SCC Case No. 31608

 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

 

Between:

 

WIC Radio Ltd. And Rafe Mair

Respondents/Appellants

 

v.

 

Kari Simpson

Applicant/Respondent

 

                                                            - and -

 

Canadian Civil Liberties Association, British Columbia

Civil Liberties Association and Canadian Newspaper Association,

Ad IDEM/Canadian Media Lawyers Association,

British Columbia Association of Broadcasters,

RTNDA Canada/Association of Electronic Journalists,

Canadian Publishers’ Council, Magazines Canada,

Canadian Association of Journalists

And Canadian Journalists for Free Expression

(Collectively “Media Coalition”)

Interveners

 

 

 

AFFIDAVIT OF KARI SIMPSON

 

 

I, Kari Simpson, the Applicant/Respondent in this matter, of the Township of Langley, in the Province of British Columbia, Canada MAKE OATH AND SAY THAT:

 

1. I have knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposed to except where they are stated to be based on information and belief, in which case I believe them to be true.

 

2.     I was a party before this Court on December 4, 2007 in the matter of

       WIC Radio Ltd. V. Simpson

 

3.    This Court deposited the decision in this matter with the Registry on June 27,  

        2008.

 

4. On December 4, 2007 I was present in the gallery during the hearing.  I was

      aghast when my lawyer Lianne Potter failed to follow my express instructions to

      set straight the true facts of my case.

 

5.   I asked Ms. Potter on December 19, 2007 to remove herself as counsel of record.

Attached and marked as Exhibit 1, composing of three pages is a copy of our email exchanges and her Notice to Withdraw.

 

      6.  On November 7, 2007, prior to the hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada I

met with Ms. Potter at her office in Vancouver, also attending the meeting was another senior member of the Law Society, Roger McConchie retained for his expertise in defamation law. One of the purposes of the meeting was to determine whether or not Ms. Potter would act as counsel for the hearing before the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

      7.   The meeting was convened after Ms. Potter sent me an email regarding payment      

    of her current bill associated with the Supreme Court of Canada proceedings.  The     

two issues to be discussed at the meeting were payment of legal accounts and whether or not Ms. Potter would act for me before the Supreme Court of Canada. Attached to this my Affidavit and marked as Exhibit 2 is a copy of that email and my response.

 

8. During the meeting on November 7^th I advised Ms. Potter and Mr. McConchie that their current bills would be paid upon the completion of a pending sale. I advised Ms. Potter that it was my intention to represent myself. 

 

9. Ms. Potter was well aware of my concerns about the numerous errors of facts contained in the trial judgement.  We had been at odds over this point since the trial. Some of those errors mentioned in the trial judge’s reasons were relied upon by this Court.

 

10. Those factual errors include but are not limited to:

 

§         My supposed involvement in the “Surrey Book Case”

§         Mair’s assertion and full reliance that the removal of Riley Prepchuck from Mr. Chamberlains classroom was simply because he, Mr. Chamberlain, was gay.

§         The media characterizations of myself as “anti gay”, “intolerant”

§         “Most Dangerous Women….” article

§         The creation and purpose of the Declaration of Family Rights

 

11. At the meeting on November 7, 2007 Ms. Potter expressed her desire to appear before the Supreme Court of Canada and she was very determined in her outline of the case. Backed by my other counsel, Roger McConchie, both agreed that the arguments would be very technical.  I advised Ms. Potter that if my decision was to allow her to represent me, such representation was contingent upon her presenting to the Court the true facts of the case.

 

12. I was told that “honest belief” was all we needed. I was assured over and over  again that Mair’s lack of belief in his own words was sufficient.  I stated, “It was my reputation at stake and I wanted the record to reflect the whole truth.”  I made specific reference to the Appellants’ counsel’s zeal for capitalizing on the unfounded, stereo-typical characterizations of me, for instances, that I was “anti- gay” or “`being the leader of those opposed to teaching tolerance” and “being involved in the Surrey Book Case”  - a case I was not involved with in any way.

 

13. Particularly I mentioned a case Mr Burnett referred to on page 8 of his own Factum, ie:  Lougheed Enterprises v. Armbuster (1992), 63 B.C.L.R. (2d) 316 (C.A.) at 323 [A.A. Tab 29]

 

                        “There is here an apparent conflict between two principles:

1.                  This is an adversarial system.  That being so, every judge is generally in the hands of counsel, or where the party is not represented by counsel in the hands of that party, on the points to be raised and decided.  A judge, as has often been said, must not “descend into the arena.”

