https://www.facebook.com/168782186313589/

Stave Falls News, Pilgrim Street, Mission City, BC (2025)

07/05/2025

Defamation Action July 6 2025

As mentioned in the previous post I was in court yesterday with the SF4, Colleen and Dave Beland and the lawyer for the SF5.

The application brought by the SF5 was the one justice Francis had disallowed during the SLAPP application.

The application asked that the court order the defendants to provide details of their defense. The defendants were all self-representing and did a good job of presenting their requests for a delay of 60 to 90 days in order to submit amended responses to the notice of civil claim.

The judge ruled that they would have 60 days to submit new responses and if those responses did not contain the details requested by the plaintiffs the matter would be brought back to court. He also awarded costs of the application to the plaintiffs "in the cause". Meaning if the plaintiffs are successful in the overall suit then they will get the costs of the application also.

Next I hope to find time to analyze the threads made by the SF5 against the executive of the SGCA and in fact all members of the SGCA.

07/01/2025

Expulsions Part I

What’s happening in the SGCA?

A quick update.

Short Answer:

Members requisitioned the SGCA Board for a meeting to expel 9 members.

Board called the special resolution meeting (SRM) for June 25.

Board called a general meeting (GM) to preceded the SRM asking for a motion to authorize spending to protect the board and members against legal action.

Some of the members up for expulsion challenged the right of the board to hold both the SRM and the GM.

The SRM was postponed. The GM was held and the spending resolution was passed.

Long answer:

It ‘s a busy time of year for gardening or I would have reported earlier and in greater detail but here is what I know. Details will come in later posts as things unfold.

The B.C. Society ACT (the Act) has a provision (6-58) for members to requisition the board of a society for a meeting. This provision is intended to force a board to call a meeting even if it does not want to. Within 21 days of receiving the requisition if the board does not call the meeting the requisitionists can call the meeting and hold it without the board. The requisition must be signed by 10% or more of the members.

The Act has provisions for the expulsion of members which can be modified by the bylaws of the society. Our bylaws have a requirement that to expel a member requires a 2/3 majority vote of members present and voting at a meeting. The Act requires notice be given to members and that the members being expelled “must be given an opportunity to be heard “. The Act also requires that the notice must include “a brief statement of the reasons for the proposed expulsion”.

As I understand it the spending resolution which was passed at the GM essentially makes all assets of the SGCA available to defend and indemnify the executive and member who “by reason for their service for the organization” need support.

I have not received any notice when the SRM will be held but when that is called I expect to be able to provide more details of the expulsions.

There is a hearing on July 4 in Vancouver in the defamation case which I will report on after I have attended it.

06/09/2025

An Abundance of Riches – Part IX

What about the Mission Community Foundation?

Short Answer:

5.5% return on investment adjusted for inflation.

Long Answer:

I have been in contact with Mission Community Foundation (MCF) to try to get information like what I published for the Vancouver Foundation (VF). I recently received this response:

"Mission Community Foundation follows a CPI + 5.50% (5.50% real return) net return benchmark which it believes will likely produce net returns in the 7-8% range long term."

I asked if that meant a guaranteed 5.5% return adjusted for inflation but have not heard back yet.

It looks like either MCF or VF would be a viable option for long term management of our capital reserve. Current one year GIC from Prospera gets a return of 2.85% so roughly half of the MCF "benchmark" of 5.5%. I do not have historical numbers from MCF but the ones I have from VF show their guaranteed return has been better than GIC's.

I said recently in a discussion on SFC group that boards come and go. Even the long term existence of the SGCA is in question because it has been disbanded and resurrected several times.

Add to that the fact that the performance of our investments since the hall was sold has been well below what could have been achieved if a long term strategy had been pursued. An endowment would preserve the capital so it does not dwindle away like it has over the past 8 years.

Add to that the fact that it took us several months to get the recent income of $15,000 invested.

Isn't it time for a professional team to manage our assets long term?

