IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

ON APPEAL FROM THE SASKATCHEWAN COURT OF APPEAL

BETWEEN:
Arlene Lowery
APPLICANT
Appellant (Plaintiff)

AND:

Saskatchewan Government
-and-
Dr. C. Norman, M.D.,
Dr. S. Leibel, M.D., Dr. L.P. Ruthnum, M.D.,
Dr. E. Ivanochko (Reg. Psychologist)
City of Regina Police Department,
Chief Cal Johnston, Corporal Debbie Ferguson
RESPONDENTS
Respondents (Defendants)
__________________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
__________________________________________________________________

Arlene Lowery, Applicant/Appellant (Plaintiff)
203-1808 Smith Street
Regina, SK CAN. S4P 2NP
Telephone number: (306) 205-4160
Fax Number: (306) 205-4161
Email: [email protected]


Daryl J. Brown: Solicitor for the Respondent (Defendant) Saskatchewan Government
Saskatchewan Justice
Civil Law Division
900 - 1874 Scarth Street,
Regina, SK, Canada,
S4P 4B3
Telephone number: (306) 787-8953
Fax Number: (306) 787-5815
Email: [email protected]




ii
Nicholas M. Cann: Solicitor for Respondents (Defendants) for Dr. C. Norman, Dr. S.
Leibel and Dr. L.P. Ruthnum
McKercher LLP
500, 2220 12
th
Avenue
Regina, SK CAN. S4P 0M8
Telephone number: (306) 565-6574
Fax Number: (306) 565-6565
Email: [email protected]

Reginald A. Watson, Q.C. for the Respondent (Defendant) Dr. E. Ivanochko
Balfour Moss LLP
Barristers & solicitors
700, 2103 11
th
Avenue
Regina, SK S4P 2H6
Telephone number: (306) 347-8450
Fax Number: (306) 347-8370
Email: [email protected]

Christine Clifford: for the Respondents (Defendants) City of Regina Police Department,
Chief Cal Johnston and Corporal Debbie Ferguson
City Solicitors Office
City of Regina
2476 Victoria Avenue
Regina, SK S4P 2N4
Telephone number: (306) 777-7017
Fax Number: (306) 777-6818
Email: [email protected]

Bruce Gibson: Solicitor for the Respondent (Defendant) Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice (Canada)
Prairie Region, Saskatoon Office
10
th
Floor, 123 2
nd
Avenue S
Saskatoon, SK S7K 7E6
Telephone number: (306) 975-5886
Fax Number: (306) 975-6240
Email: [email protected]












iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS: pages
I NOTICE OF APPLICATION TO
TAKE LEAVE TO APPEAL (FORM 25A) i vii
II. CERTIFICATE (FORM 25B) viii - x.
III. LOWER COURT JUDGMENTS xi -
< Order from the judgment of Justice Kovach
Dated December 23, 2005 Arlene Lowery xi xii
< Revised Order and Fiat from the
Judgment of Justice Kovach Darryl Brown
Dated January 16, 2006 xiii xiv.
Reasons for Judgment dictated March 06, 2008 (37 pages) xv.
< Order from the judgment of Justice Chicoine
Dated March 06, 2008 xvi.
< Filing Date of March 06, 2008 judgment is March 12, 2008
And the 12 of filing date was written over by the Registrar xvii.
< Order (draft) from the judgment of the Saskatchewan
Court of Appeal dated September 09, 2010. xviii ix.
V. MEMORANDUM OF ARGUMENT
< Part I Statement of facts 1
< Part II Statement of the questions in issue 2
< Part III Statement of argument 3
< Part IV Submissions in support of order sought concerning costs 5
< Part V Order or orders sought 20
< Part VI Table of Authorities N/A
< Part VII Legislation
PART ONE: Criminal Code:
- fraud and Misleading with Intent case notes
pre-adoption report fabricated
- reckless endangerment of life
- continuous injury and Discoverability Principle
PART TWO: Canadian Family Services Act;
Professional Standards for Social Workers
Professional Standards for Psychologists
Professional Standards for Medical Practitioners

DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT
< documents in support of Application
< Decision from Saskatchewan Court of Appeal
Dated September 09, 2010
< OVERVIEW OF PART ONE, PART TWO & PART THREE
Table One: Part One
Table Two: Part Two
Table Three: Part Three
Charter of Rights




iv

FORM 25A

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
As per the Supreme Court of Canada Rule 25