 

2.                  A judge has an overriding duty, in the words of an old judicial oath, “to administer justice with out fear or favour, affection or ill-will, according to the laws and usages of this realm.”  To this extent, the judge has a duty to ensure that the law is applied, even though the litigants may not be aware of its requirements.

 

The concept of judicial self-restraint, to which we adhere, is founded, if not wholly, at least in part, upon the assumption that counsel will do their duty, which is to do right by their clients and right by the courts, and that all parties be represented by counsel.  In the context, “right” includes taking all legal points deserving of consideration and not taking points so deserving.  The reason is simple.  Counsel must assist the court in doing justice according to the law.  When a point is deserving of consideration, the judge must have regard to all the relevant authorities.

 

 

14. During the meeting I voiced my concern regarding the trial judge’s willingness to descend into the “arena” and jump on the bandwagon despite Mr. Mair’s failings to produce any tangible evidence to support his claims; specifically, relying upon “media reputation” as sufficient evidence. 

 

15. This concerned me greatly.  I told them that if the media can manufacture a “reputation” based on hyperbole, falsehoods, propaganda and ignorance and the courts rely upon such characterizations to justify comment and/or facts, then no- one is safe. Hearsay, double hearsay, triple hearsay propelled through the media can now be received as “fact”. Attached and marked as Exhibit 3 and comprising of 3 pages are excerpts of Mr. Mair’s evidence during the trial as to his knowledge, or lack thereof, concerning my positions on matters, specifically: my involvement in the “Chamberlain case”; “Surrey School Board decision”; “three books”.

 

16. Further, at the meeting I raised the issue that Justice Southin, writing the unanimous decision in Simpson v. Mair and WIC Radio LTD. in the Court of Appeal also made references to the need for factual information.  Chastising the writer, not Ms. Potter, of their failings to plead my case properly, pleadings that are “critically important”.  Justice Southin states in paragraphs [11][12][13][14]

Because the pleadings may be critically important in an action for defamation, I propose, before coming to the learned trial judge's reasons, to comment on these pleadings.  As to how critical pleadings can be, those who engage in this branch of the law might consult Plato Films, Ltd. v. Speidel, [1961] 1 All E.R. 876 (H.L.), albeit an action very different from the case at bar.

In this context, I am reminded of the comment of Russell L.J., later the third Lord Russell of Killowen, who had come to the Court of Appeal from the Chancery Division, in Broadway Approvals, Ltd. v. Odhams Press, Ltd., [1965] 2 All E.R. 523 at 540 (C.A.):

To the comparative newcomer, the law of libel seems to have characteristics of such complication and subtlety that I wonder whether a jury on retiring can readily distinguish their heads from their heels. 

   The statement of claim, by paragraph 5, pleads false innuendoes only. 

There is no plea responding to the requirement of Rule 19(12)(a), which         addresses true innuendoes:

            (12)      In an action for libel or slander,

(a)        where the plaintiff alleges that the words or matter complained of were used in a derogatory sense other than their ordinary meaning, the plaintiff shall give particulars of the facts and matters on which the plaintiff relies in support of that sense, ...

 

17. Justice Southin again raises the importance of Rule 19(12)(a) at paragraph [24] of

      the B.C. Court of Appeal decision she states:

 

Counsel before us did not address whether the appellant ought to have observed Rule 19(12)(a) in the circumstances of this case.  Therefore I need say nothing more about it except to warn those who go into the minefield that is the law of libel that attention should be paid to this rule.

 

18. I as the Plaintiff sought legal counsel and was represented by Eric Rice Q.C., who at the time was the President of the Canadian Bar Association.  I thought I had hired the best.  I now know that my case was fatally flawed from the beginning because of his failure to adhere to the Rules of the Court and the failure of the trial judge to ensure the rules were followed. Attached and marked as Exhibit 4

      is a copy of Rule 19(12)(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of British      

     Columbia

 

19. Had Mr. Rice followed the Rules of the Court, the lower Court would have had the following particulars prior to trial in 2002.  These particulars would have included, among numerous other things, the factual evidence relating to my support of the parents removal of Riley.  These particulars would prove that my support of the parents was in no way related to Mr. Chamberlain’s sexual orientation but rather the facts.   Mr. Chamberlain is a liar and used his classroom to indoctrinate his 5/6 year old students with his own personal politics contrary to the B.C. Teachers’ Code of Ethics. Mr. Chamberlain did not acknowledge or respect the rights’ of parents.  He actively educated other teachers on how to circumvent the Ministry of Education policies with respect to informing parents about classroom content on sensitive matters. Furthermore, Mr. Chamberlain is unprofessional and hostile towards people of faith and anyone else who challenged his view of the flat world. 