Up next: There is a meeting Wednesday evening June 11 at Stave Falls Elementary starting at 6:30 to discuss the options for using/investing our funds. All community members are welcome to attend and voice their opinions. My understanding is that it is a discussion of options only i.e. there will no votes at this time.

05/27/2025

An Abundance of Riches – Part VIII

What if we had invested our money with Vancouver Foundation?

Short answer:

In round numbers since 2018:

We would have had a $75,000 to spend compared with the $20,000 we did earn.

That is $25,000 more than if we had invested in 5 year GIC’s.

If we had reinvested with Vancouver Foundation we would have $350,000 in the bank rather than $265,000

Long Answer.

I now have enough numbers from the Vancouver Foundation to make a comparison of what would have happened if in 2018, when the hall sold, the money had been put under their management.

The way the VF works is they manage around a billion and a half dollars which they have received from donors or from organizations like SGCA. For example the Wonnock Community Association has about ¾ of a million managed by VF. That money gives them steady income which they use to fund their projects.

I was confused when I saw that their 5 year average return was around 8% but they only paid out less than 5. That has now been explained to me. They use good years to cover bad years. In the past they guaranteed a minimum 3% return. That changed to 5% just this year and they are committed to that as a minimum going forward. If we placed $250,000 with them the minimum we would get each year would be $12,500.

The first graph shows the comparison of actual returns i.e. what the SGCA received in interest on its capital which started at 272,000 in 2018 and is now down to about 265,000 assuming the recent $15,000 is included. That’s the blue line.

The orange line is what a 5 year GIC would have returned. I have dropped the one year GIC from the chart because the two are so close to the same.

The grey line shows what VF would have paid out.

Over the seven years the difference is GIC’s would have returned $55,000, VF – 75,000 compared to actual income of $19,000.

(all numbers approximate and based on some extrapolation)

The second graph shows what would have happened if the income had been reinvested with VF. There would have been an extra $85,000 in the bank.

Next I will layout a specific proposal with justification. I will definitely do that before the June meeting but first I need to see if I can get similar details from the Mission Foundation.

05/22/2025

An Abundance of Riches Part VII

What to do with our money will be discussed at the June meeting of the SGCA

Except for a 20-minute initial meeting for reports the entire June meeting of the SGCA will be dedicated to a round table discussion of what to do with our capital reserve fund which totals approximately $250,000.

Members are encouraged to bring forward ideas for how to spend or invest the money and then come out for a detailed discussion of the options. I will get you the exact date and agenda when it is issued just in case you are not a member.

This is not a meeting to decide what will be done. It is just a discussion of the options. Specific proposals will come later and probably be voted on in November. That is because our bylaws have a very specific clause as to when and how the Capital Reserves can be accessed. Those bylaws are currently under review so that could change.

Any community member can have input but only members will be able to vote so if you want to vote please take out a $5.00 membership before November.

I have already stated that I am looking at options to have the money managed professionally. I have already discussed the option of placing the funds with the Mission Community Foundation. This past week I have been researching the Vancouver Foundation in some detail and that looks like it may also be a viable option.

The Vancouver Foundation has about 1 and half billion dollars under management. It has the option to invest in a socially responsible fund (SRI).

In 2024 they reported a gross rate return of over 14% and a five year annualized return of over 8%. Fees will bring that down by about 1%. I am working on a more exact calculation for the past 5 years so I can update the graphs presented in earlier posts.
I will definitely be presenting a concept for discussion at the June meeting. Before that I need to do a bit more research.

Up next a more detailed look at the Vancouver Foundation.

04/10/2025

Anti-SLAPP Hearing Part VI

What was the decision?

Short Answer:

The antiSLAPP application has been denied.

Long Answer:

In a 29 page decision (not including appendices) Justice Francis has denied the defendants application to dismiss the defamation action against them.

This means that the Plaintiffs are allowed to continue with the lawsuit. You may recall that an anti-SLAPP application suspends all other action in the lawsuit such as discovery and other administrative applications.

