when the Deputy Attorney General stayed proceedings against the Plaintiff with
immediate effect after twenty three months of prosecution and twenty eight
months of suffering distress and anxiety by the Plaintiff since the incident of
6th February 2010.
20 Essentially, the plaintiff
alleges that the defendant Corby acted maliciously by pursuing a prosecution
which he knew was based on falsified police reports. She alleges that the
defendants Blunston and Drain also acted maliciously by continuing that
prosecution. The test for making out a claim of malicious prosecution is an
onerous one. The plaintiff must plead material facts which would demonstrate
that the proceedings:
a)
were initiated by the defendants;
b)
were terminated in favour of the plaintiff;
c)
were undertaken without reasonable and probable cause; and
d) were motivated by
malice or a primary purpose other than carrying the law into effect.
(see Nelles v. Ontario, [1989] 2 S.C.R.
170 (S.C.C.)).
21 The last element is one which
requires the plaintiff to plead facts which would establish the deliberate and
malicious use of the prosecutor’s office for ends that are improper and
inconsistent with that office (Kvello v. Miazga, 2009 SCC 51
(S.C.C.)). In my view, the pleadings fall far short of that which is required
to make out a cause of action for malicious prosecution.
22 Insofar as the allegations
against the Defendant Prosecutors relate to their official functions as agents
of the Crown then section 15 of PACA must be considered. The plaintiff’s
claim against the Prosecutor Defendants is primarily for damages and not for
declaratory relief. It is a claim directly against the interests of the Crown.
As such, it is a claim that historically could only be brought by way of a
petition of right procedure. That procedure has been subsumed by PACA (see
Pension Coalition NB v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), 2014 NBQB 248
(N.B. Q.B.) at paras. 39-48). In short, it is a claim to which section 15(1) of
PACA applies:
No action shall be
brought against the Crown unless two months previous notice in writing thereof
has been served on the Attorney General, or on the corporation in the case of
an action to be brought against a Crown corporation, in which notice the name
and residence of the proposed plaintiff, cause of action, and the court in
which it is to be brought shall be explicitly stated.
23 The plaintiff did not give notice
to the Attorney General as required and thus the cause of action against the
Prosecutor Defendants cannot proceed.
24 For the foregoing reasons I
conclude that it is plain and obvious that the allegations against the
Prosecutor Defendants disclose no reasonable cause of action and are hereby
struck.
B. Motions Under Rule 27.09 -Frivolous and Vexatious Pleadings
25
In the event that I am wrong with respect to any
of the above conclusions I will proceed to deal with the motions pursuant to
Rule 27.09. It is clear that this Court may strike a pleading that is
frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process pursuant to either Rule 27.09 or
its inherent jurisdiction. In Moncton Family Outfitters Ltd. v. Schelew, 2005 NBQB 273
(N.B. Q.B.) at paragraph 49 the Court adopts the reasoning of Justice Dickson
in University of New Brunswick Student Union Inc. v. Smith, [1987] N.B.J. No.
263 (N.B. Q.B.) upheld on appeal at [1988] N.B.J. No.
240 (N.B. C.A.):
In
dismissing the two actions on the basis that they both were frivolous,
vexatious, without merit and an abuse of process, Justice Dickson writes at
paragraph 18 to 20:
18
The law applicable in this jurisdiction is essentially as set out in Halsbury
(4th Ed.) Vol. 37 where in paragraph 430 it is stated:
430.
Summary powers to strike out pleadings, dismiss actions and enter judgments.
The court is invested with extensive powers to strike out pleadings and
thereupon, or for other good reason arising from the making of the claim or
defence, to dismiss actions by plaintiffs or to enter judgments against
defendants. These powers are both salutary and necessary not only to enforce
the basic rules of pleadings but also to dispose of proceedings which are
hopeless, baseless or without foundation in law or in equity or are otherwise
an abuse of the process of the court. The powers are exercised by the court by
summary process, speedily and generally at an early stage of the proceedings,
and they operate as a powerful, effective method of disposing of proceedings
without a plenary trial.
The
powers are derived from two parallel sources. First they are conferred by rules
of court and secondly they are exercisable under the court’s inherent
jurisdiction. These sources are cumulative, not alternative, and may be invoked
by the parties and employed by the court simultaneously.
However, the powers are permissive, not mandatory, and they confer a
discretionary jurisdiction which the court will exercise in the light of all
the circumstances concerning the offending pleading. This discretion will be
exercised by applying two fundamental, although complementary, principles. The
first principle is that the parties will not lightly “be driven from the seat
of judgment,” and for this reason the court will exercise its discretionary
power with the greatest care and circumspection, and only in the clearest of
cases. The second principle is that a stay or even dismissal of proceedings may
“often be required by the very essence of justice to be done,” so as to prevent
the parties being harassed and put to expense by frivolous, vexatious or
hopeless litigation.