TAKE NOTICE that Arlene Lowery hereby applies to the Supreme Court of
Canada to take leave to appeal to this Court, pursuant to Rule 25 [(a) to (g) inclusive from
the judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, File 1605 made September 09, 2010, and
for the appeal be allowed and the judgment appealed from be set aside and Order the
Respondents (Defendants) to pay damages and costs of this action as setout in this
application; or an Order for an Independent Judicial Inquiry or for a trial by jury, as this
Honorable Court deems justice would be better served; and that the appellant (plaintiff)
shall have judgment on her behalf and on behalf of the 4 infant plaintiff children, as their
litigation guardian; and that the minor infant child plaintiff, Charlene Dobson, be added to
the Statement of Claim (Amended Fresh Copy) as an adult to this appeal;
AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that this application for leave is made on the
following grounds that the appellate judges, [in their decision (2010CASK109)] erred in:
Ground 1:
not providing answers to her questions and grounds as stated in her Appeal
Argument, but simply agreeing with the Chambers judges decision did prejudice
her in providing a more focused approach to this Application.
Ground 2:
not determining that the Chambers judge erred in law when he failed to determine
that the Respondents (Defendants) had not filed a new application (under
Rule173) to strike the Statement of Claim (Amended Fresh Copy) R.5.(2)(a)(b).
Ground 3:
not determining that the Chambers judge erred in law when he relegated
responsibility to the Directors of the organization, The Anchorage Counselling &
Rehabilitation Services Inc. for the actions of collusion and conspiracy in
enforcing 2 hostile evictions in which she lost the property that she had a trust
condition to recover her investment with the Directors to sell it and recover her
investment. Mortgage filed and Personal Property Security Act,(1993,c.P-6.2,s.14.),
(1993,c.P-6.2,s.15.), (1993,c.P-6.2,s.16.), (1993,c.P-6.2,s.17(1) to (4) inclusive.),
Ground 4:
not determining that the Respondents (Defendants) had no Statement of Defence
to plead their own version of the facts and that any allegations and facts as pleaded
by the Appellant (Plaintiff) had to be deemed as true. Rule 152 to 156 inclusive
and R.174(a)(b).
Ground 5.
not determining that the details of what was pleaded had to be extensive and can
not be considered prolix if necessary to plead. R. 139(2), 149, 150.
Ground 6
not determining that the Chambers judge erred when he failed to note the
Respondents (Defendants) in default, for not filing a Statement of Defence in the
time limit to file. Rules 115 to 123 inclusive.:




v
Ground 7:
not recognizing that the pleadings were substantiated by the Appellant (Plaintiff)s
substantive materials filed in support of her amended claim as evidence (for all 3
parts) to validate the truth of her pleadings, can not then be considered scandalous
and frivolous.
Ground 8:
not recognizing that her pleadings were prima facie and res ipsa loquitor and that
the Chambers judge erred in striking her amended claim.
Ground 9:
failing to appropriate that the Respondents (Defendants) had no substantive materials
filed and before the Chambers judge to support striking her claim since they never
filed any new materials such as Affidavits and Exhibits. Rules: 154, 155, 156.
Ground 10:
not recognizing that the Chambers judge abused his power and privilege, in not
consolidating this Part Three of this lawsuit with QBG. 1005 of A.D. 2002, but
instead sat on the bench to independently adjudicate QBG. 1005 of A.D. 2002 when
seized with a decision on this one, compromising the integrity of both and then
claiming in his decision that Joyce LaPrise should be added to the other one, when
clearly she belonged on this claim as noted in the substantive materials.
Ground 11.
failed to recognize that the Chambers judge erred in not only using the Original
claim in his judgment but would have used previously filed materials by the
Respondents (Defendants) that were in support of striking the original claim and
should not have occurred.
Ground 12.
in not recognizing that in order for the Chambers judge to strike her amended claim
he would need to do it for the Respondents (Defendants) in absence of a defence, that
would be a grave injustice.
Ground 13.
not recognizing that the Chambers judge would be unable to determine of the
Respondents (Defendants) acted in good faith without having new substantive
materials before him to support such a claim, and furthermore without a trial,
Ground 14.
not recognizing that the Chambers judge was confused about which Statement of
claim to strike, so struck both and admittedly indicated in his judgment that he had
difficulty in determining who did what, when and if it really mattered.
Ground 15.
failing to recognize that the Chamber judges comment that striking this claim
in its entirety was an exceptional case, since research in the last 5 years indicates
that it has become the norm when dealing with self-litigants, and that such a mind-
set did not provide her and the 4 grandchildren named to this action, fair and
equitable access to justice, and that striking her amended claim was punitive.
Ground 16:
failing to provide an avenue to hear the truth of these matters by ordering a trial
by jury or an independent judicial review.