 

20. Mr. Mair’s false assumptions on these matters provide the pillar upon which he stands.  The problem is there is no foundation.  Mr  Mair repeatedly asserted both on the air and in print his ignorant, deceptive assumptions.  Attached and marked as Exhibit 5 and composed of 7 pages are a few excerpts from some of Mr. Mair’s editorials concerning the assumed and unfounded motive of parents removing a child from a teacher’s classroom simply because he was gay.  

 

21. Mr. Mair’s continuous assertions concerning the removal of Riley Prepchuck are false, completely void of truth and a total mischaracterization of my support for Riley’s parent’s decision to remove him from Mr. Chamberlain’s classroom. 

 

22. During the course of the meeting on November 7, 2007 with Ms. Potter I made specific reference to the comment made by Justice Cory J. in Hill v. Scientology concerning the importance of getting the factual background accurate in cases.  He states in paragraph 3:

 

As in all actions for libel, the factual background is extremely important and must be set out in some detail…

 

 

23. Further, I raised as one example the trial judge’s mischaracterization of the article and title “The Most Dangerous Woman In BC”.  The full title is; “The Most Dangerous Woman in B.C….Kari Simpson’s pro-family crusade threatens not only the NDP, but the Liberals”. 

 

24. At the conclusion of our meeting I was assured that if I agreed to Ms. Potter’s representation that, if the opportunity presented itself, she would clarify and explain for the Court the crucial and pivotal facts of this case and counter Mr. Burnett’s predictable untrue assertions.

 

25. It was determined at the conclusion of our meeting that Ms. Potter would provide a time line for payment and notice to the SCC.  If payment of their respective accounts was not forthcoming as discussed that she would serve her notice to withdraw as counsel.  I also advised both Ms. Potter and Mr. McConchie that I would give careful considerations to their comments and advice in deciding on whether or not Ms. Potter would appear for me.  

 

26. Later that day I received by email a copy of Ms. Potter’s timeline attached as Exhibit 6. It was my understanding that counsel must provide to the Supreme Court of Canada a notice that they will appear and that there is a deadline for such.  After being assured by Ms. Potter that she would appear and act as per my instructions I advised Roger McConchie of my decision.  In his response he wrote and stated:

                       

When we met last week at Lianne Potter’s office, I strongly

recommended that you reconsider your plan to appear without

legal counsel. I am delighted you decided to instruct Lianne

to continue her representation.  This ensures you will be

represented by excellent, aggressive counsel who has a solid

command of the issues before the court. 

 

Attached as Exhibit 7 is a copy of the email sent to me.

 

27. There was some delay in the finalizing of the sale documents thus delaying the payout of funds to Ms. Potter.  I knew I would not make the deadline and was relieved as I had reconsidered my position and decided to act myself.   I left Ms. Potter a voice mail advising that the deadline would not be met and understood that she would not be appearing. I thanked her for her work. 

 

28. The next day the deal completed and the funds were transferred.  I called Ms. Potter to advise her that the funds had been sent and was content in knowing that she would not be acting as my counsel as the deadline had been missed.

 

29. On the phone she advised me that she had not withdrawn as per our agreement and was on the record as counsel. I considered advising the Supreme Court of Canada Registrar but was concerned that any changes would result in further delay. I was not happy. 

 

30. On December 2, 2007 I travelled to Ottawa for the purpose of attending the hearing.  I met with Lianne Potter on the morning of December 3, 2007 in the lobby of our hotel prior to our scheduled meeting with my Ottawa agent Marie- France Major.  While in the hotel lobby I had the receptionist print off a one page document, which I gave to Ms. Potter detailing some of the facts she was to articulate to this Court. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a copy of the “Getting the facts right.”

 

31. During the meeting I asked my Ottawa agent out of curiosity, “What kind of person was she expecting me to be?”  She stated, “A bitter old woman.” She further explained “that it was a good thing that I was here to attend Court as I wasn’t at all what she was expecting.” 

