The Court should be guided by a very dear jurisprudence to the United States Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Filed and Province served
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Favorite Paragraph, still laughing: [36.5] Let’s guess what the Attorney General of Canada might say?

Favorite line:Be assured, the Supreme Court of Canada will jealously defend the Court’s marriage to Democracy.


"It’s a slippery slope to allow the Province to restrict the Court’s access to political justice, based on conditions that the Province arbitrarily sets."




Court of Appeal File No. ....................

Supreme Court File No. ....................

Supreme Court Registry ....................



COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN: British Columbia Teachers’ Federation, Federation of Post-Secondary Educators of British Columbia, British Columbia Division of the Canadian Union of Public Employees, British Columbia Nurses’ Union and Marcia Toms

Appellant/Respondent
(Plaintiff)

AND: Attorney General of British Columbia, Gloria Laurence and Wendy Weis

Appellant/Respondent
(Defendant)



NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

Take notice that (chief) hereby applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia from remedy of Justice Cole of the Supreme Court of British Columbia pronounced the 30th day of April, 2009, at Vancouver, British Columbia. [If the appeal is from a part of the judgment only, please specify the part] Appealing only the-not-with-standing remedy paragraphs 285 & 286.

This appeal is from a trail Judgment. It involves Constitutional / Administration and Civil Procedure issues.



And further take notice that the Court of Appeal will be moved at the hearing of this application for an order that:
[1] Seek an Order to reverse Justice Cole’s decision that the Court had no jurisdiction to make a decision. When it warrants it, the Court can disregard British Columbia’s Constitutional Question Act; and therefore, the Court did have the jurisdiction to strike down Bill 42 section’s 198(1)a & 199(1)a. Seek an Order to sever the Constitutional Question Act question of law into its own appeal proceeding, separate from the main appeal. A Justice has no discretion to deviate from Federal law, and must strictly adhere to Charter Section 33’s court rules approach on a notwithstanding provision.

[2] Seek a cost order that the plaintiff will not owe any funds to pay for the defendant’s costs, based on BC Court Rules pubic interest doctrine, appendix b, party and party costs 3b. Seek a cost order that on a successful appeal that legal costs are to be reimbursed by the Province. This appeal has a strong pubic interest, and is essential to the administration of law.

The grounds of appeal are:
[3] We the People seek the wisdom of the British Columbia Court of Appeal to weigh-in and clarify the Court’s thoughts, on Justice Cole’s closing comments in British Columbia Teachers’ Federation v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2009 BCSC 440, docket: S085226. Justice Cole has acknowledged this aspect of his electoral fairness remedy is patently unfair. This is a very special case, and involves the inalienable right of Provincial Democracy to be protected by the rule of Federal law. It is of paramount importance to Canadian Jurisprudence to revisit this.
[4] Canada’s Charter Section 33 registration trumps British Columbia’s Constitutional Question Act Section 8.2(b) & 8(3) registration. The Constitutional Question Act is not registered under Section 33 of the Charter; and therefore is of no-force-and-effect to limit the Court in matters defending our democracy during critical moments. Simply said, the Charter’s jurisdiction can be suspended, if and only if, it is registered. The Province decided not to register the notwithstanding legislation; and therefore does not own the property right to demand that the Charter be suspended. There is also the matter that, the Court guarding Section 3 of the Charter, the information component of our guaranteed democratic rights, cannot be restricted by a notwithstanding provision.

[5] The Court also has original jurisdiction. A Country is founded on an oath that Federal law is supreme and supersedes Provincial law in election fraud. Justice Cole's decision to agree that the Court has no jurisdiction is wrong and must not stand.

[6] The appeal issue is a question of law. The decision’s subject matter is not being appealed. Justice Cole is correct about the civil rights infringement of the extreme pre-campaign time period -- and the civil rights infringement of the very broad definition of what constitutes third party political advertising. The appeal concerns only the last two paragraphs of his decision that creates new case law that permits a Justice to make a patently unfair decision concerning our Democracy. To aid the Court of Appeal in their decision, no position is taken on whether the Court should have indeed struck down the candidates/party spending limits, only that the Court has the jurisdiction to do so.

[7] Politicians do not have the authority to enact legislation to restrict the Court’s jurisdiction to judge election laws that politicians make up. It is a slippery slope to allow the Province to quash the Court’s ruling, based on conditions that the Province arbitrarily sets.

