1. Madame Justice the Plaintiff stands before this Honorable Court as a self represented Litigant.

The Plaintiff has been forced into this position of self representation because of difficult circumstances. This situation evolved beginning in year of 2005 when the Plaintiff s association with the Defendant first began. The Plaintiff Defendant Relationship in the year 2005 would best be described as Andre Murray Property Maintenance Man/Renovations Contractor and Betty Rose Danielski the Title holder and Landlord. Further examination will reveal that (Plaintiff in this matter) Andre Murray has also purchased from Defendant Betty Rose Danielski a Investment instrument known to the Plaintiff as a FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL and a OPTION TO PURCHASE. 2. As a Precaution to and or preliminary to purchasing the Property from Defendant Betty Rose Danielski, Plaintiff Andre Murray became a Residential Leasehold Tenant of the subject property. 3. However as it relates to this Hearing of a Motion for Orders for Continuance of a Mechanics Lien Action . the most significant contractual agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiff would be the Plaintiff s Contractual Agreement with the Defendant to provide supplies and labour for necessary maintenance and renovation of the 200 year old building which is the Residential Duplex, subject of this Hearing before this Honorable Court and the Motion for Orders of Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action as provided by and required by Law located at 29 Marshall Street and also at #31 Marshall Street City of Fredericton. 4. Year 2009 just as the Plaintiff was anticipating documents to arrive from the Defendant documents related to OPTION TO PURCHASE inter alia. Instead the Plaintiff receives a letter from the Defendant notifying that adjustments are being prepared regarding the billing procedure for utilities amongst other things which at first glance appeared to the Plaintiff to be consistent with pre property title transfer

procedures, except no mention of the Title transfer; troublesome to the Plaintiff was the tone and substance of the letter. This correspondence from the Defendant was less than entirely reasonable and or entirely relevant . The subject letter correspondence from the Defendant which was not appropriately including mention of the scheduled Property Transfer into the Plaintiff s name was enough for the Plaintiff as a precaution to File with Land Titles a Claim for Lien which was followed by the NOTICE OF ACTION and CERTIFICATE OF PENDING LITIGATION The following was intended to protect the Plaintiff s investment and place the world on CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE. 5. What resulted next, the Plaintiff still can not be certain .. apparently the Defendant intentionally went to foreclosure and caused the property to be sold at auction without notifying the Plaintiff. The Defendant appears to be Motivated to achieve by the Mortgagee Deed Auction sale and the POWER OF SALE pursuant to the PROPERTY ACT that which would affectively eliminate the Plaintiff s Claim for Lien and further avoid responsibility for the debts owed the Plaintiff. 6. The here within mentioned POWER OF SALE did occur according to the design of the Defendant, except the purchaser has subsequentially withdrawn their offer. The deposit received at the POWER OF SALE from the tentative purchaser of the Mortgagee Deed has been completely refunded and the entire equity of that subject property which is the Subject of the Plaintiff s Mechanics Lien Action and the Plaintiffs Motion being heard today before this Honourable Court for Orders for Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action . the equity of which is once again entirely available to satisfy the Plaintiff s Claim for Lien pursuant to the Mechanics Lien Act. 7. Madame Justice Clendening the Plaintiff in this matter requests that the Defendant be directed by this Honorable Court to perform according to the Law as Legislated into

the Mechanics Lien Act and cease being unreasonably prone to go to Court to settle disputes. Further, that the Defendant must co operate with the Law, moreover, stop using futile Sharp Practice tactics against the Plaintiff and instead be directed by this Court that the Defendant should simply wait till the Plaintiff retrieves the contractual documents which are indispensable to DISCOVERY by the Defendant. 8. As earlier mentioned the subject Contractual Documents are currently being withheld against the objections of the Plaintiff regardless of the numerous attempts to date at the retrieval of same. 9. The plaintiff has made it abundantly clear by correspondence with the Defendant as well briefed and advised Defendant on the circumstances of the conversion of the Plaintiffs Contractual Documents and rather than influencing those, who are responsible for the conversion of the Plaintiffs subject Documents people of whom the Defendant does communicate, instead the Defendant pursues futile litigious Sharp Practice Court Action against the Plaintiff in contrast. 10. To date the Plaintiff has suffered greatly by the non cooperation of the Defendant. 11. Rather than pursuing DISCOVERY according to the wisdom of the Mechanics Lien Act. the Defendant continues to pursue the disingenuously motivated litigious path .. frivolously expending energy and money in a direction that will not bring Remedy and will only further discord. 12. Madame Justice without exception to date the Plaintiff has adhered to the Law as established by the Mechanics Lien Act Madame Justice without exception to date the Plaintiff has adhered to each and everyone of the Rules of Court (as is relative to this matter). 13. This is in great contrast to the Defendant who instead of consenting to an obvious request for consent to continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action according to Law of