 

32. Marie-France Major then offered information that was extremely distressing to me.  She advised that she had done a “Google search” about me as she was curious. Further, she told me that she had been a former clerk to a justice of the Supreme Court of Canada and that it was a typical practice of the clerks to seek such information.

 

33. Alarmed, I asked if clerks working on preparing briefs for the Justices would be influenced by the information they read.  Ms. Major agreed they would be.  Further, their own biases would colour their briefs. I was very disturbed to learn this and upon returning to my hotel room I immediately did a “Google search” and downloaded a considerable amount of defamatory content found on Rafe Mair’s website that was not part of this action.  

 

34. On December 4, 2007 I was present in the gallery when Mr. Mair’s counsel strategically misinformed this Court within the first moments of his appearance.  I remember thinking very clearly to myself how predictable his comments were and how glad I was that I had instructed Ms. Potter to provide the true fact of the case as he was setting himself and his clients up perfectly.  I hoped the Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada would value truth and not take kindly to Mr Burnett’s overt attempt to deceive them. 

 

Mr Burnett in his opening remarks stated:

 

                        Chief Justice, Justices. This appeal arises from a very

public and heated controversy about gay tolerance in

school system of British Columbia, a controversy that has

made its way to this Court in 2002, in the case involving

the three books involving the same-sex parents. The

respondent, Kari Simpson, was a leader -- some would say

the leader -- of the side of that debate which opposed the

teaching of gay tolerance. On the three books issue, she was

very public in her opposition to the books. She wrote

something -- and helped write and promote something

called the "declaration of family rights" that expressly

forbid schools from teaching that a homosexual lifestyle

is normal or acceptable. She spoke all across the province

saying similar things and, in the incident that gave closest

rise to the editorial at issue in this appeal, she supported a

parent who took her child out of a gay teacher's class and

then attended a rally in support of that parent.

 

35. I recall thinking as Mr. Burnett spoke how interesting it would be if just one justice would interject and ask for any reference that would support his false assertion relating to my “very public opposition to the books”.

 

36. I was anticipating that Ms. Potter, as per my instructions, would deal quickly with the true facts of the case, thus enlightening the Court to Mr. Burnett’s misrepresentations.  She did not and none were forthcoming. 

 

37. Most distressing to me was the opportunity presented during an exchange with   Madam Justice Abella.   

MADAM JUSTICE ABELLA: The trial judge also referred

to the declaration.

MS. POTTER: Yes.

MADAM JUSTICE ABELLA: I wonder if that was something

that went into the mix at the Court of Appeal, the comments in

the declaration, asking parents to oppose any teaching which

shows that the gay lifestyle is normal, acceptable, or to be

tolerated.

MS. POTTER: It was not part of my case, other than to point

out, as I did at trial, that the respondent did not include the

reverse side of the document, which explained the circumstances

for the preparation of the document.

MADAM JUSTICE ABELLA: It wasn't only the rally that

was the basis, was it? I thought that this also formed part of

the factual nexus in trial judge's --

MS. POTTER: The trial judge did find that. The declaration

was an implied fact relied on by Mair. What needs to be

noted here is that the paragraph of the editorial which contained

the most damaging words, in my submission, expressly

referenced back to the tape. It wasn't referencing back to other

facts, it expressly references to the listening of the tape. And yet

when you listen or look at the transcript of the tape, you appreciate

that the comments of the respondent to the crowd were not

inflammatory; they were not truly provocative; they didn't engage

in gay bashing or promoting violence. They engaged in exercising

a right of expression that is…

 

 

38. At the conclusion of the hearing I immediately questioned Ms Potter about her

    refusal to follow my instructions by providing a full and satisfactory answer to a  

    crucial line of inquiry.  She provided no explanation. 

 

39. Upon my return home to British Columbia I knew from the questions asked by the    

      Justices they were confused by the errors of facts.  I anticipated the decision

      handed down by the Court. I contacted Lianne Potter and requested that she  

     provide the Court with a supplemental book detailing the true facts of this case. 

     Ms. Potter didn’t think it was necessary. 