(emphasis added)
26 Is the plaintiff’s pleading
frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process? What constitutes such a pleading
was extensively canvassed by Justice Glennie in Greene v. New Brunswick, 2014 NBQB 168
(N.B. Q.B.) at paragraphs 155-185 and will not be repeated here. In summary,
though, a pleading which is without substance or cannot reasonably succeed can
be considered frivolous and vexatious. Scandalous pleadings are those which
make immaterial or unfounded allegations of misconduct, bad faith or impute
improper motives to the defendants. A pleading will constitute an abuse of
process if it is brought for an improper purpose or if the Court’s process is
misused.
27 The plaintiff’s entire claim is
predicated on the Conspiracy Theory: that her former legal counsel and that of
her ex-husband conspired to defraud her of spousal support and that the police
and prosecutors were in a conspiracy to cover up that alleged fraud. The
plaintiff’s Conspiracy Theory has been debunked in several court decisions. In Brooks
v. Brooks, 2012 NBQB 401
(N.B. Q.B.) Justice Wooder had this to say about the plaintiff’s conspiracy
theory at paragraph 7:
Ms.
Brooks has spent much of the past four and a half years regretting and
attempting to challenge the Consent Order. She has raised various allegations
against the lawyers involved and against Mr. Brooks. The specifics need not be
detailed here, but they include such complaints as fraud, negligence,
unconscionable conduct, perjury and bad faith. This list is not exhaustive.
One of her consistent and principal complaints is that the Spousal Support
Advisory Guidelines calculations on which the spousal support was based were
flawed, and considerable time has been spent by Ms. Brooks in explaining and
detailing what she perceives to be the errors. Both the motion judge and the
Court of Appeal dealt with that allegation, and legally at least, it has been
put to rest.
(emphasis added)
28 In Brooks v. Fredericton City
Police Force, 2013 NBQB 204
(N.B. Q.B.) Justice Clendening commented on the plaintiff’s Conspiracy Theory
at paragraph 20:
It
is truly unfortunate that Ms. Brooks has been unable to move forward with her
life because of her preoccupation with the issue of spousal support which has
been disposed of on many occasions in Family Division, and with the events of 6
February 2010 which have been dealt with in another court. It is difficult to
watch Ms. Brooks attempt to navigate the legal system without having empathy
for her. She is always polite, respectful and articulate, but she is
obsessed about events for which there is no legal solution,
because there is no basis for a court action in regard to either of the events
with which she is preoccupied.
(emphasis added)
(affirmed by the Court of Appeal at 2015 NBCA 18
(N.B. C.A.)).
29 Considering the previous judicial
pronouncements referred to above and my own review of the Record it is clear
that the underlying theory of the plaintiff’s case is completely without merit.
Success is hopeless. On that basis alone the entire Amended Statement of Claim
is frivolous and vexatious. Furthermore, the pleading consists of 30 pages and
193 paragraphs which are replete with insulting language, allegations of
serious criminal misconduct, conclusions and argument. In my view, the pleading
is not only frivolous and vexatious but also scandalous and an abuse of
process.
30 The pleading that was adjudicated
upon in Brooks v. Law
Society of New Brunswick is the very same pleading that is
before me in these motions. Justice Clendening’s comments condemn the pleadings
as prolix, irrelevant and devoid of material facts. In so doing Justice
Clendening quoted from Armstrong v. Tygart [886 F.Supp.2d 572
(U.S. W.D. Tex. 2012)], Case No. A-12-CA-606-SS from the State of
Texas, USA and Justice Robertson’s comments at paragraph 10 of Murray v. New
Brunswick Police Commission, [2012] N.B.J. No.
211 (N.B. C.A.). The Court of Appeal not only concluded that Justice
Clendening’s references to the observations in those two cases were entirely
justified it went further and declared the action against the respondents to be
an abuse of process. At paragraph 29 it states:
In
our view, the motion judge’s references to the American case and to Robertson
J.A.’s observations were entirely justified. While it is the function of the
justice system to serve the public, it does not give individuals a right to
abuse the service. This appeal, just like the underlying action against the
respondents to this appeal, is devoid of any merit. Just like the action
against these respondents, the appeal is frivolous. It is an abuse of the
justice system.
(emphasis added)
31 The foregoing pronouncements were
with respect to the very same Amended Statement of Claim which is before me.
