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

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

11/08/2025

Expulsion Part X

When is the next legal action in the SGCA expulsions?

Short answer:

November 20 at 9:45 a.m. in New Westminster Supreme Court.

Long answer:

The expelled group has now filed a fresh Notice of Application asking the court to:

1. reinstate their memberships,
2. rescind the June 25 indemnity motion, and
3. order written undertakings from anyone reimbursed under that motion.

Their entire membership-reinstatement argument hangs on one line from the 2023 bylaws:

"2.4 … their membership may be suspended or withdrawn by a two-thirds majority vote of the membership."

They are interpreting that as meaning two-thirds of all 162 members—a total of 108 votes in favour—were required for the expulsions to be valid. The difficulty for them is that every other part of the bylaws (and the Societies Act itself) defines a two-thirds vote as two-thirds of the votes cast by members present, not two-thirds of everyone on the membership roll. Unless they can prove that SGCA historically used the “all members” rule, this leg of their case looks weak. (See paragraph 14 on page 3 and para. 30 on page 4 where they corrrectly quote the bylaws.)

Their second request—to overturn the indemnity motion—has better traction. That’s because the Societies Act has strict requirements for indemnification payments and the June motion was passed as an ordinary resolution, not a special one. If any payments were made without the required undertakings, the court might take issue with that.

As for the third item (the request for fresh written undertakings now), it’s mostly housekeeping and unlikely to affect anyone directly.

There still remains the problem which counsel for the SGCA pointed out in his response to the Notice of Civil Claim, and which the judge in the first hearing asked them to consider carefully and maybe get some legal advice: Section 102 of the Societies Act—the oppression remedy they are relying on—normally has to be brought by petition, not as part of an ordinary civil action. Their current file was started by a Notice of Civil Claim, so the procedure is not the one the statute calls for.

It looks to me that some legal advice may have been needed to write this new application, so maybe their adviser considers the petition issue to be unimportant because the court can, in theory, treat the existing action as if it were brought by petition or simply allow it to continue for efficiency’s sake. But that is still a technical irregularity, and until the court explicitly cures it, the reliance on section 102 remains procedurally shaky. In short, they may have the right provision but the wrong vehicle.

So the real action on November 20 will be over whether the expulsions stand and whether the indemnity motion survives. The issue of petition or NOCC may also be addressed but perhaps just as a technicality. Whether the judge refuses to hear the application before the technicality is resolved will be interesting.

I’ll post an update after the hearing on how it unfolds.

11/01/2025

BC Court of Appeal Part I

What happened in the Court of Appeal hearing?

Short answer:

The justices asked a lot of very pointed questions and then reserved judgment. A written decision can be expected in a couple of months.

Long answer:

I said earlier that I would be in appeals court on October 30 to hear my appeal against the decisions made by Justice Ball on February 18, 2025. You may recall at that hearing Justice Ball made two orders: 1. That prevented me from bringing further legal action against Cowan, Beland, Brendan Keys and Birgit Keys without leave of the court and 2. An award of costs against me for $3,000.
That essentially declared me a “vexatious litigant” in the eyes of the court. I decided to appeal because although it is not criminal it is a very serious charge and because of that very embarrassing.
Questions from the bench usually give a pretty good idea of which way the sentiment of the court is leaning. As the questions came it was clear they had not only read my submissions but understood the background and the key issues.

There were three justices hearing the appeal. I made my oral presentation (see images) and got a couple of questions to clarify what happened. When one justice said “but they had been voted out of office … and there was an interim board” I was confident she had read the actual details of my submissions. She had the date wrong which I corrected and explained that they refused to recognize the result of that meeting. There were a number of other similar questions that did not suggest any particular bias, just getting facts straight.

One justice asked why so many applications and I explained that when I was unable to adequately serve the first two I took the opportunity to improve what I was asking because I was learning as I went. She pointed out that it came down to two applications and I said yes I had abandoned the others.
Another justice asked whether there was evidence that the Oct 26 application had been dismissed. I said I would check during the break. He asked that because I had brought up the fact that the Nov. 1 shutdown order had been granted based on false statements made to J. Ball about the Oct 26 hearing.