vi
Ground 17:
not recognizing that the Chambers judge abused his power and privilege, in
assigning himself to lawsuit QBG. 1005 of A.D. 2002, when seized with a
decision on this lawsuit, and compromised the success of both.
Ground 18:
failing to recognize that the parties named to be added as proposed defendants,
Joyce LaPrise and the government of Canada are deemed added and not
proposed in the absence of credible arguments to the contrary and should be
added.
Ground 19:
not determining if the Appellant (Plaintiff)s claim that Parts One to Three were
reflective of continuous injury as she claimed against the Government of
Canada and the Saskatchewan Government and therefore be noted as not under
the Statute of Limitations pleading the Discoverability Principle.
Ground 20:
ignoring, as did the Chambers judge, the illegalities which occurred as pleaded
in her Statement of Claim (Fresh Copy); and did further ignore the illegalities
that she brought to their attention in the Appeal Argument and hereby mentioned
in her Argument and Affidavit to this Application, which did unduly stress her,
and was intended to dissuade her, and undermine her efforts in her pursuit for
justice.

SIGNED BY


_____________________________________
Arlene Lowery

__________________________________
(Date)

Arlene Lowery, Applicant/Appellant (Plaintiff)
203-1808 Smith Street
Regina, SK CAN. S4P 2NP
Telephone number: (306) 205-4160
Fax Number: (306) 205-4161
Email: [email protected]

Daryl J. Brown: Solicitor for the Respondent (Defendant) Saskatchewan Government
Saskatchewan Justice
Civil Law Division
900 - 1874 Scarth Street,
Regina, SK, Canada,
S4P 4B3
Telephone number: (306) 787-8953
Fax Number: (306) 787-5815
Email: [email protected]



vii




Nicholas M. Cann: Solicitor for Respondents (Defendants) for Dr. C. Norman, Dr. S.
Leibel and Dr. L.P. Ruthnum
McKercher LLP
500, 2220 12
th
Avenue
Regina, SK CAN. S4P 0M8
Telephone number: (306) 565-6574
Fax Number: (306) 565-6565
Email: [email protected]

Reginald A. Watson, Q.C. for the Respondent (Defendant) Dr. E. Ivanochko
Balfour Moss LLP
Barristers & solicitors
700, 2103 11
th
Avenue
Regina, SK S4P 2H6
Telephone number: (306) 347-8450
Fax Number: (306) 347-8370
Email: [email protected]

Christine Clifford: for the Respondents (Defendants) City of Regina Police Department,
Chief Cal Johnston and Corporal Debbie Ferguson
City Solicitors Office
City of Regina
2476 Victoria Avenue
Regina, SK S4P 2N4
Telephone number: (306) 777-7017
Fax Number: (306) 777-6818
Email: [email protected]

Bruce Gibson: Solicitor for the Respondent (Defendant) Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice (Canada)
Prairie Region, Saskatoon Office
10
th
Floor, 123 2
nd
Avenue S
Saskatoon, SK S7K 7E6
Telephone number: (306) 975-5886
Fax Number: (306) 975-6240
Email: [email protected]


ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR







viii
This form must be filed out to ensure that we do not release information which is protected.
FORM 25B FORM 25B
CERTIFICATE
I, Arlene Lowery hereby certify that:
1. This file had portions sealed in the courts below.
YES: Give details:
i. The submission by the Saskatchewan Government to seal portions of the file
pertaining to matters touching on adoption and protection were to be sealed, as
well as the names of anyone who were not named as parties to this claim was
done by an ExParte Order brought before a judge on November 07, 2005 by Mr.
Darryl Brown, counsel for the Saskatchewan Government.
ii. This was done after counsels substantive materials were filed and less than 2
weeks after the death of the Appellant (Plaintiff)s granddaughters death while
in the care of the Minister of Social Services.
iii. The original Order provided was without a filing stamp.
iv. Madam Justice Gunn continued the Sealing Order to March 07, 2006, when
arguments were to be heard.
v. Justice F. Kovach also extended it to March 07, 2006.
vi. Justice Chicoine in his decision (2008skqb115 CanLII) indicated that the sealing
order should continue.
vii. The Appellate Judges decision (2010SKCA109CanLII) ON PAGE 2 [2] stated:
[2] While the Chambers judge erred in considering the
original statement of claim and the submissions made in
relation thereto, we are satisfied that he made no
reversible error by striking the amended statement of claim
and by dismissing the aforementioned applications.
Therefore, we dismiss the Appellant's appeal and grant the
Respondents their taxable costs.
viii. This rendered all applications to that point of no effect and on September 09,
2010 the appellate judges agreed that the Chambers judge erred in considering
the original statement of claim and the submissions made in relation thereto
satisfies the submission of materials to seal any portion of this file, and for the
Order to continue in the sealing of the Statement of Claim (Amended Fresh
Copy) would have to have been filed new as well (as a new application to
strike her claim).
ix. Further, the Saskatchewan government breached their own sealing Order when
they disseminated it to Joyce LaPrise by facsimile and it somehow ended-up in
the materials that the Appellant (Plaintiff) received from Labour Standards, in
October, 2006 under Access to Information.
x. The decision 2008skqb115 was posted on the CanLII website shortly after it was
filed into the Court of Queens Bench on March 12, 2006.
xi. Therefore there is currently no sealing order attached to the Statement of Claim
(Amended Fresh Copy).
xii. The names of the 3 youngest infant children named here as plaintiffs will be
protected by being blacked out.



