Lawyer Douglas Caldwell

By Practice Area Aboriginal Administrative law Agriculture Banking/Financial Services Bankruptcy/Insolvency Child Protection Law Civil Litigation Commercial Real Estate Construction Corporate Finance/Securities Corporate/Commercial Criminal Law Estate Planning Expropriation Family Law Forestry Health Law Insurance Labour and Employment Malpractice - Medical Malpractice - Professional Motor Vehicle Litigation Municipal Law Personal Injury Privacy Law Probate Real Property Taxation Wills







A seasoned lawyer who is a recognized authority in expropriation law, Doug Caldwell has over 30 years of providing first-class legal counsel behind him. His main areas of practice are commercial litigation and administrative law. He also plays a key role in the firm's Tax Planning/Commercial Litigation team, and on insurance audits and assignments and in our Construction Law Group. He has authored an extensive list of articles, contributed to legal textbooks and was recently selected to be published in Lexpert, Canada's legal directory as one of Canada's top lawyers. Before Doug's legal career, he had a distinguished career as an Officer for the Royal 22nd Regiment (the "Van Doos") in the Canadian Army.-->
Qualifications
LL.B. (Dalhousie University, 1970)
B.A. (Royal Military College, 1963)
College Militaire Royal, St. Jean, Que. (1958-1961)
Bar Admission: Nova Scotia 1970
Professional Experience
Appeared in all Courts and major administrative tribunals in Nova Scotia, the Tax Court of Canada, the Federal Court of Canada, as well as numerous appearances before the Supreme Court of Canada
Practice includes significant experience in assessment appeals, construction disputes, securities litigation, income tax appeals, tax fraud and evasion, expropriation, corporate and business disputes, planning and zoning litigation, and school board arbitration
Practice includes major multi-party civil litigation, using computerized litigation support systems
Professional Activities and Affiliations
Member - Nova Scotia Barristers` Society
Chief Commissioner - Nova Scotia Liquor Commission (1996-2001)
Director - Colchester-East Hants Education Foundation
Member - Ontario Expropriation Association
Lectures and Publications
Contributing author to Coates & Waque, "The New Law of Expropriation", Carswell 1994
Lecturer Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators, Regional Conference, Ottawa, Ont. 1991
Regular lecturer on expropriation matters to various interested parties
Lecturer on the Law of Tender to the annual meeting of the Nova Scotia Union of Municipalities, Legal Section, 1996
Lecturer, Eastern Regional Conference of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 1999
"Valuation of Special Purpose Industrial Property: Quantifying Economic Obsolescence Using Business Valuation Techniques", co-authored with Brian Keough, CBV, presented at the Eastern Regional Conference of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators, Ottawa, 1991
Contributing author on expropriation to "The Expert: A Practitioners Guide", Carswell, 1996
"Valuing Expropriation/Condemnation Claims", International Business Brokers` Association Journal, Spring Summer 1996
"The Law of Tender in Municipal Construction Projects", September 1991; revised October 1996
"Professional Discipline - Establishing the Playing Field: The Legislative Framework", February 1996
"Expropriations: a Legal and Valuation Perspective", Ontario Expropriation Association, Fall 1999, co-authored with Paula D. Frederick, C.A., C.B.V. Published Ontario Expropriation Association Newsletter Fall 1999
"Anticipated Value in Expropriation Compensation Claims of Resource Properties", The Canadian Appraiser, Winter 2000, reprinted in the Ontario Expropriation Association Newsletter Spring 2002
"Corporate Governance of Crown Corporations", January, 2000 Refer: www.propertyexpropriation.com
Lecturer Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators Atlantic Workshop 2002, "Expert Witness Testimony"
"Selection of Discount Rates in Expropriation Matters", presented at the CICBV Atlantic Workshop, Canadian Institute of Chartered Business Valuators, June 2004
Office: TruroTel: 902-897-2000Fax:902-893-3071
Areas of Practice This lawyer put Richard Harris on the Street With help from the Justice GANG.

Douglas Caldwell lawyer of patterson law-

Patterson Law - Douglas A. Caldwell, Q.C.
A seasoned lawyer who is a recognized authority in expropriation law, Doug Caldwell has over 30 years of providing first-class legal counsel behind him. ...

Douglas Caldwell - Look at his profile!!!!

BOY WHAT A Lawyer = 400 victins in land losses

in Expropriation the ACT ? WoW

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

NEW BRUNSWICK EXPROPRIATION VICTIMS - DEAL OR NO DEAL????

deal
Originally uploaded by Oldmaison

Expropriation? Has it ever happened to you or someone you know???

We all have heard of the famous Jackie Vautour and his over 30 years long battle with the Government.






I have been told the Government or bureaucrats have the system set up for only the well connected people such as Appraisers and Lawyers to make money from property owner losses.







From what I’m told the Appraiser will get roughly 25%. The property owner will also receive 25% and the lawyers will get a grand total of 50%!!!!







…and the taxpayers pays the bill!!!

Is this a way to take and justify the taxpayer’s funds?

For more info on this issue. Click below –




target="_blank">Charles
Blog




The landowners will be told by the bureaucrats such as John Stanley Raymond of the famous television show- Deal or No deal!!!!








This is my final offer. Deal or not deal???

If you don’t take the deal therefore you’ll be fried because the Government will take it anyway.

Take a close look at the propose LNG Pipe route through Saint John…








Will these landowners be offered a fair deal for their land? Who knows?

Check this blog site out-




target="_blank">Charles
Blog


Richard Harris has been fighting this issue for over 10 years and it did take a toll on his life.







He took his first heart attack in 1999, and since then three more!!

From what I’m told he was dealing with a crooked Atlantic law firm PPHM ,a expert Expropriation Lawyer from Nova Scotia.

Have you ever heard or been caught in an Expropriation case?

Feel free to leave a comment in this blog or send an email to

injusticecoalition@hotmail.com

He’s looking for other people with this issue { Class Action suit} A group of angry former landowners will be more successful!!!

Click below to listen to Richard Harris words -




target="_blank">Charles
Blog


Read more!