Although arguably those findings are confined to the specific allegations against
the specific respondents in that case, in my view there is no material
difference between the allegations at issue in Brooks v. Law
Society of New Brunswick and the allegations at issue in this
motion. I conclude that the plaintiff’s pleadings disclose no reasonable cause
of action against the defendants and are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of
process. The plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim, in its entirety, against
the defendants herein is hereby struck.
32 The defendants’ motions for
judgment pursuant to Rules 22.01(3), 22.04(1)(a) and (b) and 37.10(a) are
hereby granted and the plaintiff’s action in its entirety is hereby dismissed.
C. Motion under Rule 76.1.02
33
The Police Defendants have brought a motion
requesting an order prohibiting the plaintiff from continuing the prosecution
of the within action pursuant to Rule 76.1.02(b) which provides as follows:
76.1.02
Order made by a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench
(1)
Where a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench is satisfied, on application, that
a person has persistently and without reasonable grounds commenced vexatious
proceedings in the Court of Queen’s Bench or the Small Claims Court or has
persistently and without reasonable grounds conducted a proceeding in a
vexatious manner in the Court of Queen’s Bench or the Small Claims Court, the
judge may make an order containing either or both of the following
prohibitions:
(a)
prohibiting the person from commencing any further proceeding in the Court of
Queen’s Bench or the Small Claims Court except with leave of a judge of the Court
of Queen’s Bench; and
(b) prohibiting the
person from continuing a proceeding previously commenced in the Court of
Queen’s Bench or the Small Claims Court except with leave of a judge of the
Court of Queen’s Bench.
34 Counsel for the Police Defendants
was unable to refer me to any reported decisions in which Rule 76.1.02 was
applied. However, there is jurisprudence from Ontario interpreting a similar
provision found in section 150 of the Courts of Justice Act S.O. 1984 c.
11. In Lang Michener Lash Johnston v. Fabian, [1987] O.J. No.
355 (Ont. H.C.) Justice Henry outlined the factors to be considered
when making a declaration that a party is a vexatious litigant. At paragraph 20
he outlined those factors:
From
these decisions the following principles may be extracted:
(a)
the bringing of one or more actions to determine an issue which has already
been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction constitutes a vexatious
proceeding;
(b)
where it is obvious that an action cannot succeed, or if the action would lead
to no possible good, or if no reasonable person can reasonably expect to obtain
relief, the action is vexatious;
(c)
vexatious actions include those brought for an improper purpose, including the
harassment and oppression of other parties by multifarious proceedings brought
for purposes other than the assertion of legitimate rights;
(d)
it is a general characteristic of vexatious proceedings that grounds and issues
raised tend to be rolled forward into subsequent actions and repeated and
supplemented, often with actions brought against the lawyers who have acted for
or against the litigant in earlier proceedings;
(e)
in determining whether proceedings are vexatious, the court must look at the
whole history of the matter and not just whether there was originally a good
cause of action;
(f)
the failure of the person instituting the proceedings to pay the costs of
unsuccessful proceedings is one factor to be considered in determining whether
proceedings are vexatious;
(g) the respondent’s
conduct in persistently taking unsuccessful appeals from judicial decisions can
be considered vexatious conduct of legal proceedings.
35 The plaintiff has launched
various proceedings in the Provincial Court, Court of Queen’s Bench and Court
of Appeal. Among those proceedings was an appeal of a decision of a Provincial
Court Judge refusing to hear Charter issues raised by her before the
commencement of the trial. The appeal was brought even after the criminal
charges underlying the proceeding had been stayed and she raised 40 grounds of
appeal (R. v. Brooks, 2012 NBQB 227
(N.B. Q.B.)). Others include Brooks v. Brooks, 2012 NBQB 401
(N.B. Q.B.), Brooks v. Brooks, 2012 NBCA 50
(N.B. Q.B.), Brooks v. Brooks, 2014 NBCA 29
(N.B. Q.B.) and Brooks v. Law
Society of New Brunswick, supra, and its appeal to which
I have already referred. With respect to the present motions, rather than
filing a cogent response the plaintiff filed a “Notice of Constitutional
Issues” seeking cross-examination of affiants, further affidavits of documents
and raising a host of issues and claims. In oral argument counsel for the
Police Defendants stated that there are currently outstanding costs awards
against the plaintiff in the amount of at least $14,000.00. However, I have
been unable to locate any evidence in the Record to substantiate the amount of
costs awarded in previous proceedings except for $4,000 in costs awarded at
trial and appeal in connection with Brooks v. Law
Society of New Brunswick (Record pp. 1089-1090). I could locate
no evidence that costs awarded have or have not been paid by Ms. Brooks.