 

40. Had  a supplemental book been provided this Honourable Court would have been provided with some knowledge of the true facts of this case underscoring again the importance of compliance with  Rule 19(12)(a).  These true facts would have included the particulars concerning my support for the parent’s decision to remove Riley. The true facts would have included a long list of Mr. Chamberlain’s own admissions as to his conduct, his disregard for parental

      right’s, his prohibition of religious viewpoints in his classroom and would have   

      further provided the trial judge with the knowledge that Mr. Chamberlain’s  

      campaign within the schools had little to do with “tolerance.”  The transcript of

      Mr. Chamberlain’s  own testimony, his own words from a hearing before the B.C.

      Human Rights Tribunal would have provided the trial judge with crucial

      information that Mr. Mair was fatally wrong in his repeatedly asserting that my

      support of the parents had anything to do with Mr. Chamberlain’s sexual

      orientation. Some examples that should have been given to this Court had Ms.

      Potter provided you with a supplementary book would have included but are not

      limited to: 

 

a)  Concerning the adherence to the Ministry of Educations requirement to notify

     parents when sensitive subject matter was discussed Mr. Chamberlain

     provided these insights: 

Q  What is your knowledge of the Ministry of Education policy

                                on such matters?

A  My knowledge is that if a teacher is to discuss an issue of

      a sensitive nature that they're supposed to inform parents

      of what they're going to teach about. And parents can opt

      their children out of the delivery of the curriculum and teach

      it themselves as long as they provide some kind of

      assurance to the school that they are actually meeting the

      curricular goals.

Q   Did you notify any of the parents in the school year of

      1995/96 that you'd be teaching a sensitive subject matter?

A   No, I wasn't teaching a sensitive subject matter.  I was simply

      reading a book about two dads on Father's Day.

Q   And you don't view that as a sensitive subject matter? Did it involve  

      same- sex partners?

A  No, I never mentioned anything about same-sex partners when

     I read the book to the children.

Q   Did the book portray same-sex partners?

A   It doesn't say the word "gay" or "lesbian" in it.  It could be portraying

      same-sex partners or two men who live together and have two

      families in the same house.  There's no reference to gay and lesbian

      in the book, or the word "homosexual.”

 

 

               b) Further, this insightful exchange would have been particularized.  The  

                   exchange is around  instructing teachers on how to circumvent

                   parental notification concerning sensitive subject matters.

 

Q  Mr. Chamberlain, in looking at the resource guide, you then go

     on to say:

 

                                      Should a teacher wish to use a learning resource

                                        under CAPP or personal planning which may be

                                        considered sensitive in nature, the following

                                        process applies:

 

                            And then in brackets you have a most interesting thing here. 

                              You  say:

 

                                     This process only...

 

                            And the word "only" is underlined:

 

                                    ...applies to resource being used under CAPP. 

                                     For example, learning resources necessary

                                     to teach human rights legislation and social studies

                                     curriculum do not need to go through this process.

 

                             Are you intending to instruct teachers how to get

                               around the parental notification requirement in

                                Career and Personal Planning?

A  No, I think you're -- one thing that you're attributing is that

      I wrote this whole thing, and I didn't.  There's a committee

      involved and the STA executive actually drafted this part

      of the document, and the STA executive put in this advice

      around policy.  I didn't write this.

Q   You support this resource guide, Mr. Chamberlain?

A   Yes, I do.

Q   You support the advice that the Surrey Teachers Association

       has put in?

A   Yes, I do.

Q   Then you agree that that is a directive to teachers on how

       to get around --

A    No, I do not.  It's a directive to teachers as to how they can

       teach the topic without being persecuted by the school board,

       or subject to any disciplinary action by the school board.

 

              c)   Concerning Mr. Chamberlain’s comments on a televised CBC forum.  He

                    admits that it may lead people to believe he’s talking, contrary to Ministry of

                    Education policies, about same-sex families.

                   

            Q Mr. Chamberlain, I appreciate your counsel probably wants

    confirmation through the video tape, which we will be happy to

    provide, but is that in essence what you said?

A Yes, that's correct.

Q  And I draw your attention to right in the middle:

 

In my kindergarten class we talk about sexism in

age-appropriate ways; we talk about how girls and

boys should be able to do the same things; and

I also talk about same-sex families.

 

            Is that correct?

                          A   Is that statement correct?

                          Q   Mm-hmm.

                          A   Yes.

Q   And is that what you were doing in your

      kindergarten classroom?

A   I was not talking about same-sex families in my classroom at that time.

Q  You would agree your comments say something very different?