She denied two applications of the Plaintiffs; one to strike certain affidavit evidence because they were either inadmissible or unsupported hearsay and the other to strike some of the pleadings because no evidence had been supplied.

She also "adjourned generally" an "alternative application for summary dismissal" by the Defendants.

What could happen next?

The Defendants could appeal. You may recall an earlier post in which I analyzed 20 cases and found 35% of them were overturned on appeal.

Settlement is a possibility at any point in the process but requires both sides to agree.

The Plaintiffs have the unilateral right to discontinue the case.

If none of those happen then the next step is probably for the Plaintiffs to resubmit the denied applications and a number of other pre-trial actions like discovery.

Paragraph 145 of the decision says:

"The defendants’ PPPA Application is dismissed. If the parties are unable to agree on costs, they may arrange a short appearance before me to address the costs consequences of this application."

The usual rule on costs is that the unsuccessful party pays the costs of the successful party. Since there were 3 applications I am unclear how that will pan out. We may never know because unless they go back to the judge to have her decide I am not aware of any document that would be filed in relation to those costs.

The Plaintiffs clearly were successful on the application that mattered the most but the fact that the Defendants were successful on 2 applications should factor into the costs.

If I hear anything I will let you know.

03/12/2025

An Abundance of Riches – Part VI

The magic of compounded interest.

I made this statement in the previous post:
That would have meant a surplus in some years which could have been reinvested in GIC’s bringing the average annual return to over $8,000 (just a wild guess. I didn’t do the actual calculation.)

I couldn’t resist checking the actual calculation and it is indeed true that the return would have been about $8,500 annually. BUT much more important is the effect on the asset itself.

I deducted the annual SGCA expenses from the GIC income and reinvested that amount into the GIC for the following year. There was only one year in which the expenses of the SGCA exceeded the income from the GIC.

The attached graph tells the story. Rather than the asset going down to our current approximately $250,000 it would have risen to $290,000.

I am still waiting for answers about the right way to interpret the financial statements of the Mission Community Foundation but when I have that sorted, I will let you know how the picture would have unfolded if the assets had been invested with them.

03/10/2025

An Abundance of Riches – Part V

What would a GIC have Earned?

Short answer:

If the approx. quarter million dollars of assets held by the SGCA had been invested in GIC’s they would have earned on average about $8,000 per year.

Long Answer:

I now have the financial statements for the SGCA from 2017 to 2022. 2023 and 2024 are not yet filed. I have had a bit of concern about publishing actual numbers from the financial statements. Although we have an approved motion saying they are available to the membership I believe that does not necessarily allow me to publish the actual numbers from them so I will rely on information that is generally available from the various court filings. That being as follows: Assets in 2018 about $272,000; 2022 about $250,000 I have interpolated the years in between so as not to quote the exact numbers on the financial statements. Income from investments I only have a couple of years that are in the public domain which I have taken from Affidavit #1 of Colleen Beland in the defamation case: Investment income 2021 = $146; 2020 = $399 but I can say there were similar results in other years. I have adjusted the numbers presented here so no one can say for sure what the actual results I see on the Financials are. I will be able to present the exact numbers at a future meeting of the SGCA if a motion should come forward that needs that kind of input.

I am still digging through the Financials for the Mission foundation but I did complete my analysis of term deposit rates of return.

I looked at historical data for GICs both 1 year and 5 year non-registered. Surprisingly they were very similar over the period 2023 to 2018, both averaging about 3% per year (according to ratehub.ca).

The average income from the assets held by the SGCA was about $650 per year. The average if that money had been invested in GIC’s would have been about $7,750 per year. That would have meant a surplus in some years which could have been reinvested in GIC’s bringing the average annual return to over $8,000 (just a wild guess. I didn’t do the actual calculation.)

