IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FILE No:100/05 CA.
OF
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FREDERICTON.
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATIONSATION PAYABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPROPIATION ACT, R,S NB. 1973, CE-14 ARISING OUT OF AN EXPROPIATION CARRIED OUT UNDER THE SAID ACT, AND ALL OTHER ACTS THAT FLOW FROM THE EXPROPIATION.
IN THE MATTER OF NOTICE OF A STATUS HEARING ARISING OUT OF THE APPEAL OF MATTERS
BETWEEN-------------------------------------- RICHARD A, HARRIS PRESIDENT OF
H.A.R. CONSTRUCTION LIMITED.
Supreme Court of
APPLICANTS
AND HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN, IN THE RIGHT OF THE PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK AS REPRESENTED BY THE MINISTER OF
TRANSPORTATION.
RESPONDENTS.
AND IN THE MATTER IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF
COURT, FILE No: F/C 187/04 .
Between H.A.R. CONSTRUCTION LIMITED AND RICHARD HARRIS PLAINTIFFS,
AND W. H. GOODWIN & CO.LTD. AND
I, Richard Harris of
AFFIDAVIT
HEREBY MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS THAT
1. I am a Taxi driver now, and, as such, have personal knowledge of the matters deposed to herein: I, Richard Harris MAKE OATH AND Will Swear on the BIBLE that the first time I had any knowledge of the highway being relocated or re-aligned to a different place was on or about December 20, 1996, while I was up at Coburn’ junkyard.
On or about
day when I was at my now ex.-lawyers office. They gave me a number two draft Copy of Mr. .Goodwin Report. This I did not request to be done by Mr. Goodwin. On or about March 5, 2005, I received a letter from my lawyers Douglas Caldwell or his team, that they would be discontinuing the following claims,7E,7G,7h,7i,, 7k and 7n .
I, Richard Harris did not agree to the removal of the above facts and evidence, pertaining to all the losses I have suffered in the matter that started on
I, Richard Harris believe that I have been deliberately mis-represented by my lawyer’s firm, and all the subsequent lawyers from the start of June of 1997.
I believe that the Government knew that there could be conflict of interest in ensuing expropriations Cases.
In an Expropriation there are really two fundamental steps. The first is to determine the highest and best use of the property expropriated.
The second is to fix the Compensation to be awarded to the owner based on such use. In the case of Farlinger Developments Ltd. V, East York ,(1975),8L.C.R. 112 (
5. There was only two opinions of appraisals in Court on March of 2005, see Exhibit A.
Date:
Please Find Enclosed the Tentative Subdivision Inspection Report For:
H.A.R. Construction Subdivision 92-1 parish of Burton Sunbury Co.,N.B.
Now for some reason the name that was all ready established for this property would change to the Richard Harris Subdivision. But what is obvious here would be the continuous of legal size building lots on the subject’s property, this was the highest and best use. The use was to start in 1997, and not any later than that. See share holders loan, to H.A R. Construction limited. How else would a licensed carpenter get back his loan to his company, as this is what he had left to work with after March of 1996.
The potential legal size 18-Building lots. Fact, the gravel pit property was gone by
Expropriation case Law on COST. The Compensation Provisions of the Act have been founded upon one basic principle, that an Expropriated owner is entitled to economic reinstatement, that is, he is entitled to be put back in the same economic Position that he was in prior to the Expropriation.
At this time I would like to ask the Honourable Justice Richard to bring forth some orders.
· That I will be granted the Right to respresent my company’s interests, as well as my own in all matters that go forth from this date. Meaning also on the Goodwin Matter.
· That I will be granted the right to Information from the Minister of Transportation and Minister of Justice, not only documentspertaining to the cases but also answers. On the truth of abuses in this matter Expropriation.
· That I be granted an order to have my 10 bankers boxes of documents returned to me that I may make adequate representation.
· That I will also get copy of all memo to files, affidavits, sent E Mails, Email memorandums, meeting notes and what ever else information that is on paper about myself.
· That I will be granted a order to be given at least six months after the day I have my 10 boxes of files to put my costs in order, to put forth to the Government to have my cost tax along with the lawyers bill of costs.
· On or about
So I would think the offer was tossed out.? But if not, maybe this is why I have not got my Files back yet.