                          A   They may lead people to believe that I was talking about

                                 same-sex families in my classroom at the time, yes.

 

 

         d) As for the evidence of Mr. Chamberlain’s lack of respect for parental rights

             and understanding of his limited role as a teacher this exchange might have

             helped the trial judge.

 

Q Do you agree, Mr. Chamberlain, that parents are the

    authority over their children's education?

A I've already stated that I think that parents are equal

    partners in the education process, and I don't think

    that parents or teachers are the authority over

     anyone's education.

Q Then who is the authority?

A  It's an equal partnership.

 

   e)  Had Rule 19(12)(a) been complied with the trial judge would have known

        about Mr. Chamberlain’s total disregard for proper and professional

        development of Curriculum.

 

Q  Mr. Chamberlain, what if a psychiatrist came out and said that

    this information in the lesson plans contained herein were very

    dangerous as far as the healthy normal development of children

    and would interfere in proper development of sexual identity,

    what would you do?

A Ignore them.

 

 

41. Mr. Chamberlain, during this proceeding lied about being outed by the media, lied about parents and colleagues knowing he was gay, lied about the filing of the Declaration of Family Rights on his classroom… The list of particulars if Rule 19 (12)(a) had been complied with would be a long one concerning Mr. Chamberlain penchant for being untruthful, unprofessional and very misguided as to his role as a teacher. 

 

42. Had Rule 19(12)(a) been complied with the trial judge would have been enlightened to the classic language/propaganda typically relied upon by gay activists.  During direct examination Mr. Chamberlain provided this concerning depiction of his departure from a well-attended forum on the “Facts of Homosexuality:”

 

And there was a reporter who asked to speak to me afterwards and I actually left three-quarters of the way through it because I was so emotionally upset by what I had heard.  And I didn't stay because I didn't want to be interviewed by the media and I felt that the comments by Ms. Simpson and other speakers perpetuated a lot of the myths and negative stereotypes about gay and lesbian people that are heard in society all the time.  And having been a student in the public school system who was a victim of homophobic harassment for many years, it brought back a lot of those childhood memories and I felt that I -- I just couldn't stay.  I had to get out of the room.  It was just a hostile place to be.  And I'm not really a wilting flower, but on that occasion I felt like it was a place I needed to leave pronto.

 

43. Of course he was lying.  Fortunately the meeting was videotaped and Mr. Chamberlain was filmed standing patiently in line after the meeting waiting to ask me a question about funding.

 

44. Of further irony I have wondered had Rule 19(12 (a) been complied with and Mr. Mair confronted with the true facts instead of relying on his ignorance, perhaps he would have settled the matter prior to trial. Ironically Mr. Mair in his editorial “The Written Word” of October 27, 1999 states:

 

Isn’t the answer to these and many other similar questions this – if a teacher tries to inculcate into students a personal belief or life style that must be dealt with. If, on the other hand (as seems to be the case with Mr Chamberlain) the teacher sticks with the curriculum what possible difference can personal beliefs of lifestyle make?

 

 

45. On December 19, 2007 I wrote to Lianne Potter requesting that she remove her

      name as counsel of record. 

 

46. Shortly after my discussions with Ms. Potter I became aware of Rule 76 of the

Supreme Court of Canada.  During my preparation for this motion for a Re- 

Hearing of Appeal I was made aware of a letter sent to Justice Binnie dated July

21, 2008 from Rafe Mair.  I believe that Mr. Mair agrees that this Court was

greatly hindered in their characterizations of this case, myself and Mr. Mair

due to the numerous errors of fact. 

 

47. I believe that had this Court had the benefit of proper pleadings and the particulars

      required in compliance with Rule 19(12)(a) that the characterizations of Mr. Mair

     and your findings would have been very different. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a copy

     of the Letter to Justice Binnie from Rafe Mair and a copy of the Registrar’s letter

     confirming receipt and delivery to Justice Binnie.

 

48. I make this Affidavit in support my, the Applicant, application for a Re-Hearing of Appeal in accordance with Rule 76 of the Supreme Court of Canada Rules.

 

 

Sworn before me at the                                )

Township of Langley, in the                        )                       Original signed & sworn

Province of British Columbia this               )                       ____________________

______ day of August, 2008                                     )                       KARI D. SIMPSON

                                                                        )

 

___________________________

Commissioner of Oaths

And Notary Public for the

Province of British Columbia