[8] The Court should be guided by a very dear jurisprudence to the United States Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison (1803). The ground breaking case established that the government of the moment is not authorized to alter the Court’s original jurisdiction. The Court may oversee and nullify the actions of a branch of government. The Legislature cannot empower the Court to issue writs of mandamus, which is what happened by Justice Cole claiming that the Court had no jurisdiction based on the Province’s unregistered notwithstanding provision.

[9] Quotes from Justice Cole’s decision: 2009/03/30 Remedy ”[285 ]Because there are spending limits for registered political parties and candidates during the 60-day pre-campaign period (election expenses of $1.1 million for political parties under s. 198(1) (a) and $70,000 for candidates under s. 199(1) (a)) it would be patently unfair to have those restrictions apply when there are none for third parties”. “ [286] The Attorney General takes the position that since there was no notice under the Constitutional Question Act, that I have no jurisdiction to deal with those particular sections of the act. I agree with the Attorney General. I therefore leave it up to the legislature to take the necessary corrective action in respect to this unfairness to the political parties and the candidates during the pre-campaign period.” 2009/03/31 “[3] “As I indicated in the last few paragraphs of my judgment, the solution here is straightforward; there is no complex remedy required.”

If and only if, the defendant waves their right to contest this appeal, will the appellant accept these terms and conditions on the scope of the Court’s examination:
[10] The appellant agrees to limit the scope of the Court’s examination to pertain specifically to the questions relating to the Court’s original jurisdiction; and the Constitutional Question Act and its ability to over ride the S.33 of the Charter, and nullify the Court’s decision making powers. New matters -- new information, motive, liability and other issues -- will not be open to examination, if and only if, the defendant does not contest standing. The Court is tasked here with a fundamental question of law dealing with the Court’s ability to protect Democracy during critical moments. Let all the parties involved take the high road, and do what we can to make this necessary task as easy as possible for the Court.

[11] With reflection, it is believed this is the only course of action for the Attorney General. The Attorney General has a legal responsibility to understand the Constitutional Question Act’s authority to suspend the Court’s jurisdiction. In your research, please note that this fundamental question is not addressed and deserves to be clarified. Please welcome the High Court’s assistance here.

The mute issue of no chance of success:
[12] The appeal concerns Court procedure, and thus, it would be irresponsible to compound the original alleged irregularities, and argue that this question of law has no chance of success. The Canadian Bar Association in their report on Court reform holds that any matter the Court feels enhances public respect and confidence, and gives the Court its moral authority, and preserves the confidence in our institutions, is reviewable by the Court.

[13] If there is any chance that the Appeal Court will overturn Justice Cole’s decision limiting the Court’s original jurisdiction, then the issues over standing and filing time limit are mute. (This is the don’t put form before substance argument.) We the People want and demand and expect that the Court does have jurisdiction and the power to be the defender of our Democracy.
Issue of standing:
[14] With all due respect, the Supreme of Court of Canada will recognize the appellant’s standing. Justice Cole’s remedy constitutes a jurisdictional error and an oppressive remedy. The Appeal Court must place the best interests of British Columbia and Canada, above the defendant’s objections on standing. These are extreme political free speech infringements. The defendant has exploited the weaknesses in our legal system, and approached the privilege of drafting election code, based not on what is right, but what they thought they could get away with. The Court and Democracy are married; together they stand and together they fall. This case is a perfect example of how those that cheat Democracy, would take away the Court’s autonomy. Be assured, the Supreme Court of Canada will jealously defend the Court’s marriage to Democracy.

[15] Something is very wrong when society’s democratic civil rights are retarded by politicians, and the Supreme Court’s remedy is denied jurisdiction by politicians. The Appeal Court has a duty to Canada to share their thoughts on the defendant’s political vision. Quote from the Times Colonist, March 28/09, “Oppal initially tried to impose sweeping restrictions. As early version of Bill 42 called for third party spending limits to apply in the five months before election day.” This is a crisis for Canada when the High Court’s guidance cannot be accessed to combat political extremism.

[16] The defendant’s rhetoric uses the appeal to authority fallacy, to say these laws are the wish of the Legislature. New information. The NDP were taken by surprise, about the referendum regulation banning candidates from combining political advertising with their STV referendum positions. Don’t expect the NDP to broadcast this though.