# posted by Charles LeBlanc @ 6:15 PM 20 comments

New Brunswick Expropriation Act. the game or gang

Grounds for Lawsuit Against the Appraisal Institute
of Canada and/or the New Brunswick
Association of Real Estate Appraisers

The following information will show that the Appraisal Institute of Canada (AIC) has a responsibility to establish and enforce Professional Appraisal Standards and it's Code of Professional Ethics for all of it's AACI member appraisers throughout Canada.

It will show that the New Brunswick Association of Real Estate Appraisers (NBAREA) has a responsibility to ensure that AACI appraisers in this province abide by the standards as set out by the AIC, both by agreements made between the two organizations, and by legislation of the Province of New Brunswick which established the NBAREA.

It will be shown that the NBAREA is controlled by employees of the NB Government and by appraisers doing business with the Provincial Government and that they are refusing to enforce standards for appraisals done for expropriation purposes in this province.

It will be shown that the Manager of Land Acquisitions for the NB Department of Transportation, Jennifer Logan, is married to the founding President, Leslie Smith, of the NBAREA.

It will be shown that the AIC is refusing to enforce the agreements it has with the NBAREA which require enforcement of standards.

It will be shown that before I filed a complaint against Daniel Doucet, I received assurance from Terry Gifford, Executive Vice-President of AIC, Claudia Simmonds Lipka, Executive Director of NBAREA, and from Gerry McCoombs, then President of NBAREA, that if I were to file such a complaint, it would be dealt with properly. Because of these assurances, I spent a great deal of time and effort in preparing a comprehensive and very serious complaint against Mr.Doucet which was forwarded to the NBAREA on Jan.6,2000.

It will be shown that the NBAREA Complaints Committee did not deal with the substance of my complaint.

It will be shown that an appeal was filed with the Board of Directors of the NBAREA of the Complaints Committee ruling on Aug.18,2000.

It will be shown that on Nov.20,2000, a letter was sent to the NBAREA pointing out that very serious conflicts-of-interest existed with most of the members of their Board of Directors in dealing with this matter and a request was made that these conflict-of- interests be acknowledged and those members involved should step aside from dealing with my appeal. At some point in time, Mr.D.Thibideau who was then the President of NBAREA and who was employed with the NB Department of Supply and Services, did tender his resignation from the Board of NBAREA. It is not known if any other members of the Board declared their conflicts-of-interest.

On Dec.19,2000, the NBAREA advised that they were satisfied that the matter was properly considered and dealt with by the Complaints Committee for the reasons stated in it decision dated Aug.11,2000.

If a lawsuit is filed against the NBAREA for non-enforcement of Standards, it should not be a problem to demonstrate to the Court that as a Professional Self-regulating Association, the NBAREA does have the legal responsibility to enforce the AIC's Professional Appraisal Standards and the AIC's Code of Ethical Conduct.

It should also not be a problem to demonstrate to the Court that in the case of Gerard Levesque and in my own case, that the NBAREA has refused to properly deal with complaints against Daniel Doucet as they are required to do under the Act which created them and under agreements they have with the AIC.

In my case the NBAREA's Complaints Committee avoided dealing with the complaint by claiming the matter had been before the Courts and that a Judge had ruled in Favour of Mr.Doucet's report. Most Judges are not experts in valuing real estate or in appraisal procedures or standards. Judges must, therefore, depend on Expert Witnesses to provide them guidance in these areas. When an appraiser goes before a Judge and provides false and/or misleading information as Mr.Doucet did, this makes a Judge's job very difficult. In this case, the Judge had little knowledge of Real Estate and had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the testimony. The decision he made in no way indicated that there was no professional misconduct on the part of Mr.Doucet. Should this matter end up back in Court, it appears that the NBAREA will argue that appraisers do not have to abide by the AIC's Professional Appraisal Practices or the AIC's Code of Professional Ethics as long as a Judge can be convinced that their appraisal is valid. An argument like that is not likely to be well received in Court.

Filing such a lawsuit will allow us to do a proper discovery process in which we can examine in more detail the workings of the NBAREA and it's relationship with government and the AIC.

Some of the areas which need to be explored are:
1. The AIC has indicated that they have agreements with the NBAREA which require the NBAREA to enforce standards. These agreements need to be examined.
2. The Government of NB appoints one member to the NBAREA Board of Directors, currently Ken Harding, Clerk for the Town of Woodstock, supposedly to protect the public interest. To date I have been unable to find out who in Government he reports to or what the terms of reference of his appointment are. How exactly does his appointment protect the public interest ?
3. One of the most important positions in any organization is Chairperson of the Elections Committee. The person that controls this position, controls the organization. This post was initially filled by Judy McCann of the NB Department of Transportation but has since been filled by Nirah Sproul of Service NB who is not an accreditated appraiser. Why would a junior non-accreditated member be given such an important position in the NBAREA ? Is she a front for someone else ? It is probably not a co-incidence that over 90% of the Directors and Officers of the NBAREA are employed with the NB Government or with firms doing business with the government.
4. The operation of the NBAREA complaints committee needs to be closely examined. Do they have a proper procedures manual for dealing with complaints ? Do they see their role as enforcement of standards or protecting appraisers from complaints ? Are any steps taken to ensure that members of the committee are not biased toward the appraisers being investigated ? Did they do a detailed examination of my complaint and determine if each point raised in my complaint was valid or not ? Did Daniel Doucet have his lawyer threaten any of them with a lawsuit if they found in my favour ? Daniel Doucet was given an opportunity to respond to my complaint. What was his response and did the complaints committee accept it without question or further investigation ? In view of the fact that my complaint indicated that Mr.Doucet had fabricated and massaged data, why did the complaints committee not take steps to secure his files so that he could not destroy or alter them ?
5. How did the NBAREA Board of Directors handle my appeal of the complaints committee decision ? Did they do a detailed analysis of my complaint, point by point, and determine it was not valid or did they just rubber stamp the decision of the complaints committee ? Did all members of the Board deal with my appeal or was it handled by a small committee who reported back to the Board ? If so, which members of the NBAREA Board of Directors dealt with it ? Did any members of the NBAREA Board of Directors declare a conflict-of -interest in this matter and step aside and not take part in the decision ?

