FORM 25A
NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta Civil Practice Note 5 – Family Law Pre-trial Conferences,
Alberta Rules of Court 158.5(1)(e), and
Sections 8 of the Matrimonial Property Act R.S.A. 2000 c. M-8 [MPA]



TAKE NOTICE That Edward D. Achtem hereby applies for leave to appeal to the Court, pursuant to Alberta Civil Practice Note 5, Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e). Section 8 of the MPA from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Alberta, Appeal 0701-0232AC made the 8th day of May, 2008. For an new trial or, any other order that the Court may deem appropriate;
AND TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that this application for leave is made on the fallowing Grounds:

Ground 1:
1#----People with short-term memory deficiencies, must be accommodated so that they will be treated equally. Judges and the parties that have been made aware of a witness’s history of a memory deficiency. Then the witness has to be accommodated so that the truth does not get distorted. Persons having had prior brain injuries resulting in short-term memory loss, should not be cross-examined fresh Exhibits adduce outside Trial parameters. Parties, and witnesses should have a right to satisfactory review Exhibits, so that they completely understand the Exhibits. Mr. Achtem has had his brain attacked by MS – Multiple Sclerosis. The judgment in this case, and the facts were distorted.

Ground 2:
2#----Canadians do not deserve to be ambushed. Ambushing is not fair. Mr. Achtem was ambushed with old 2.5 year old e-mails as Exhibits at Trial. The old e-mails were not within Trial parameters as per the “Agreement Concerning Exhibits”, pursuant to Civil Practice Note 5 – Family Law. The Court of Appeal of Alberta Judgment states that Exhibits were adduced, nothing was properly adduced. Ms. Achtem’s Exhibits M to R could not be adduced, because they were never properly produced into the action, pursuant to Alberta Rule of Court 158.5(1)(e). Justice Horner and Ms. Achtem failed to understand Trial parameters. Ms. Achtem failed to reveal to the Court that her fresh Exhibits being outside of Trial parameters. Justice Horner failed to Adjourn Trial once it was noticed that Mr. Achtem was confused over the e-mail Exhibits. Mr. Achtem was not totally clear about the e-mails Exhibits until after Trial and he realized he was not allowed the time to review to answer correctly. Mr. Achtem was not given the proper chance to review, before being cross-examined. Ms. Achtem knows Mr. Achtem well and she knew how to use Mr. Achtem’s short-term memory deficiency against him. Justice Horner failed to understand the Trial parameter, thus failing to prevent an ambush of fresh Exhibits that were not within Trial boundaries.

Ground 3:
3#----Based on Mr. Achtem’s Exhibit 2A1, Statement of Division of assets since separation. Matrimonial assets are supposed to be divided 50%-50% to both parties. The Achtem’s have been living together for 14 years with each paying paid half of the mortgage payments up until separation. This unfair that Ms. Achtem should get 94.5 percent of matrimonial assets, and not having any exemptions. This is unfair that Mr. Achtem should only receive 5.5 percent of matrimonial and he had no exemptions. After the sale of the Calgary home Ms. Achtem had took twice as much as Mr. Achtem.
4#----Mr. Achtem’s Exhibit 2A1, Statement of Division of assets since separation. Clearly shows the math (numbers and facts, and figure) of how much equity each party received after the divisions of funds from when the Achtem’s sold the Calgary home and where it all went. After the Calgary home sold it show Ms. Achtem receiving twice as much as Mr. Achtem, and this was not taking into account that the Achtem still have not divided the Medicine Hat home, or any of the matrimonial funds. When taking that into account as a result of Justice Horner’s Reasons of Judgment the division was done on a 94.5% - 5.5% basis in Ms. Achtem’s favor. It is fair that Mr. Achtem should get 50% of all
3
Continuance of Notice of application for leave to appeal (form 25A)
matrimonial assets. All that Mr. Achtem wants is 50%. Justice Horner DID NOT take into account that, Virgil Sails has been living in the Medicine Hat home paying rent, in lieu of Mr. Achtem making contribution beyond separation. Justice Horner failed to take into account how much matrimonial funds each party had prior to divorce. Justice Horner Judgment even states that Mr. Achtem had an RRSP, when he did not have one.

SIGNED BY
Edward D. Achtem
8751 – 96 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta
Phone: 780-628-7295
E-mail: edwach@shaw.ca

ORIGINAL TO: THE REGISTRAR

COPY TO: Rhonda R. Achtem
117 Hull Crescent NW
Medicine Hat, Alberta T1C 1C9
Phone: (403) 548-3689
e-mail: rhosai@medicinehat.ca

Notice to the Respondent: A respondent may serve and file a memorandum in response to this application for leave to appeal within 30 days after service of the application. If no response is filed within that time, the Registrar will submit this application for leave to appeal to the Court for consideration pursuant to section 43 of the Supreme Court Act.