Then opposing counsel (OC) made their presentation. Yes there were actually two of them. Ms. Braun who had argued the case on Feb 18 was not present. There was no audience but the proceedings were being broadcast by video link.
The questions to OC were pointed and skeptical. One justice asked several questions to try to understand exactly what was vexatious about my actions. OC pointed to the number of applications I had made. The justice pushed back with the fact that since I had not been able to serve the first two they had not responded to them. After some more back and forth OC seemed to acknowledge that prior to March of 2024 there was nothing vexatious but pointed out that taken in context there was. After several more questions OC seemed to arrive at the fact I had made very serious allegations and asked for special costs. He also mentioned several times that my application for costs came 9 months after the case had been discontinued for no apparent reason and I was not a “party”. Justice pointed out that J. Ball had discretion to award costs to “non-parties”. When she finally had his answer as to what was vexatious she asked him if there was not a double standard when they could get special costs but J. Ball refused to hear my submission why I should get special costs.

This went on for more than half an hour leading up to the 3 pm break. Before the break another justice asked whether the SGCA had been served with the original notice of civil claim as required. OC said he would check during the break.

After the break the justice who had asked about dismissal started with saying he had checked the court records and found that indeed the Oct 26 hearing had been dismissed. He then read from the transcript of the Nov. 1 hearing and asked if telling the court that the Oct 26 hearing had run out of time was not misleading.

The third justice had very few questions but when OC suggested that J. Ball had discretion in how much he wanted to hear from me she pointed out that there was no discretion when it came to procedural fairness and my right to be heard saying they were basic principles and no such discretion existed. OC pushed back by quoting some case law but she appeared to be unimpressed with that.

After OC concluded I had the opportunity to clarify that indeed the SGCA had never been served because if they had been the interim board would have been informed and the secrecy of the without notice applications would have been blown.

Going into the hearing I felt I had a strong case. After hearing the questions put to OC, I will be very surprised if both orders are not overturned.

Although it’s uncommon that the appeals court decides the substance of the applications in question rather than kick them back down for rehearing the specificity of the questions suggests to me that they may actually break from what is common practice. There is even a slight chance that they will actually decide that my actions were not vexatious and even go so far as to decide whether I should have the costs I asked for.

I will let you know in a few weeks when the decision is handed down.

10/27/2025

Dissolution Part I

Can the SGCA be dissolved? Should we do that?

Short Answer:

Yes a society can be dissolved by special resolution of the members.

Even before the most recent lawsuits and the Oct 8 meeting I had been wondering whether it might be better for the community if we dissolved the SGCA altogether. That’s not something I say lightly. Like many of you, I’ve invested a lot of time in trying to make this organization work. But I think it’s time to ask whether it’s doing more harm than good.

Long Answer:

Some of you were at the October 8 meeting where several expelled members attended and refused to leave when asked by the chair. Because of that, the agenda couldn’t be dealt with and a new meeting was called for October 22. I asked to be put on the agenda for a discussion about dissolving the SGCA. To focus that discussion I drafted a requisition by members for the dissolution. Although you will see from this post I am leaning toward dissolution there is still time to change that direction. There is currently no motion to dissolve, only a discussion of whether and how to do that.

Points Expressed For and Against Dissolution:

Some points made by me and others during the discussion and in meetings I have had since included:

The SGCA was meant to build community, not divide it. Instead, it has become the centre of ongoing conflict and legal costs that drain energy and goodwill from Stave Falls.

Our voice as an association is of little value because of the conflicts which the larger Mission community is well aware of including mayor and council.

I’ve watched neighbours stop speaking to each other, and I’ve seen more money go toward lawyers than community projects. Latest estimate of legal fees just related to expulsion is about $18,000. When an organization meant to serve the neighbourhood starts hurting it, we have to stop and ask — is continuing really in the public interest?

One or more people spoke in favor of a community hall and said even if our money is not enough to do that it could be a catalyst for other grants.

The community as a whole should decide what happens to our money.

One person suggested that the requisition should be reviewed by a lawyer so I have asked the SGCA to do that and offered to pay the expense if it happens in a reasonable time.

The Mechanics of Dissolution:

Under the Societies Act, members can bring a requisition asking that a special meeting be held to decide whether to dissolve the association. A 2/3 majority vote would be needed for approval.

If members vote in favour the SGCA’s assets are not “given away.” The requisition specifically puts our money with either the Vancouver Foundation or the Mission Community Foundation who would return about 5% of the fund each year to applicants who propose projects to benefit Stave Falls.