Should it be possible to show that there has been collusion between the NB Government and the NBAREA to not enforce Standards for appraisals done for expropriation purposes, it would open the door to a multi-million dollar class-action lawsuit against the NBAREA and the NB Government.

Background
Between 1977 and 1987 New Brunswick had an Expropriation Review Board which property owners could appeal expropriation settlements to. The members of the Board were knowledgeable of property values and appraisal procedures and standards. This system worked fairly well, but the Department of Transportation was unhappy with it as they thought their awards were too high.

The expropriation law of New Brunswick specifies that the property owner be compensated on the basis of "highest and best use" of their property and also that injurious affection must be taken into account. These two factors, in many cases, resulted in settlements far in excess of what the Department of Transportation thought appropriate.

If you consider the case of a farmer who has a 100 acre farm which is a marginal operation: If you take away 10 acres in an expropriation, then that farm could become unviable. If that 10 acres happens to be in the middle of a farm, as is often the case, thus splitting the farm in two pieces and making access from one part to the other part difficult, then the result can be devastating to the farmer. In that case the expropriation law rightfully requires that injurious affection be taken into account and the property must be valued by taking the difference between which the value of the farm is before the taking and the value of the farm after the taking. This can result in a settlement which is fair to the property owner, but far in excess of what 10 acres of farmland would normally be worth. The guiding principle of expropriation law is that the property owner should not be any worse off after the taking then they were before the taking, i.e., they should be left financially whole.

In addition to injurious affection, the expropriation law requires that property being expropriated must be valued to its "highest and best use". If you take the case of a farm close to a large urban center, a farmer may have been planning on converting his farm to a residential subdivision to finance his retirement. If that were the "highest and best use", then for expropriation purposes, the land must be valued on that basis rather than on it's value as farmland.

These two factors, "injurious affection" and "highest and best use", as are required by the expropriation law, resulted in some substantial awards by the Expropriations Review Board. Although these awards were fair to the property owners, some in government were unhappy and in 1987, the Expropriation Review Board was abolished and it was then necessary to appeal such matters to the Court of Queen's Bench. This resulted in two problems, (a) Many Judges were not familiar with property values and appraisal procedures and standards and, (b) it was very expensive for the property owner to appeal and in the case of many poor farmers, they could not afford to appeal and had to accept whatever the Government offered. The Government has been taking advantage of the situation and has not been valuing property to it's "highest and best use", nor have they been taking into account "injurious affection" as is required by the Expropriation Law. This has resulted in many individuals facing financial hardship due to having some or all of their property expropriated.

There were a couple of other things happening in the late 80's and early 90's which affected the present situation.

In the early 80's, the crisis in the Savings and Loan industry in the United States highlighted the need to improve appraisal practices. At that time appraisers did not have proper standards and many were overvaluing property for mortgage purposes which resulted in many Savings and Loan Companies going bankrupt. As part of it's bailout of that industry, the U.S.Government mandated that proper appraisal standards be established and enforced.

In 1986, nine professional appraisal organizations, including the Appraisal Institute of Canada (AIC), formed the AdHoc Committee on the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP). These standards were adopted by the AIC in 1987. If these new appraisal standards were to be enforced in New Brunswick the cost of having appraisals done and the resultant increase in the value of properties being acquired would have been significant. With plans underway to twin the Transcanada Highway in the province, this would have been a concern.

The question that has to be asked is, why are these standards not being enforced in New Brunswick for appraisals being done for the government for expropriation purposes. The answer to that question seems to start with a 20 year struggle which the Appraisal Institute of Canada had with the Minister of National Revenue over the deductibility of members dues. In a Court Case , Stewart v. M.N.R.(1983), 82 DTC1767, Stewart sought to deduct dues paid to the AIC. His claim for a deduction was denied on the basis that no statute of Ontario or Canada recognized a real estate appraiser as having a professional status. At that point the AIC realized that in order to get deductibility of dues, they must have provincial statues passed recognizing them as professionals.

In 1994, New Brunswick was the first province to pass such legislation and it appears that a backroom deal was made whereby the AIC agreed not to enforce standards in New Brunswick in exchange for that legislation. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are the only two provinces in which the AIC does not directly enforce standards. In New Brunswick it has delegated that function to the New Brunswick Association of Real Estate Appraisers (NBAREA) which is clearly being controlled by employees of the NB Government and by appraisers who are doing work for the Provincial Government. The NBAREA was established under the 1994 legislation with it's founding President being Leslie Smith, Fredericton Manager of Hardy Appraisals, who is married to Jennifer Logan, the Manager of Property Acquisitions for the New Brunswick Department of Transportation. Since it's formation, over 90% of the Officers and Directors of NBAREA have been government employees or have been appraisers who's companies do work for the government. From 1984 to 2000, Hardy Appraisals has been paid $680,706 for appraisal done for the NB Department of Transportation. Since Leslie Smith is married to the Manager of Property Acquisitions for the NB DOT, this creates some very serious conflicts-of-interest.

The Appraisal Institute of Canada (AIC)
Founded in 1938, the Appraisal Institute of Canada is the national society of professional real estate appraisers. The Institute claims that it is dedicated to serving the public interest through advancing high standards of the appraisal profession. All NBAREA members are governed by the AIC Code of Ethics and Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) which establishes minimum standards of performance in rendering professional services.(Excerpts from a document titled 'Your Career as a Real Estate Appraiser' as found on the NBAREA website. (NBAREA-1))

In it's struggle with the Minister of National Revenue to obtain deductibility of dues for it's members, (See AIC-1) the AIC argued it and its provincial affiliates were self-regulating professional associations analogous to the legal, medical and accounting professions. To obtain deductibility of Professional Dues under the Income Tax Act, Professional Associations must not only have professional standards, they must also enforce them.

Section XIII, of the Bylaws of the AIC (AIC-2) regarding Discipline states: 'The council or duly appointed committee or duly authorized Provincial Association may discipline, suspend use of designation or expel, after due inquiry into the complaint, any person for misconduct or violation of the Regulations, Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP) and/or Bylaws of the Institute.'

Section XVII(5) of the Bylaws of the AIC regarding Transfer of Responsibilities to Provincial Associations states: 'Council may transfer responsibilities to Provincial Associations as it see fit, but retains the authority to establish national policy and standards in all institute matters.' (AIC-3). National standards cannot be implemented unless steps are taken to ensure they are enforced.