[17] The Law is that in exceptional circumstances, that yes standing can be recognized. British Columbian Civil Appeal Handbook S.4.7 “Parties who did not participate in or have formal standing in the proceeding below do not have standing to appeal other than in exceptional cases.” Political law is this exception.

[18] British Columbia Civil Appeal Handbook 3.15 “Leave is often granted where the proposed appeal raises matters of interest to the public generally or to a large class of People. Civil Appeal Handbook 3.16 states a Leave may be granted if the issue is important to the practice of law. Civil Appeal Handbook 4.9 “Adding Parties on appeal a justice may add a respondent a party who is not already named and who could be affected by the order request on the appeal. Rule 2(2)a. The jurisdiction to add a party as appellant is presumably found in Sec.30 of the Act, which provides the Court of Appeal may be regulated by analogy to the Supreme Court Rules where there is no specific provision to the Act.” The language of Appeal Rule S.3 uses the words, “A person can appeal.” British Columbia’s Interpretation Act does not define a person, as being the plaintiff or the defendant. It goes against our founding fathers grand design, to deny voters the right to appeal Supreme Court decisions that harm the founders’ gift.

[19] Richard Niebuhr Enterprises Ltd. v.Vancouver (City) Board 2007. BC Court of Appeal This British Columbia case law supports granting standing. Yes it is agreed that, micro participants require economic certain. And therefore, the Appeal Court was correct to dismiss Ms. Street’s efforts to be granted standing. Guiding principle: it is not appropriated for the Court to change the parities to allow an appeal in circumstances were the unsuccessful respondent has not appealed. This is not the case here. The Province lost and was found to have infringed upon everybody’s civil rights, yet society is worse off. Justice Cole’s remedy minimizes the power of the Court. Society demands the Court’s power be restored. The economics of law concept of parto efficiency can by invoked here to grant standing.

[20] Fontaine v. Canada (Attorney Genera) also supports standing. Standing can be granted on the basis of the lack of ability to be part of the original action. Basically, the Court was informed that the Attorney General of Canada was unaware of the dynamics of the remedy required. Two sides to this coin, how can the defendant argue now that British Columbians should have known? The defendant has opened the door to the ignorance argument. The appellant pleads ignorance, as how could he predicate that the Court faced such a puzzle.

[21] In complex charter cases, where there is more than one charter petition for similar material, both petitions have a right to appeal the remedy of the other. The appellant’s petition alleging election referendum fraud was registered on April 9th, 2009. The defendant was served, and did issue a response. The response was issued on May 11th 2009, one day before the election/ referendum by the defendant’s barrister Craig E. Jones.

[22] The Court’s remedy for the referendum would have to redefine the same activity which the Teachers were seeking to redefine. It is a rare occurrence when there can be two charter challenges on the same wording of law. The Governor General in Council is the cause, as it was their decision to copy word for word Bill 42’s very broad definition of political advertising for the referendum’s definition. The only avenue for the Court to handle these two competing remedies is to allow both petitioners standing to appeal. When the limit on political advertising was scrapped, the appellant was still banned from political advertising; this then changed the appellant’s parto efficiency, and his remedy requirements.

[23] The Supreme Court’s decision acknowledging an oppressive remedy, and the lack of inclusion, should open the door to standing. The appellant believes his petition would face the same remedy dilemma Justice Cole faced.

[24] The appellant is one of only twelve registered referendum advertiser. The law demanded that the appellant register; similarly the law demands that the Constitutional Question Act be registered to take away jurisdiction from the Court to protect civil rights. The appellant’s rights to political advertise was completely banned by the Province, compounding the appellant’s democratic charter rights infringement. (The Province hampering society’s ability to communicate should reduce the weight necessary for standing.) The pre-campaign time limit for the referendum was even longer than the election pre-campaign time restriction. Political reform advertisers could not mention any subject or topic that was a position of any candidate.

[25] Further, the failure to grant an injunction obligates some give and take. The injunction should have been granted, due to that there was more than one unique legal element. Canadian jurisprudence, Harper v. Canada (2000) demands absolutely that Judges jealously defend democracy.