I would like to plead to the Honourable Justice Richard to delay the Motion hearing set for
6 Under the Rules of Court, where an appeal has not been perfected within 4 months after the order, decision or judgment appealed from, a status hearing is required to inquire as to why the appeal has not been perfected.
· See exhibit B three page letter to the court of Appeal of
This Exhibit B has attachments that I will try to keep in order.
The first issue with my appeal is under the Rules of Court. I have been told that a person can not represent his own Company. The biggest loss of money was property in the Company name of H.A.R. Construction Limited. Now would it be financial feasible to continue this appeal in Richard Harris’ name only. The Babineau report said that the lots 92-1 & 92-2 was only worth $ 31,000 dollars . Judge David Russell has paid the sun of $6,ooo thousand Dollars more. This is a difference of $ 5,ooo thousand Dollars. now to perfect or transcribe the court proceedings would cost,so I have been told, as much as $12,000. and there was a lots of testamony due to the fact that after September 30,1997, the Property became a total burden to me and my son. Different lawyers have told me that they would represent me and the company in the appeal for around 30 to 40 thousand dollars. Now this total could be more than $60 thousand dollars by time the matter could be be settled. And there still would not be one cent for me.
Now this fight has already cost me my total life work for the last 10 years.
· Based upon there was a lot of lying going on in Court.
· A lot of this was to due with the Goodwin matters.
· I believed as the Rules of court and how Goodwin put around $5,000 as a market value in his report he, which played a large part in the decision of June 3,2005, to pay only $ 2,726.dollars for the H. A. R. property.
Well if the decision was based on the Babineau report, Goodwin would be on the hook as to Market Value and to the highest and best use. Remember I paid Goodwin $21,ooo by July of 1999 when I saw the report in draft. To this day I am unsure of which type of report was filed. Eg: commercial, subdivision, etc.
Now this brings us to the New Brunswick Association of Real Estate Appraisers Act. On or about May of 2001, I asked what kind of report did Goodwin do.
On or about the end of January in a phone call with Susan Mackenzie, she said to me “he did a commercial report”. So I guess commercial land in Haney town is not worth much when you get paid only $2,726 for it, And I was forced to give a Goodwin $21,ooo clear the matter in 1999 and still not received due compensation, and due to family stress caused by financial difficulties lost my wife. And now he brings on a motion and saying I am delaying him.
(Exhibit C) I will only burden you with this one page out of the 9 more particulars that I was trying to enter at discovery hearing of March 24, 2004. These were also given to my accountants before court, on February 22, 2005 and you should see his bill for two day of delay. That went to the lawyers and when I found out about it. I had him send me a copy. After my triple bypass heart surgery, I was forced to take the money from decision in December of 2005.
7 Exhibit C is a 5 page affidavit of Susan MacKENZIE that explains why it took more of my time to find out what kind of report that Goodwin did.
8.Exhibit D Is a 7 page Affidavit of W. Harrison Goodwin. Now in order to get to court I was forced to hire Mr. Goodwin. Mr. Goodwin after the meeting with D. O. T. in my lawyers office in
On March of 2001 I was told over and over by my lawyers that they would need a report of a AACI Appraiser to go to Court. I was also told by another lawyer I would need a report from another AACI appraiser to start action against Mr. Goodwin.
9. Notice of Motion is Exhibit E brought on by Goodwin lawyer Hugh J. Cameron.
10. Exhibit F Letter of the Ombudsman Right to Information Act. This is more of my time being wasted here. It has to do getting evidence of lying going on in court where that the Government knew my intended property use and what I did for a living . I started see the Ombudsman in 1997 with evidence of abuse in the system.
11. Exhibit G One page Affidavit of Caroline Lafontaine Sworn on January 29 Day of 2007.
12. On the Status Hearing, the Presiding Judge may fix a time within the appeal must be perfected and the appeal will be dismissed for delay if it is not so perfected.
· Exhibit H ( Case law of supreme Court of
13 Given the state of my health, my preference would be that the Honourable Justice Richard will grant me to act for my defunct company on all matters .
14 paragraph 36 where I only being paid for Property in Pieces and Size that there would not even be a market For.
Sworn to Before me at the City of
And
This-_________Day of February, 2007.
_____________________ __________________
A Commissioner of Oaths.
TEXTAREA_ID
No comments:
Post a Comment