In an attempt to establish the relationship between the AIC and the NBAREA, I corresponded with the AIC. In an Email (AIC-4) received from Terry Gifford, Executive Vice-President of the AIC, he states, 'We have an agreement whereby if the N.B. Association does not comply with the terms, e.g. professional practice that the Institute has the authority to terminate the agreement.' He, thus, acknowledges that an agreement does exist with the NBAREA. Any such agreements between the AIC and NBAREA need to be examined in a Discovery process.

On June 11,1999, in an E-mail from Terry Gifford (AIC-11) Jane Geisbrecht wrote "I am confident that any complaint received by the Association (NBAREA) will be dealt with fairly, thoroughly and in compliance with the Act." She goes on to say "I do know that when a conflict of interest occurs that the individual with the conflict removes himself/herself from any discussion, deliberation or decision on the matter."

On Aug.18,2000, I sent a letter (AIC-5) to Mr.Gifford requesting that action be taken to investigate the NBAREA for non-enforcement of standards. In his reply on Sept.13,2000, (AIC-6) he states that since my complaint is still under review by the NBAREA, the AIC will not deal with complaints for which the process has not been completed by the NBAREA. He implies that the AIC will investigate should the NBAREA not deal properly with my complaint.

On Nov.20,2000, I sent a further letter (AIC-7) pointing out that the NBAREA had completed their review and had refused to deal with my complaint and I again requested that the AIC take action to investigate the NBAREA, as Mr.Gifford had previously implied it would. In his response on Feb.8,2001 (AIC-8), Mr.Gifford backtracked and claimed that the New Brunswick Government Authorities are responsible for the administration of the legislation and that the AIC would take no action until requested by the N.B. Government. I have not been able to find any N.B.Government Authorities who accept responsibility for the administration of the legislation establishing the NBAREA. In reality, the AIC does have agreements with the NBAREA which require enforcement of standards and the AIC is refusing to enforce those agreements.

On Feb.23,2001, I sent an Email to Mr.Gifford (AIC-9) requesting him to advise if AACI appraisers in New Brunswick were required to follow Appraisal Standards and the Code of Ethics established by the AIC. He did not reply, so I followed it up on April 5,2001, requesting a response. Again, he did not reply.

Part of the AIC's refusal to deal with my complaint may be related to Mr.Doucet's influence in that organization and the NBAREA. Mr.Doucet is the Moncton Manager for Hardy Appraisals. The founding President of the NBAREA was Leslie Smith, the Fredericton Manager of Hardy Appraisals. Mr.Doucet has filled various positions on the executive of the NBAREA, including Vice-President, President and Past President, as well as two terms as the NBAREA representative on the National Governing Council of the AIC. In these positions, he would have worked closely with the executive of the AIC and they may be, therefore, reluctant to take disciplinary action against him. In any self-regulating professional association, the organization cannot allow itself to be influence by any member who may try to use his position to prevent disciplinary action being taken against him. It is noted that, at the time Mr.Gerard Levesque filed a complaint with the AIC against Mr.Doucet, Mr.Clarles Hardy, the founder of Hardy Appraisals, was on the AIC Adjudicating Committee.(AIC-10) Did Mr. Hardy use his influence to prevent Mr.Levesque's complaint to the AIC from being dealt with? Mr.Hardy has been active on the executive of the Nova Scotia Appraisal Association and no doubt has a great deal of influence with the AIC.

The New Brunswick Association of
Real Estate Appraisers (NBAREA)

The NBAREA was formed by an act of the Provincial Legislature in 1994. Its founding President was Leslie Smith, Fredericton Manager of Hardy Appraisals and husband to Jennifer Logan, the Manager of Property Acquisition for the New Brunswick Department of Transportation. All members of the executive in the first year were associated with Hardy Appraisals including Daniel Doucet as Past President and as chairman of the complaints committee for the first two years.

Of the 62 person years of members who served on the executive or Board of Directors of the association from 1995 to 2001, only 6 have not been employees of the Provincial Government or have not been associated with appraisal firms doing business with the Provincial Government (NBAREA-2). In that period of time the Provincial Department of Transportation paid $2,419,604 for appraisal services of which $680,706 went to Hardy Appraisals (NBAREA-3).

Section 5 of the Act establishing the NBAREA lists its objects including:
(a)regulate the practice of real estate appraisal and to govern its members in accordance with this Act and the by-laws, in order to serve and protect the public interest;
(c)establish, maintain, develop standards of knowledge, skill and efficiency for the practice of real estate appraisal;
(d)establish, maintain, develop and enforce standards of qualifications for the practice of real estate appraisal;
(e)establish, maintain, develop and enforce standards of professional ethics for its members.

Under Section 6 of the Act, the NBAREA was given a number of Powers including;
(a)provide for the discipline, government, control and honour of persons practising the profession of real estate appraisal in the Province, including the power to determine standards of professional conduct;
(l) enter into agreements on behalf of the Association as may be necessary, incidental or conductive to carrying out the objects of the Association, including entering into agreements with the Institute (AIC) for the purpose of adopting and enforcing its Code of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct, Standards of Professional Practice, educational requirements for the practice of the appraisal of real estate and for the purpose of awarding and maintaining designations;
(w)provide for investigations by the complaints and discipline committees, including the procedures to be followed. (this is an area which needs to be probed in a discovery hearing).

Section 9(1)(d) of the Act provides for the appointment of one lay person to act as lay representative on the Board of Directors, who shall be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council from a panel of not less than four persons nominated by the Board. This appointment is to supposedly to protect the public interest but I have been unable to find anyone in government who this individual reports to nor any terms of reference for the appointment. It is presently filled by Ken Harding, the Town Clerk of Woodstock.

Section 20(1) of the Act states that there shall be a complaints committee composed of:
(a)one member of the Board who shall be chairperson, and
(b)two other members of the Association appointed by the Board.
Since the Board is in complete control of the appointments, it can prejudice the outcome of investigations by selecting members it can count on to give the results it desires. Because Mr.Doucet wields a great deal of influence with the Board, it is unlikely they would appoint anyone to the complaints committee who are likely to find against him.