the Mechanics Lien Act. Please Note: the Defendant instead chooses to ignore the Law and continues unnecessary litigious behaviour. 14. The Defendant not only chooses conflict by litigation rather than Search for DISCOVERY the Defendant seriously misapprehends the situation, erroneously arguing that the Plaintiff has exceeded the one year allowable timeline (Rules Of Court) in requesting and or motioning the Court for Orders of a Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action (NOT TRUE) also the Defendant misapprehends the situation erroneously arguing that the Plaintiff must only request of the Honorable Court a extension (NOT TRUE).
The Law in pursuance to the Mechanics Lien Act. 52.1(1) An action to enforce a lien shall be deemed to be discontinued one year after the action is commenced unless (a) the action has been set down for trial, or (b) an application has been made to a judge of The Court of Queens Bench of New Brunswick for an order continuing the action and a copy of the notice of application has been served on the defendant to the action.

15. The Plaintiff has adhered to all the Rules of Court regarding any MOTIONS, APPLICATIONS, NOTICE OF ACTIONS et Cetera Filed with Client Services relative to the here within Mechanics Lien Action and please note the Plaintiff has adhered to the requirements in pursuance to the Mechanics Lien Act. 16. Defendant did not and does not adhere to the rules of Court regarding the Mechanics Lien Action and Plaintiff did not adhere to the requirements in pursuance to the Mechanics Lien act. Prejudice 17. On the matter of prejudice to the parties to this action the plaintiff contends that there shall not be any prejudice to either of the Parties should the Court grant the requested Orders for a Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action.

18. Alternatively speaking should the Court not grant the subject Continuance the Plaintiff will experience prejudice of irreparable harm involving a significant irretrievable financial loss of a degree of such significance that will detrimentally affect the rest of the Plaintiffs life. 19. Currently the Plaintiff has a claim for lien registered against the equity of property registered in the name of the Defendant to this action. The Plaintiff has a very legitimate realistic and reasonable concern that should this Mechanics Lien Action not be continued moreover, the consequences of not pursuing the Claim for Lien, the only remaining alternative would render the Plaintiff pursuing the Defendant for breach of contract. 20. Not granting the subject Motion for Orders of Continuance of the Mechanics Lien Action would be a prejudice to the Plaintiff in that the Plaintiffs Claim would be rendered effectively null and void, no longer associated with the equity thereby established by the investment in the property by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff would have to resort to the preposterous undignified position of chasing the Defendant across the country with little to no chance of ever recovering the invested $80,000 in equity as has been invested in the subject property to the benefit the Defendant Betty Rose Danielski who authorized; materials, labour and improvements to the Marshall Street Property.

21. Please Note: The Plaintiff is unsure at this point if Betty Rose Danielski is the Defendants actual Legal name and whether the Plaintiff would be able to relocate Betty Rose Danielski a second time. The Plaintiffs demand for an explanation further requesting inter alia; confirmation as to why the Solicitor for the Defendant has filed documents with Client Services with the name Betty underlined. These demands for an explanation have remained unanswered to the Plaintiff the solicitor for the Defendant refuses to answer this question amongst many others.

22. The Plaintiff contends that in any event, the here within subject matter of the Mechanics Lien Action remained alive within the less than one year time period,

moreover the Plaintiff in order to meet the requirement established by Section 52.1(1)(b) of the Act did within the prescribed period of time according to the act, the Plaintiff did prior to the expiry of the one year time period,` appropriately file under Section 52.1(1)(b) of the Act. Accordingly, there can be no deemed discontinuance of the action since Section 52.1(1)(b) of the Act was complied with. As long as an application is made and notice of the application given to the defendant within the one year for the commencement of the action timeline, Section 52.1 has been complied with. The provision does not go on to deal with deemed non-compliance in the event the action is not set down for trial by the expiration of the continuation period. It is the comprehension of the Plaintiff that is something to be dealt with in the Order of Continuance such an Order could contain a provision that in the event the action is not set down for trial prior to the expiration of the continuation period, the action shall be deemed discontinued or shall be struck. But Section 52.1 contains no such provision.