[26] The Court's authority to define and change the political landscape, is premised on the right of all to appeal these types of political decisions. Justice Cole’s discretion only to recognize standing, and ignore the intervener’s contribution, must translate that the granting of standing be made easier; because this is a fundamental decision changing the nature of Canada, and can only be legitimate when society’s concerns are respected. Our democracy is faltering, barely more than 50 percent of the electorate voted in the non free speech provincial election -- if one does the math and counts the non registered voters, that’s more than half did not vote! BC politics is in dire straits; and therefore, it would be irresponsible not to help. British Columbians require the Appeal Court to answer this question of law. Who will advance this appeal then?

Appeal filing time limit issue:
[27] Appeal Court Rule S.10(1) A Justice may extend or shorten the time within which an appeal to the Court or application for Leave to Appeal may be brought. Appeal Court Rule S.25 (3) A justice may impose terms and conditions and give directions that the justice considers appropriate. Discretion can be exercised here. There are several persuasive arguments to why the Court should wish to grant an extension. An election and referendum were occurring during this leave to appeal time limit, complicating matters. In this matter, to avoid politicizing the process, it was best to let the waters settle.

[28] Galiano Conservancy Assn. v British Columbia (Ministry of Transportation) 1997 BC Court of Appeal. The fundamental criteria are whether it is in the interests of justice to do so. An appeal cannot be reinstated if prejudice is established. George v. McMahon, 2008 BC Court of Appeal. Paragraph “[20] The test for reinstatement of an appeal standing dismissed as abandoned is significantly more rigorous than the test for removing an appeal from the inactive list. [21] [No] rigid test, the overriding issue is whether it is in the interests of justice to grant an application. Considerations often include the extent of the delay, the explanation for the delay, the existence of any prejudice arising from the delay and the likelihood of success on appeal.”

[29] It would go against the public interest to halt the appeal based on a time technicality. The appeal issue is of a fundamental importance for generations to come. To harm the Court’s ability to function as the defender of our Democracy, must be seen as a national security concern, that the Court must have the opportunity to engage.

[30] One of the appellant’s reasons for the delay was prejudiced by the Province’s statements that they were going to appeal. The appellant took them at their word. Why hasn’t the Province appealed as they promised they would? As luck would have it, after this leave to appeal was written, this

news story appeared in the Times Colonist Oct 7th, 2010 titled: ”Third party advertising rules ‘chilled’ election debate: report.” Quotes: “A spokesman for the attorney general’s office said the government will refrain from discussing Bill 42 until the B.C Court of Appeal has rules on its constitutionality.” “The government is appealing the decision.” This is defending the indefensible. It’s bizarre to argue that society’s political free speech is to be restricted, yet at the same time argue that no reasons have to be given to society, and then ask the Court of Appeal to go against Canadians core democratic beliefs! New information has come to light that explains the hidden motives of the defendant that compels action.

[31] The Province forfeited their right to claim that the appeal filing time limit should be enforced, because of their impugned activity. There is a fundamental unfairness to shut down the normal mechanisms of communication, and then demand on the other hand, that the normal time rule should apply. When the defendant manipulated the hands of time to cheat British Columbians of their guaranteed rights, dooms democracy to say the clock reads such and such, therefore get lost.

What does the Court get out of the transaction?
[32] The Court has a right to practice complex law. The Court has the responsibility to safe guard future arbitrators and their decisions, from the logic dilemma Justice Cole faced. The conundrum: changing A, changes B; therefore can you change A, if one doesn’t have the authority to change B? Justice Cole acknowledges changing B in a patently unfair way. The Court therefore must be equipped with the jurisdiction to change B, so injustice does not become law. There is also the issue that, things are greater then the sum of their parts. An election spending limit charter violation is not necessarily fixable by changing one part. This conundrum should support the right to access the appeal process.

[33] Quote from the Court of Appeal, May 3, 2009, to stay the proceedings on A because it changes B. “[12] The second reason the Attorney General advances focuses on the imbalance in spending restrictions in the 60-day period between third parties which, as consequences of the order have no restriction in that period and political parties and candidates which do have restrictions on the amount they can spend on advertising. He emphasizes the judge recognized this as a harmful unfairness[.]” The action of the Attorney General forwarding the position that the Court cannot even change A, is the final straw for the old Constitutional Questions Act. The Act needs to be redrafted.