Section X1 of the Bylaws of the NBAREA titled 'ETHICS AND STANDARDS OF PRACTICE' reads:
The Association adopts and undertakes to enforce the
Code of Ethics and Rules of Professional Conduct and
the Standards of Professional Practice in force from
time to time with the Institute (A.I.C.).

In the Terms of Reference for the NBAREA Complaints Committee (NBAREA-10), a number of duties are listed including:
1. The Complaints Committee will become familiar with and adhere to the policies and procedures as developed on November 24,1999 by the Associations solicitor, David Norman,QC and attached hereto.(It's important to obtain a copy of these policies and procedures).
2. The Registrar shall attend the meetings of the Complaints Committee and record the proceedings of each as well as prepare all other correspondence on behalf of the Committee. The minutes of the meeting shall be forwarded to the Committee Members no later than 14 days after the date of the meeting. (It is important to obtain a copy of these minutes to determine exactly what procedures were followed by the Committee in assessing my complaint and to find out why the committee did not deal with the substance of my complaint).


6. The Complaints Committee will accept and proceed with the directions provided by the Board of Directors, Act, Bylaws and Strategic Plan of the Association in a timely manner unless the directions are contrary to the provisions for the Committee as per the Act to Incorporate the New Brunswick Association of Real Estate Appraisers. (What directions were provided by the Board of Directors to the Complaints Committee for dealing with my complaint and why did the Committee not deal with my complaint in accordance with the Act and their bylaws as they are required to do).

On October 28,1999, I visited the office of the NBAREA in Fredericton where Claudia Simmonds Lipka, Executive Director, was helpful in providing me information on her organization. I explained that I had a complaint against an appraiser and that I was concerned that as I understood it, a previous complaint filed by Gerard Levesque was not handled properly. She told me she was not familiar with the Levesque case but assured me if I filed a complaint with the association, it would be handled properly.

On December 17,1999, I phoned Gerry McCoombs, then President of the NBAREA at his office in Fredericton. I explained my concerns to him regarding the Gerard Levesque complaint and he also assured me that should I file a complaint, it would be dealt with properly.

Based on assurances given, on January 6,2000, I forwarded a comprehensive and very serious complaint to the NBAREA against Mr.Daniel Doucet.

On May 3,2000, I telephoned the NBAREA seeking information on the status of my complaint. I was alarmed to be told that no action had been taken by the NBAREA to secure Mr.Doucet's files so that he could not alter or destroy them. I sent a letter to the NBAREA on May 4,2000, expressing my concerns (NBAREA-4).

On May 8,2000, in response of a request for information, the NBAREA advised that Herman Koops had been made chairperson of the Complaints Committee.

I sent a further letter to the NBAREA on May 11,2000, pointing out their obligations (NBAREA-5).

On August 11,2000, the NBAREA sent me a letter giving the decision reached by their Complaints Committee (NBAREA-6). In that letter they stated that since the matter had been to court and the Judge had said nothing in his decision to suggest any impropriety or lack of competence on the part of Mr.Doucet, therefore Mr.Doucet had done nothing wrong. This was nothing more than a lame excuse by the NBAREA to try and avoid dealing with my complaint. Many Judges are not experts in real estate valuation and appraisal practices and procedures and they must rely on expert witnesses for guidance in such matters. In this case, the Judge had a great deal of difficulty in understanding the testimony and his decision in no way indicated that Mr.Doucet had done nothing wrong. The NBAREA seems to think it is OK for an appraiser to do whatever he thinks he can get away with. The fact is Mr.Doucet had presented the Court with an appraisal which was not done in accordance to the required USPAP standards or the AIC Code of Ethics as he claimed it was. As was pointed out in my complaint, had Mr.Doucet applied proper adjustments to his data as is required by USPAP, then the value of my property he would have arrived at would have been slightly greater than that of my own appraiser.

In the final paragraph of their August 11,2000 letter, the NBAREA states: "It is not the function of the Association under its disciplinary powers to deal with disputes as to property value. This has to be dealt with by the Court as required by the Expropriation Act". This is a correct statement, the Courts set the property value based on evidence presented. The paragraph goes on to state that:"Under the New Brunswick Association of Real Estate Appraisers Act the Association only has jurisdiction to investigate and consider issues of professional misconduct and incompetence on the part of its members". Again, this statement is correct, it is the responsibility of the NBAREA to enforce professional standards and the AIC Code of Ethics. This is all I have requested them to do and they have refused to do that. My complaint was comprehensive and very detailed and showed numerous infractions of the USPAP standards and the AIC Code of Ethics on the part of Mr.Doucet. If the points raised in my complaint were not valid, then I'm sure the complaints committee would have gone over them, one by one, and pointed out the reasons for rejecting them. Since they chose instead to use a lame excuse for not dealing with them, it can be assumed that the complaints were valid and the objective of the Complaints Committee was to cover up for Mr.Doucet.

On August 18,2000, I sent a letter to the NBAREA requesting that the Board of Directors review the decision of their Complaints Committee (NBAREA-7).

On November 20,2000, I sent a further letter to the NBAREA, (NBAREA-8) which outlined my concerns of conflicts-of-interest which I considered many of the Board of Directors had in dealing with my complaint. At some point in time, Mr.D.Thibideau, then President of the NBAREA and an employee of the NB Department of Supply and Services, did resign his Office as President of the Association. It is not known if any other members of the Board declared their conflicts-of-interest and stepped aside from dealing with my complaint.

The Board of Directors of NBAREA were no doubt very aware of the fact that Mr.Doucet had done a large number of appraisals for the Provincial Government. Because of the seriousness of my complaint, had they ruled against him, they would have had to revoke his accreditation. This would have called into question the validity of all the appraisals he had done for the Government and could have potentially cost the Government millions of dollars. It is thus not difficult to understand why the Board of Directors, which was controlled by Government employees was reluctant to rule against Mr.Doucet.

The Board of Directors of the NBAREA sent me their decision of my appeal on December 19,2000 (NBAREA-9) which stated that they agreed with the decision of the Complaints Committee. The letter was signed by Andrew Leech as President of the Association.