ix
xiii. any other names such as public servants who were named in the pleadings and
anyone else whom the Appellant (Plaintiff) deems necessary to name in
providing the public domain with the true facts of this case will not be protected.
xiv. The only parties who need their identities sealed are the 3 grandchildren named
as infant children plaintiffs whom the Appellant (Plaintiff) remains as their
litigation guardians and the 2 infant granddaughters who died in the care of the
Saskatchewan Minister of Social Services, either in foster care or by
abandonment.
xv. Identities to be protected are any other childrens names mentioned or their
parents names.
xvi. names of vulnerable parties who would be considered disabled or under
disability or vulnerable would have their names protected.
xvii. Doctors reports done by the Respondents (Defendants) will be used in that they
were used as supporting documents to Part Two of her Statement of Claim
(Amended Fresh Copy) and that as their legal guardian and litigation guardian,
she deems it necessary to share with the public domain for the true facts to be
known and justice to be served.
xviii. Any matters pertaining to the personal experiences with the Respondents
(Defendants) is reported as fact, when so disclosed.
xix. Counsel for the Respondents (Defendants) should not be allowed to file any new
evidence or a new application to seal her Statement of Claim (Amended Fresh
Copy) as time has expired for them to do so, and to do so would once again
infringe on the rights to fair and equitable justice for the Appellant (Plaintiff)
herself and for the 4 infant children named as plaintiffs (and deemed no longer
proposed) and for the death of the first of the 2 infant granddaughters who died.
2. NO there is not a ban on the publication of evidence, or the names or identity of a
party or a witness with the exceptions of those mentioned above.
3. NO there is no confidential information on the file that should not be accessible to the public
by virtue of specific legislation that have not been mentioned above.
It is the Appellant (Plaintiff)s position and the position of Charlene Dobson that full
details of what happened to her and her 3 siblings, while not in the care of the Minister of Social
Services and while in his care, should be shared with the public domain so that her rights and
the rights of her siblings can be attended to and justice supported by the
UN Rights of the Child:
Article 12. [2.] For this purpose, the child shall in
particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any
judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child,
either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate
body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of
national law.
Article 13
1. The child shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall
include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all
kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the
form of art, or through any other media of the child's choice.




x
i. The need for the Appellant (Plainiff) and Charlene Dobsons rights and her need
to share what happened as true facts outweighs the need to seal or ban this
material. Sealing or banning any portions of this file, other than what the
Appellant has determined in the materials above would only serve in the
interests of the Respondents (Defendants); and the interests of these 4 infant
children as plaintiffs and their 2 deceased infant sisters, far outweighs their
interests.
ii. The matters pertaining to Charlene Dobsons request to have her status upgraded
as a Minor to as of full age (an adult), and to become a joinder with her
grandmother, the Appellant (Plaintiff), in this action, is put forth by Charlene
Dobson in a letter sealed for the Registrar.
iii. Charlene Dobsons sworn affidavit in support of being added is attached to the
Appendix of this Argument.