[34] It should disappoint the Court of Appeal that the Lower Court’s decision, failed to reference the scope of the crack down against political free speech in the Province. The government should only have a limited capital to restrict democratic rights. Justice Cole’s paragraph 253, writes “I do not consider that part of the definition of election advertising that refers to an advertising message that directly promotes or opposes a political party or candidate to raise problems.” This was a huge problem and disappointment to political reformers. Good luck, improving the system without mentioning the system.

[35] The decision also failed to address the anti trust issue of British Columbia’s main newspapers. The Vancouver Sun, the Province, and the Times Colonist, as well as many small local newspapers -- all owned by one company CanWest. Justice Cole decision paragraph 230, acknowledges the power of the press. “The quite obvious fact that political parities and candidates continue to rely heavily on the traditional media to inform and persuade the pubic underscores this point.” British Columbians, from all walks of life, feel that CanWest uses their newspapers (their private property) to advertise their lopsided political opinion. That’s fine, it was their business, but it is not fine, when our free speech is restricted to make it worse. For example, the newspapers played an integral role in deceiving the electorate on HST. Revenue Canada’s HST initiative, and the promise of substantial incentives for the Provinces, were in the works before the May 09 election. The People are very upset. [New matters arising on appeal. Fresh evidence. Under Rule 31 a party may adduce evidence that was not before the court appealed from with leave of the Court or a Justice.]

[36] Jurisprudence the next time, is now obligated to make it easier to get an injunction, when political free speech is restricted for large blocks of time. (Hopefully there is no next time.) Honourable statesmen do not ban free speech. This is a good lesson for Jurisprudence that politicians mislead. The pre campaign ban of political expression aided and abetted the budget lie and other questionable government business dealings.

[36.5] Let’s guess what the Attorney General of Canada might say? The election law restricts all topics and therefore is it would be very complex to support this complex law. If the Appeal Court were to decide that the all encompassing political advertising law is valid, then this would translate that all topics had a right to be restricted, and that opens the door to new information. By upholding the entire law, certain topics like BC Rail should be excluded from the all encompassing political advertising definition; this is a legal approach the Court must recognize. When political free speech is restricted to cover up government corruption, the corruption must be voiced. Here’s some sale details of the crown corporation BC Rail that were part of the free speech restrictions. The British Columbia 2009 Election Budget lie was not the first time the BC Ministry of Finance has run a muck, and covered up financial information to influence an election. During the Legislature raid in Dec, 2003, the BC Rail disclosure on the tax indemnity tax credits sale was set at 255 million. This figure changed into 366 million two weeks before the sale of B.C. Rail in summer of 2004, and was taken off the public accounts before the May 2005 election, after it was put back on. The BC Rail tax indemnity will approach 900 million dollars. The BC Rail tax indemnity is for asset write downs, that time has shown to be profitable. The Court must insist that the local attorney general stop obstructing justice, and cease and desist hiding the BC Rail tax indemnity from the BC Rail trial. Basi knows the ins and outs of the BC Rail tax indemnity, and kick backs involved. This could be very helpful and profitable to Revenue Canada. The NDP will not raise this issue as there is the refund concern! (Bottom line though, don’t steal from Revenue Canada.)

[37] Email evidence: from van Iersel the Province’s Comptroller General, (before his promotion to Auditor General) about detailing the switch in the BC Rail tax indemnity from 255 million to 366 million two weeks before the final sale in the summer, to Mr. Trumpy, (the person indentify in hansard, as responsible for disclosing the unread BC Rail tax indemnity disclosure to the cabinet.) “Here is the final indemnity note that Paul Taylor and I used to brief Vaughn Palmer yesterday afternoon. Only a few clean changes from what you saw before. We expect Vaughn will do a piece on this. Not sure what it is going to say.” It took Vaughn till the May 09 election to see the light; his stories have allowed the government to point and say look it made the papers. Note, why should Revenue Canada honour tax credits that they don’t get credit for, for example, the Victoria Times Colonist has never printed the BC Rail tax indemnity story.