Under the Act establishing the NBAREA, section 9(1) states that there shall be a Board of Directors of the Association consisting of (a) the president, past president, vice-president, secretary, and treasurer, and.....
Section 10(2) of the Act states that in the event of a vacancy occurring on the Board, except the office of President, the vacancy may be filled for the balance of the unexpired term as follows....
The Act specifically excludes filling the office of President for the balance of an unexpired term. It would therefore appear that it was not legal for Mr.Leech to complete the unexpired term of Mr.Thibideau who had resigned. Since the Board must have a President, then it was not legally constituted when it handed down its decision on my appeal.

As a self-regulating professional association, the NBAREA must deal with complaints it receives concerning members who do not do appraisals in accordance with USPAP standards and the AIC Code of Ethics as is required. When other self-regulating professional associations, such as the Barristers Society, receives a complaint against a member, they deal with it immediately. If the complaint is serious, they will go as far as to immediately suspend the member and have someone else take over their practice pending an investigation. They do not wait for a Court to find that the member was guilty of wrongdoing before taking action. It is the NBAREA's responsibility to investigate complaints and take action against appraisers who are guilty of malpractice.

Had the NBAREA been enforcing standards since its inception in 1994, then Mr.Doucet would have been required to prepare the appraisal he did on my property in accordance with the required standards. As it was, it appears that Mr.Doucet felt that he could take advantage of his influential position in the NBAREA and that he could get away with not doing appraisals to the required standards. As was shown in my complaint, had Mr.Doucet made proper adjustments to his data as is required by USPAP, then the value he arrived at for my property would have been slightly higher than that reached by my appraiser. Had that been the case, then it can be expected that it would have been possible to reach an agreement with the City on the value of my property back in 1995 and I would not have been forced to waste 6 ½ years of my life fighting for a proper settlement. During this time I have easily spent 50% of my time pursuing this matter which would otherwise been spent on more productive endeavors. I, therefore, feel I should be compensated for that time and for all the sleepless nights and mental distress caused by the NBAREA's failure to fulfill their obligations

Lawyer Caldwell& Goodwin

To: "Richard Harris"
Subject: Doc1 march 5 2007.doc
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:40:42 -0300

March 5, 2007

To Whom It May Concern:

The main key of evidence in the matter on the files of Goodwin and the Appeal of Russell’s Decision of June 3, 2005 .that I think will turn the matter in to deliberate, illegal abuse. The main issue is on the matter of Judge Russell’s decision on page 19.paragrafh 49,50,51,52,

Now to get the consent of what was going on with my Lawyers, Goodwin, DOT employee’s and so on? We have to start when the Public would know for the first time the routing of the highway was to change location. (the 27 million dollars bunp for MRDC>)

1. There was a Discovery on September 11and 12,of 2001, Now John Raymond will take undertaking to provide additional information in relation to the Public Meetings
2. See December 6, 2001 and December 5, 2001 that I will not know about till December 20, 2002. ? Why. (lawyer Caldwell and eddy helt the in-fo back for one year,? why is it because of a elections in 2001.
3. Now here is a lie on paper, because on Thursday March 1, 2007 I went to the Oromocto town hall and retained a Drawing with a date on it. ( of February 1997)

· This drawing of February 1997 was use at the Second public meetings on the alignment Issue to relocate the highway from Smith subdivision. To where it is to day. now this is the first drawing with servey line on it.

4. Undertaking December 6, 2001 said more or less the Second public meeting was on December 11, 1996. this was in Fact the First Meeting to the Public .now on December 5,2001 undertaking as to line 2,( Quote Attached is a copy of the plan (the Drawing date of 12/96 ) plan used at the December (11) 1996 ‘’Public Meeting’’ showing the existing Highway alignment . (Now this drawing is not to scale to where the highway is now) like to the drawing of February .Dated February 1997. The one I got a copy of Fred Hackett on March, 1, 2007.

5. Why is this so important, because of a lie that was told in court by Heather Pugh that set the main Logistics for a decision of Judge Russell , to paid me so little after 8 years of fighting. ? If this memo was so important you would think it would have been brought up at one of the Discovery’s .Discovery of 2001 or 2004 but I think why it was not is because of the Goodwin Matter .see page 90, on the Goodwin draft report. Now if this memo was to play such an important part in the Russell Decision nine years later. Then why was this document not on John S. Raymond affidavit of Documents list, (form 31,B)Copy of this memo( SEE : Exhibit A-8 ) of Judge Russell paragraph 49,

6. Exhibit A-8 memo. It said Copy of this memo went to John Raymond Assistant director, Copies to Mike Phillips, Brian McEwing and Colleen Brown. Now with all these people having Copies you would think this memo that my Lawyers enter as Exhibit A-8 at trial ?you would think this memo would at least been on Raymond’s Documents list.

7. Questions, but look at page 90 of Goodwin report and you will see he know of a memorandum that was faxed by Ross little, to Lonnie Forbes? How would he know this? It looks like he talks to Lonnie forbs or Ross Little. Now this invitation work should be on his Detail billing. ( I will have to look for it now on March 6, 2007) When would I see any of the Governments Documents, two week be for Discovery in September 11, of 2001.

On Goodwin detail invoice billing to Mr. Richard Harris. Date Entered: July 6, 1999. On page 2. On or about March 2, 1999 Goodwin Quote (telephone Commission with Lonnie Forbes, N.B. Municipalities Culture and Housing Rural Planning Commission. Now on March 2, 1999.and looking at Goodwin page 90 of the draft report, he quoted (a memorandum contained a note for the potential of the proposed highway to affect the RAH/HARCL land and also noted that RAH had been to the NBDOT Planning Office to see the plans for the new highway. Goodwin side not one thing about the Drawing that loinne Forbes sent Ross Little showing that i wanted to add 16 lots to a all ready approved subdivision in H.A.R. name ? why is he not doing his job that he was paid over 21,000 dollars for.

If Mr. Goodwin was looking out for my best interest in his report. ( you would think he would be putting a date on this so call meeting at NBDOT planning Office of me seeing the Plans of the new Highway,)? The date i seen Heather Pugh was after february 13/1997, so why did not Goodwin have this in-fo in his report>?????