The attached graph plots the income for each year blue for actual income and the other two if the money had been invested in GICs. It tells the story of low interest rates followed by our current return to more normal rates but even in the lowest years there was the potential to earn a couple of thousand dollars. In fact, there was only one year where GICs would have earned less than $4,000.

Next I will compare the return for those same years if the money had been invested with Mission Community Foundation. I am waiting for some clarification on my interpretation of their financial statements.

03/08/2025

An abundance of Riches – Part IV
What can you get from a financial report:

Short Answer:

Quite a bit. Assets and Income for example.
Mission Foundation – return on investment 2023 – 9.8%

Long Answer:
As you may know I am looking at how the SGCA might better manage its assets. I have been looking at how Community Foundations work. In this post I will compare The Mission Community Foundation (MCF), the Maple Ridge Community Foundation (MRCF) and the Vancouver Community Foundation (VCF).

Their websites have financial statements. I have used the most recent available which turns out to be 2023 for MCF and VCF but 2024 for MRCF.
Here’s a quick snapshot of the Mission Community Foundation, Maple Ridge Community Foundation, and Vancouver Foundation!

📌 Established:
✅ Mission – 1987
✅ Maple Ridge – 1976
✅ Vancouver – 1943

📌 Total Assets (Latest):
💰 Mission: $11.7M
💰 Maple Ridge: $2M
💰 Vancouver: $1.61B

📌 Growth from Previous Year:
📈 Mission: +$3.69M
📈 Maple Ridge: +$376K
📈 Vancouver: +$163M

📌 Investment Income:
💵 Mission: $1.15M
💵 Maple Ridge: $68K
💵 Vancouver: $168.7M

📌 Return on Investment:
📊 Mission: 9.8%
📊 Maple Ridge: 3.4%
📊 Vancouver: 10.4%

(Nice work ChatGPT reformatting the table into simpler text.)

Clearly VCF is huge compared to MCF but I find it encouraging that they still managed to get close to the same return on investment.

Next I will take a look at the financial statements for the SGCA and compare that to the appropriate year for the MRCF i.e. if I can locate the financial statements. I have the SGCA financials for 2019 and income statement for 2020. If someone could send me more recent ones that would be GREAT.

02/19/2025

Ryan finished strong hitting hard that the onus is on the plaintiffs to prove there is no defense.

He also talked a lot about the plaintiffs having to provide evidence that the statements made are not true. A denial is not enough.

Justice Francis asked questions about both concepts. She was definitely listening and taking a lot of notes.

The defense had last word but it was not about what had been said earlier. He challenged the right to use the defense of justification because it had not been included in the application legal basis.

He also provided a case about how strong the evidence he had to supply needed to be.

Justice Francis had reserved judgment saying we will have a decision as soon as possible.

Ryan's performance was EXCELLENT. He showed a much better command of the details of the case.

02/19/2025

At the morning break.

Ryan is reading case law and backing up his statements with specific examples.

Major points being driven home include:

Defendants actually defended the plaintiffs in many cases especially Diana and Courtney making it an open dialogue.

Context matters in individual threads but you cannot take isolated threads and say that the context of those amount to defamation.

The plaintiffs in many posts were asked to supply information and when they did not that in some way lead to more hyperbolic comments. Not sure I followed the logic there but he was working case law that seemed to suggest that made the comments less likely to be defamatory.

The posts complained of actually preceded the cease and decist letters and the defendants did actually comply by stopping their alleged defamatory comments.

When asked to delete all posts about the SGCA ..... GOING BACK IN

02/18/2025

Anti-SLAPP Hearing Part V

Day 4 - When and Where

Short Answer:

Wednesday 19, 2025 court room 32
Place: Vancouver courthouse
starting: 10 am for 2 hours
In front of: Justice Francis

Stave Falls News

07/05/2025

07/01/2025

06/09/2025

05/27/2025

05/22/2025

04/10/2025

03/12/2025

03/10/2025

03/08/2025

02/19/2025

02/19/2025

02/18/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category