Potential advantages of dissolution:
• An end to costly internal disputes and legal bills
• Relief from years of tension and division. I am not suggesting the tensions will disappear but at least we can stop them playing out in so public a forum
• Freedom to rebuild community connections informally or even as other societies.
• A transparent way to protect the funds for everyone’s benefit

Possible downsides:
• We lose the formal structure of the SSGCA but start the path toward other groups being formed.
• Winding up will take time and needs to be done carefully
• There’s a chance of short-term legal challenges especially if the dissolution is challenged in court.

For me, this is about being realistic. The SGCA has become a legal battleground instead of a gathering place. Maybe dissolving it is the only way to stop the bleeding and let our community move forward.

Please comment if you want to sway the decision of whether to proceed with the requisition. If you would like to make a comment anonymously or sign the requisition please email me at sunwatts@gmail,com.

Note: to the people who have already signed the requisition I will be contacting you with the final wording. I have dropped point four of the original because it was suggested to me that it only complicated what was otherwise a very simple disposition of the funds. The proposed wording, not yet reviewed by legal counsel, is in the images.

Pinned Post Summary (for Facebook)
I’ve brought forward a requisition to dissolve the SGCA because I believe it’s time to stop spending community energy and funds on conflict and legal bills. If the association is dissolved, the money won’t disappear — it will remain available for Stave Falls residents through a transparent community process. I’ve asked for legal review and offered to donate toward that cost so that we can make this decision fairly and with good information.

10/25/2025

Expulsion Part IX – Update

What’s happened recently:

Short Answer:

Yesterday the expellees filed a notice of application (NOA) without notice asking again for alternative service by email.

Long Answer:

This is really just an update to remind myself of some procedural nuances. Unless you are really keen it is not particularly worth reading.

This is interesting to me in a number of ways:

1. The NOA is not signed so we do not know who filed it. I looked because I would like to know if legal counsel has been engaged on this file. A lawyer can take complete control of the case but that has not happened because since the Plaintiffs started the civil claim a Form 110, Notice of Change of Lawyers, would have to be filed and I do not see that in the court records. Of course, a lawyer can still be involved in an advisory capacity but they are not the “lawyer of record”. I also don’t understand why the registry would accept an unsigned document.

2. The SGCA is listed as one of the parties they would like to serve by email. On the first page of the NOA the SGCA is referred to as a third party. In everyday terms, a third party is simply someone who is not one of the main people involved in a situation, but in legal proceedings, the term refers specifically to a person who has been formally added to a case because the outcome may affect them or their responsibilities (Third Party). There is a special form which the defendants have to file to add the SGCA as a Third Party. The court records do not show that the SGCA has been added as a Third Party.

3. Also on page 1 we see it is without notice. In the Sept 23rd hearing the justice specifically ordered that: ”4. DIRECTION: Any application in this matter shall not be brought on an ex-parte basis.” The two terms are interchangeable; ex-parte means without notice. This type of application is meant for urgent applications, especially on the civil side. The Justice has essentially said in her early order that noting about the whole civil claim is urgent enough to warrant an ex-parte application. Another Justice did grant short leave which also suggests urgency or irreparable harm but that only applies to the Sept 23 application.

The NOA lays out a number of facts which amount to: on October 16th Anil promised to provide contact information for the new firm to which he had transferred the file but has not provided details. That is pretty straight forward but it does suggest that the Plaintiffs feel there is some urgency in moving forward.

10/17/2025

Expulsion Part VIII

Will the hearing scheduled for Oct 17 be heard?

Short answer:

Not tomorrow but maybe later.

Long answer:

A requisition was filed today by the defendant stating:

That the Application filed by the Plaintiffs on October 3, 2025, and scheduled for a hearing on October 17, 2025 at 9:45 a.m. at the New Westminster Law Courts, 651 Carnarvon Street, New Westminster, BC be adjourned generally, BY CONSENT, and reset to a future date that is agreeable to all parties of record.

The signatuer by the lawyer for the BOd was dated October 14, 2025

"Adjouned generally" does not mean it has gone away. It is just sitting in limbo. The applicants can requisition a new date for the hearing.

I'd love to know why but that is unlikely to become public knowledge.

Simply not filing the Application Record would have had the same result. So there must have been some discussion leading up to this.