So on or about March 19, 1999. Goodwin was at my place getting eight Thousand more dollars from me, leading me on that his report was just about finished. It was worth around 4-to-6 hundred thousand, But Obviously he knew what was to take place in March of 2005 in Court. (The key to this whole matter is this non dated Drawing that Goodwin refers to on his page 90 in his report.

(Goodwin quotes) February 3, 1997, a memorandum was faxed by Ross Little, NBDOT land Management & planning to Mr. Lonnie Forbes, Development Officer for the Rural Planning District Commission concerning the Richard Harris property and enclosing plan #82? Now how would I know what plan #82 was, if I did not see this till March of 2005 in Court. ? i don't even think there was a drawing like this untill March of 1997 . why do i say this ,is there was a set of drawing in the coumty court regliety office that seed the servey work started on March,7/1997. ? so how could there be a drawing like #82 even in February of 1997.

Now back to the Exhibit A-8 the memo that appeared in Court and entered by my lawyers, it has no dates and no official writings or notes to make it a legal document other than stating it was plan #82 Who made this Drawing in the first place, you can see how Judge Russell used it to only to justitfied paying me 27hundred dollars for the H.A.R construction property, Even if he went with the Carter Drawing ? i loss 6 building lots to get paid 2,760.dollars for. ? why did he paid so little ? i think it got to do with the Goodwin Report. Goodwin market vale was 5,600,00 for all the property the Government took, ? think about it , if Russell paid me for a loss of 6 building lots, at 13,thousand dollars.per lot like he paid me for the front 2 lots the total would of ben 78,thousand. pluss 26 =104,000. thousand dollars ? now what would this be saying about the Goodwin figger of 5,600. dollars market figger he has in his report, i would gest it would be saying Goodwin did not know what he was doing. That for sure.

8. Now look at paragraph #6 and you will see that there were copies of Heather Pugh’s Memo sent to Ross Little.

· Facts there were no Drawing’s showing my 18 building lots sent to DOT, planning Office till January 1997.

· We know that the Town of Oromocto did not get a Survey drawing till February of 1997 to have the Second public Meeting. Because the first meeting was on December 11, 1996. And six day’s later on the same day that I know now my wife Marilyn Harris signed for a Notice of intent to survey letter.

· Heather Pugh Memo said I seen her on December 17, 1996. This is false!

· I will admit I did go to see Heather Pugh with a drawing that I received from Lonnie Forbes only after the meeting on February 12, 1997 with Stephen Leblanc. (if there was a drawing at the meeting december 11/96 then why did't leblanc have it with him on february 12,1997. (this hole matter is about the time ( the Government know delay cost money that for sure.

· The drawing with a date on it of 12/96. On this drawing I drew a red line to show DOT people buy taking all my property they would not need to move the salt and sand storage building. I think I knew for sure on February 15, 1997 that they did not have any survey work started yet.

· On or about March 2,2007 At 9:30.am I traveled to the Burton Court House, looking for this plan #82,filed (not in the Court) but what I did learn was the date of Survey ,1997/ 03 /07 ,I think this would be March ,7,1997. But what I know from the Town Hall in Oromocto that there was drawing with a date February 1997 that the town had.

· This bring us to a question when for the first time could these Center Lines be put on this none dated Drawing. ? Because these Line are the location where the Highway is today. Plan #82.

· So with the matter of a so call meeting on December 17, 1996. With Heather Pugh. This meeting would have been impossible. (because the Government then self did not know where the chang in the allinement was at this times. What a joke to pay a judge, Because John Raymond knew what i was to be paid in Augest of 1998, i have the Edvident in the discovery of 2001, Raymond made a Drawing also,. the Court and my lawyers what a joke on the Taxpayer of N,B,.

9. Now on Paragraph [51] of Judge David Russell’s decision, who would these accusations benefit the most? I think it would be Goodwin as he obviously knew what was to take place in Court 2005 .as it looked on page 90 of the Draft report that I would not see for the first time in July of 1999. I have no idea what this report is saying even to this day of july of 2007.

10. Look what I was doing March 13, 2005 in this matter of a meeting on December 17, 1996? Going to the Oromocto postal out let to find out what day this Intent to Survey letter was sign for. ? Why did Mr. Caldwell not enter the whole 4 page Documents I gave him? I think this has a lot to do with Goodwin to.

see canlii.org the cost to Society and taxpayer

	Decision date:	July 18, 2000
	Court:	New Brunswick Queen's Bench
	Cited:	(2000), 71 L.C.R. 109
	Reviewer:	J. Bruce Melville
	Interest:	none
Babineau, Daniel is the Appraiser I use in court. He has my loss under this sections of the Act in his report.			Babineau Appraisals Ltd. Moncton, NB

45 Where a business is located on the land expropriated, disturbance damages include damages

(a) for business loss resulting from the relocation of the business made necessary by the expropriation, and unless the owner and the expropriating authority otherwise agree, the business loss shall not be determined until the business is relocated and has been in operation for nine months, or until a two year period has elapsed, whichever occurs first; or

(b) where the Court is of the opinion that it is not feasible for the owner to relocate his business or a part thereof, for business loss resulting from the cessation of the whole or part of the business made necessary by the expropriation, but compensation shall not be awarded under this clause where the owner of the business is awarded compensation for the land upon which the business was located on the basis of a use other than the existing use to which the land was being put.

46 A statutory authority shall compensate the owner of land for loss or damage

caused by injurious affection

47(1) Subject to subsection (2), a claim for compensation for injurious affection shall be made by the person suffering the damage or loss in writing with particulars of the claim within one year after the damage was sustained or after it became known to him, and, if not so made, the right to compensation is forever barred.

47(2) Where the person who is injuriously affected is a minor, a mental incompetent or a person incapable of managing his affairs, his claim for compensation, if not made on his behalf within the period stipulated in subsection (1), shall be made within one year after he ceases to be under the disability or, in the case of his death while under the disability, within one year after his death, and if not so made the right to compensation is forever barred.

1973, c.6, s.47.

48 The value of any advantage to the land or remaining land of an owner derived from any work for which land was expropriated or by which land was injuriously affected shall be set off only against the amount of the damages for injurious affection to the owner's land or remaining land.