SIGNED BY

_________________________________
Arlene Lowery

__________________________________
(Date)


*original signatures are on file

See Affidavit as an Exhibit
























xi
Exhibit to Affidavit APPLICATION to take leave to Appeal
PART ONE:
i. discovery of harm from an adoption as continuous injury resulting from a
pre-adoption report that was fabricated and intended to mislead.
ii. Discovery during the course of this lawsuit that the Social worker who
fabricated the pre-adoption report or who was responsible for its presentation
as such did provide to the Appellant (Plaintiff) not a copy of the original preadoption
report but case notes that supposedly had been written in 1971 and
1972, but were obviously tampered with, marginal notes and stating certain
matters that were untrue and intended to mislead by giving a false impression of
the Appellant (Plaintiff).
THESE ACTS ARE CRIMINAL therefore the question is does this party to
the lawsuit have immunity and if so is the Attorney Generals for both
Governments named responsible? * Mr. Brown counsel for the Crown
(Saskatchewan Government Civil Law) told the Appellant (Plaintiff) in
October, 2005, when he knew she planned to amend her claim that the names
of all parties had to be removed from her lawsuit as they had immunity, which
led to her simply directing this lawsuit to the Attorney Generals.
* If this advise (which she did not seek after) was intended to protect these public
servants but undermined her ability to be successful with this lawsuit, then Mr.
Darryl Brown must be held responsible for misleading and whatever sections of
the criminal code apply.

PART TWO:
i. THE INTEGRATED SEXUAL ABUSE TEAM can liability exist for them
individually and collectively when they report one anothers findings,
observations and opinions that can prove injurious to the protection of a child.
Example: The Protection Worker or Dr. E. Ivanochko (reg.psychologist),
on contract to do a psychological assessment with Child & Youth Mental
Health Services, or Constable Ferguson or anyone else on that team
accessories to the libelous and injurious remarks documented in Dr. Leibels
medical report on Lyle.
ii. Who is responsible for not securing evidence or destroying evidence or making
false statements concerning photographs of the injuries on Charlene Dobson and
Jonathan Dobson were taken, not once but twice with Charlene Dobson and now
they do not exist? The photographs are documented in Dr. Normans medical
reports on them but now they no longer exist or never did exist.
iii. Who is responsible for the breakdown in the medical examinations: Dr. Ruthnum
coming late to the Regina General Hospital does not properly examine Charlene
Dobson and then over 3 weeks later [after the Appellant (Plaintiff) reports her
findings of the injuries on Charlene and Jonathans bodies] do members of this
team finally decide to examine the children.
iv. Who is responsible for the gross negligence in not having the children seen
within 48 hours of Appellant (Plaintiff) reporting these injuries? (as is the
mandate and policy for Regina Childrens Justice?
Exhibit to Affidavit APPLICATION



xii
to take leave to Appeal
v. Excuses provided by Charlene Thurbide, Protection Worker are totally
inexcusable is she solely responsible?.
vi. Who is responsible for framing the Appellant (Plaintiff) and her husband in
having the time-line for when the injuries occurred to them, smack dab in the
middle of these 3 weeks?
vii. Who is responsible for telling the Crown Prosecutor(s) that there was nothing to
the claims made by the grandmother and reported on the Fiat of Justice
McIntyre?
viii. Was their collusion amongst them to not have to deal with a messy and difficult
case.
ix. Who is held responsible for the wrongful death of autumn Starr, the foster
mother for sleeping her prone and not administering her Phenobarbital
medication because she ran out of it, whereby she had a seizure face down and
suffocated? Is the Crown responsible for putting another baby with this foster
mother who had a baby die before ours, and who died of inhalation of its vomit?
x. Someone is responsible, either severly or collectively and Charlene Dobson and
Arlene Lowery (nee Dobson) requests that this Honourable Court determines
from the evidence before them, - just who is responsible?
xi. Who is responsible for allowing 2 other younger siblings of Charlene and
Jonathan be in the care of their mother when a No Contact Order existed from
Justice Dickson (Feb./1998)?
xii. when Charlene told the AUTHORITIES what happened to her and how her
mommy hurt her and her brother,[there being corroborating physical evidence on
both], who is responsible?
xiii. Who is responsible for the abuse of the 2 younger children named here in this
action, when they were placed with their mother?

PART THREE:
i. Who was responsible for 2 unlawful evictions on the Appellant (Plaintiff) from
her place of work- the police, the Crown, Joyce LaPrise or the Directors of the
organization THE ANCHORAGE COUNSELLING & REHABILITATION
SERVICES INC.
ii. Who is responsible for an unlawful dismissal from her place of employment with
no notice or severance pay?
iii. Who is responsible for destroying all of the organizations records?
iv. Who is responsible for taking / apprehending her chattels and computer, library of
books and teaching resources and shredding even her graduation photograph from
the University of Saskatchewan? T
The later re: picture and shredding