[38] Email BC Rail indemnity July 22, 04:”I thought that Arn indicated that we would not include the max payable (worse case) in the statements of guaranteed debt and the number included there would be lower. Email evidence. Jan 26/05 draft of the Consolidated Financial Statements. Peter, I would like to confirm with you that the indemnity notification given by BCRC to CN to the tax attributes is not required to disclose in the Statement of Guaranteed Debt. Please advice, thanks.” No surprise, many of these BC Rail emails were destroyed just before the election, contriving the Document Disposal Act.

[39] The BC Ministry of Finance has lied again to British Columbians. Wide spread allegations that the Peoples’ books were cooked. CBC news quote that the deficit is ballooning to 2.8 billion. ”The minister said two days after the Liberals were elected to a third straight term on May 12, he was told the revenue shortfall would be more than 1.1 billion.” “At no time did finance officials suggest to me that that $495-million deficit was not doable.” Is it believable, that two days after the election, then and only then did the BC Liberal party realized this misinformation? If one believes this, then it follows, and is an offense, that the Finance Ministry officials before the election conspired to fool the government. Either way, this is fraud.

[40] Society must now ask, who stood in the way of the RCMP raiding the BC Ministry of Finance to determine who knew what when? The local Attorney General is responsible for policing and prosecuting those officials. Based on new information, it is strongly advised that the Attorney General change their position and no longer support these political free speech restrictions. [The appellant invokes Friesen v. Hammell 1997 BCSC 354. A petition alleging corrupt practice and budget irregularities, the petitioner does not have to have the particulars.]

[41] When the Court is tasked with deciding the true face of Democracy, our interveners should not be dished. We need to be reassured that the next time our interveners are heard. How important is the principle of inclusion, when Justice Cole in paragraph 35-42 says he declined to entertain the intervener’s submissions? Did Justice Cole weigh the intervener's ultra vires argument, when he refused to grant the injunction? Other Nations follow our lead; we all share a sacred responsibility to humanity’s journey to get this right.

[42] The onus in Charter examinations is for the Attorney General to affirm the right to the intrusion. To place Democracy’s fate on a plaintiff’s message to a third party, wronged our Democracy. Democracy is not dependent on the petitioner’s best; it is dependent on the Court’s best.

Right of the Supreme Court of Canada to review this matter:
[43] If the British Columbia Court of Appeal decides to dismiss this appeal -- it is respectfully asked that the Court please provide a written decision. Please appreciate that the Court's position on the right of Canadians to appeal this decision is a defining moment in Canadian history. Democracy is our home. It is requested -- that if the time filing limit or the appellant’s standing are a core difficulty -- that the Court request that both parties have an opportunity to prepare a written brief to why the Court should accept our positions. It is also asked for time to review the defendant’s submission to counter their arguments.

Final comments:
[44] It is an obstruction of justice to withhold information from the Justice Department. How is Democracy served by ignoring a harmful unfairness civil rights election breach? This is a colour of law offense, and a conspiracy against the public. When did the participants understand there was a deficiency in the message to the Feds? The local Attorney General’s goal was not to win this case, but rather to make sure that the Public Interest was served. The Constitutional Questions Act does not excuse the Court, once the Court believes that the election is contaminated; there is a duty to act. What was the point, if one doubts that the Attorney General of Canada was going enter a submission?

[45] The goal here is electoral fairness. A key component of electoral fairness is seeking the wisdom of the Court. This means, the defendant by claiming their wish is electoral fairness, has already implicitly given permission for this appeal to proceed. Thank you for reading over this leave to appeal.

[46] The Court must always error on the side of Democracy.



















The trial/hearing of this proceeding ...............................

Dated at .............................., British Columbia, this .................... day of ....................................., 20......

.........................................................................

Appellant/Solicitor for the Appellant

To the respondent(s): ........................................................................................................................................................................................

And to its solicitor:.............................................................................................................................................................................................

This Notice of Leave to Appeal is given by .................................................................................................................................................,

whose address for service is ............................................................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

To the respondent(s):

IF YOU INTEND TO PARTICIPATE in this proceeding, YOU MUST GIVE NOTICE of your intention by filing a form entitled "Notice of Appearance" (Form 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules) in a Court of Appeal registry and serve the notice of appearance on the appellant WITHIN 10 DAYS of receiving this Notice of Application for Leave to Appeal.

IF YOU FAIL TO FILE A NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

(a) you are deemed to take no position on the application, and

(b) the parties are not obliged to serve you with any further documents related to the application.