1973, c.6, s.48.

49(1) Subject to subsection (2), where only part of the interest of a lessee is expropriated, the lessee's obligation to pay rent under the lease shall be abated pro tanto.

49(2) Where all the interest of a lessee in land is expropriated or where part of the lessee's interest is expropriated and the expropriation renders the remaining part of the lessee's interest unfit for the purposes of the lease, the lease shall be deemed to be frustrated from the date of the expropriation.

1973, c.6, s.49.

50(1) Subject to subsection 37(3), the owner of land expropriated is entitled to be paid interest at the rate of six per cent a year

(a) on the portion of the compensation payable and outstanding from time to time in respect of the market value of his interest in the land, and any special economic advantage not reflected in the market value, calculated from the date the expropriating authority took possession of the land, except in the case of an owner in occupation of the land in which case interest is to be calculated from the date the owner ceased to reside on or make productive use of the land;

(b) on the portion of the compensation payable and outstanding from time to time in respect of damages for injurious affection or for distrubance, calculated from the date any such damages were incurred; and

(c) on the portion of the compensation payable and outstanding from time to time in respect of sections 42 and 43, calculated from the date of expropriation.

50(2) Subject to subsection (3), where the Court is of the opinion that any delay in determining the compensation is attributable in whole or in part to the owner, it may refuse to allow him interest for the whole or any part of the time for which he might otherwise be entitled to interest, or may allow interest at such rate less than six per cent a year as appears reasonable.

50(3) Interest to which an owner is entitled under subsection (1) shall not be reduced for the reason only that the owner did not accept the offer made by the expropriating authority, notwithstanding that the compensation as finally determined is less than the offer.

50(4) Where the Court is of the opinion that any delay in determining compensation is attributable in whole or in part to the expropriating authority, the Court may order the expropriating authority to pay to the owner interest under subsection (1) at a rate exceeding six per cent a year but not exceeding twelve per cent a year.

50(5) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may from time to time establish a rate of interest, in excess of six per cent a year, in place of the rate of six per cent a year referred to in this section and in such case any reference to six per cent in this section shall be read as a reference to the rate established by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

1973, c.6, s.50; 1974, c.13(Supp.), s.4; 1983, c.31, s.28.

51(1) Where an owner is awarded as compensation an amount less than the amount tendered by an expropriating authority and accepted by him, he shall repay to the expropriating authority an amount by which the amount tendered by the expropriating authority exceeds the amount of compensation and costs awarded by the Court.

51(2) Where an owner does not repay the amount referred to in subsection (1) within thirty days after the date of the award by the Court or within such period as is agreed to by the expropriating authority, he shall be liable to pay interest thereon at the rate of ten per cent per annum, calculated from the date of the award.

1973, c.6, s.51; 1983, c.31, s.29.

52(1) The Court shall award costs on the basis of the following rules, namely:

(a) where the compensation awarded by the Court exceeds the amount offered by the statutory authority, the statutory authority shall pay the legal, appraisal and other costs reasonably incurred by the owner in asserting his claim to compensation, and

(b) where the compensation awarded by the Court does not exceed the amount offered by the statutory authority, the costs shall be in the discretion of the Court on such basis as the Court considers just,

and the Court shall determine what are reasonable costs and shall fix the amount of costs to be paid by or to the statutory authority.

52(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the Court shall have regard to the most recent offer of settlement of the compensation payable, if any, made by an expropriating authority or a statutory authority not less than ten days before the commencement of the hearing in respect of the notice of arbitration or, where the hearing is adjourned, not less than ten days before the hearing reconvenes.

52(3) Subsection (2) applies

(a) to proceedings in respect of any notice of arbitration outstanding on the commencement of this subsection, where the proceedings have not been settled or there has been no final judgment on the commencement of this subsection, and

(b) to proceedings in respect of any notice of arbitration filed or served after the commencement of this subsection.

1973, c.6, s.52; 1983, c.31, s.30; 1997, c.24, s.1.

52.1(1) An expropriating authority or a statutory authority may at any time make an offer of settlement of the compensation payable in response to a notice of arbitration.

52.1(2) An offer of settlement made under subsection (1) may be based on any or all of the aspects of compensation specified in subsection 38(1).

1997, c.24, s.2.

53 A statutory authority may make and perform an agreement with an owner in respect of any claim of the owner under this Act, including any costs of the owner and notwithstanding that this Act requires the claim to be determined by the Court.

1973, c.6, s.53; 1983, c.31, s.31.

54 Where the land has been expropriated, the compensation agreed to or determined under this Act stands in the stead of the land, and any claim to or encumbrance on the land is, as respects the expropriating authority and the Crown where the expropriating authority is a Minister of the Crown, converted into a claim to or upon the compensation and no longer affects the land.

1973, c.6, s.54; 1975, c.21, s.8; 1982, c.3, s.25.

55(1) In any case where the statutory authority considers it advisable, it may, without an order, pay into the Court any amount required to be tendered to an owner, or any compensation agreed upon with the owner or determined by the Court, together with a sum equal to the interest thereon at the rate of six per cent a year for six months.

55(2) Upon an application for payment out of court of the compensation paid into court, the Court may direct that such notice of the application be given by publication or otherwise as it considers proper and may direct the trial of an issue or make such order with respect to the payment out of court of compensation and as to costs it considers reasonable.

55(3) Where an order is obtained under subsection (2) in less than six months after the payment of the compensation into court, the Court may direct that a proportionate part of the interest be returned to the statutory authority.

55(4) Where unborn issue or an unascertained person or class is interested in compensation paid into court, the Court may appoint such person as it considers proper to represent them, and any order made under this section is binding upon them.

1973, c.6, s.55; 1983, c.31, s.32.

56 The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may make regulations

(a) establishing an amount for the purposes of subsection 17(5);

(b) Repealed: 1983, c.31, s.33.

(c) prescribing forms for the purposes of this Act and providing for their use;

(d) Repealed: 1983, c.31, s.33.

(e) prescribing procedures to be used before the Court acting under Part II of this Act; and

(f) generally, for the better administration and carrying out of the purposes and intent of this Act.

1973, c.6, s.56; 1983, c.31, s.33