36 Perhaps most telling is the fact
that just 12 days before the hearing of these motions the plaintiff filed a
motion wherein she seeks to restore as defendants The Law Society of New
Brunswick, Peter Seheult, and the New Brunswick Police Commission. Her grounds
for doing so are that “the previous orders of Justice Clendening and the Court
of Appeal of New Brunswick were beyond their jurisdiction and constitute a
miscarriage of justice”. Clearly, the plaintiff refuses to accept any decision
or ruling which prevents her from prosecuting this futile litigation. There is
every indication that the plaintiff will relentlessly continue to pursue the
defendants. The Notice of Motion just referred to contains the following among
its statement of grounds:
3.
The Plaintiff also wishes to bring this application to the Court’s attention
since, if the Law Society, NB Police Commission and Seheult are not restored
as defendants, she will exercise her rights to file new actions and claims
against the Law Society, Seheult and the NB Police Commission, for which
the limitation expires two years after the Court of Appeal decision in April
2015.
Any
new action will include the Attorney General and the Province of New Brunswick.
(emphasis added)
37 The plaintiff will not stop
unless she is stopped. In the recent case of Cram v. Nova Veterinary Clinic
Ltd., 2016 NSSC 181
(N.S. S.C.) the Court was asked to restrain a plaintiff who had persistently
instituted vexatious proceedings. In issuing an order forbidding the plaintiff
from commencing any proceeding or taking any further steps in the existing
proceeding Justice Campbell stated at paragraph 51:
The
courts have to remain open to difficult, obstreperous, annoying, unreasonable,
foolish, irrational, wasteful, and mean-spirited people. They are not
restricted to internet blogs and postings on news websites. To some extent the
legal system can become an open mike for the angry. But when a person
crosses over into using multiple legal processes themselves as a cudgel to
wreak vengeance on an opponent, the court is obliged to restrain them.
(emphasis added)
38 If the plaintiff is permitted
unrestricted access to the courts I have little doubt that the defendants and
others whom she perceives have wronged her will be subjected to continuing
legal harassment by the plaintiff and the expenditure of further costs, time
and energy. Furthermore, I believe that terminating this litigation is also in
the best interests of the plaintiff. In her submissions to the Court Ms. Brooks
advised that she has mental health issues and that this litigation has been
stressful for her. Ms. Brooks is intelligent, articulate and resourceful and
has been respectful in her appearances before me. Prohibiting the plaintiff
from further litigating these issues will allow her to focus her talents and energy
on things that may be of benefit to her instead of squandering them on a
hopeless cause. In the circumstances, I am obliged to restrain the plaintiff.
Accordingly, the motion by the Police Defendants for an order pursuant to Rule
76.1.02 is granted. The motion seeks relief only with respect to the present
proceeding under 76.1.02 (1) (b). However, when an application is brought and
the Court is satisfied that the person is a persistent vexatious litigant the
Rule gives the Court the authority to make an order under either or both of
Rules 76.1.02 (a) and (b). Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that:
(a)
the plaintiff is prohibited from commencing any further proceeding in the Court
of Queen’s Bench or the Small Claims Court except with leave of a judge of the
Court of Queen’s Bench; and
(b) the plaintiff is
prohibited from continuing a proceeding previously commenced in the Court of
Queen’s Bench or the Small Claims Court, including the present proceeding,
except with leave of a judge of the Court of Queen’s Bench.
III. COSTS
39
Costs are awarded and payable forthwith by the
plaintiff to the defendants in the amount of $6,000.00 as follows:
a)
One set of costs in the amount of $3,000.00 collectively to the Police
Defendants;
b) One set of costs
in the amount of $3,000.00 collectively to the Prosecutor Defendants.
Motion granted.
End
of Document
|
Copyright © Thomson Reuters Canada Limited or its licensors
(excluding individual court documents). All rights reserved.
|
Hello,
ReplyDeleteI'm Dr Ogudugu, a real and genuine spell caster/Spiritual healer with years of experience in spell casting and an expert in all spells, i specialize exclusively in LOVE SPELL/GET REUNITE WITH EX LOVER, MONEY SPELL, POWERFUL MAGIC RING, ANY COURT CASES, FRUIT OF THE WOMB, HIV CURE, CURE FOR CANCER, HERPES, DIABETE, HERPERTITIS B, PARKINSON’S HERBAL CURE, BECOMING A MERMAID, BECOMING A VAMPIRE, SAVE CHILD BIRTH. They are all %100 Guaranteed QUICK Results, it most work. If you have any problem and you need a real and genuine spell caster to solve your problems, contact me now through my personal Email Address with problem case...Note-you can also Text/Call on WhatsApp.
Contact me -
Email: greatogudugu@gmail.com
WhatsApp No: +27663492930