10/16/2025

Expulsion Part VII

What does the response to civil claim say?

Short answer:

It denies all allegations made in the Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC) by the expellees,
outlines the basic facts surrounding the June 2025 indemnity motion and the September 2025 expulsion process,
states that all actions were taken in compliance with the Societies Act and the bylaws,
argues that the plaintiffs have not established any reasonable expectations or oppressive conduct,
states that the claim was brought in the wrong form (NOCC instead of petition) and
seeks dismissal of the proceeding with costs.

Long Answer:

The Response to Civil Claim (RCC) was filed yesterday by the Board of Directors and is signed by Cheltenham, Secretary for the SGCA.
It responds to the Notice of Civil Claim filed on September 19, 2025, as required within 21 days after that filing.
The fact that it is not signed by a lawyer suggests that the Directors’ liability insurance has not yet taken effect, or that the insurer has not yet appointed counsel.

Some of the main arguments repeat points already made in the earlier Response to the Notice of Application (RNOA), but there are a few new elements here:
• It expands on the legal concept of oppression, referencing several court cases to argue that the plaintiffs (the expelled members) have not demonstrated any reasonable expectations that were violated.
• It emphasizes that all meetings, notices, and decisions were conducted properly under the Societies Act and the Association’s own bylaws.
• It argues that the expulsions and indemnity motion were legitimate, democratic decisions of the membership.
• It reinforces the position that the plaintiffs used the wrong court procedure — bringing an “action” (NOCC) when such matters should be brought by “petition.”
• It concludes that the claim should be dismissed entirely, with costs awarded to the BOD.

Overall, the RCC formalizes the Board’s defence and moves the litigation from procedural skirmishes into a full defence on the merits. It also positions the Board to argue that it acted within its legal rights at every step of the process.

I find it interesting that no mention is made of the rights of the membership to determine what happens to the Society, even though earlier filings by the Board relied heavily on the fact that actions taken were in response to member initiatives — the expulsions were requisitioned and the indemnity motion was moved by a member. These were not actions initiated by the BOD. The Societies Act says it is the members, not the directors, who ultimately hold the authority to decide the Society’s future.

Now that the response has been filed, the discovery phase begins, in which each side must exchange documents and information relevant to the case. The first step is the list of documents, which must be served within 35 days.

The NOA is scheduled for hearing tomorrow, Oct 17. I was looking for the application record when I came across this filing. The Application Record (AR) is not listed on the court website which could mean it does not get scanned or that it has not been filed. Final scheduling of the hearings is usually available around 4 pm. It is my understanding that if the AR is not filed the hearing cannot be held.

10/04/2025

Expulsion Part IV

What did I get out of listening to the Hearings?

Short Answer:

Read the long answer because it’s really quite short 😊.

Long Answer

You may recall that I had to speculate about a few things in the previous post. The only way to be sure was to go and listen to the recordings of the hearings. I did that last Wednesday.
As stated earlier the Expellees had filed an application for short notice which means get into court faster that normally allowed. The hearing lasted a little over 5 minutes. Beland spoke explaining that they were up for expulsion at a meeting to be held September 24. The judge ordered a time for the application to be served on Saturday and set the hearing for the 23rd.

The hearing held September 23 ran about an hour even though that was 20 minutes beyond the normal end time for court. I learned that rather than personal service the application had been emailed to the defendants. The judge stated several times that the matter could not be heard because proper service had not occurred.

She also stated at least twice that they may want to get some legal advice and consider carefully Anil’s (lawyer for the SGCA) response to the application which included a number of other reasons why the matter could not be heard. I had speculated that the order given that there be no “without notice” applications had probably been asked for by Anil but it turns out the judge just ordered it without being asked to do so.

I had wondered why the order for costs against the Plaintiffs said “not forthwith”. I am used to hearing “in the cause” when the judge wants to delay payment until the underlying NOCC is concluded. That is what she initially ordered but then realized the SGCA was not a named party on the NOCC so she changed the wording to “not forthwith”.

So what happens next? The judge appeared to be of the opinion if the application was to come back it needed some changes so they may rework the application based on Anil’s response as the judge suggested. The Judge was very clear that proper service was required in order to have it dealt with next time it comes back.

09/25/2025

Expulsion Part III

What happened before the Expulsion Meeting?

Short Answer:

The 9 members up for expulsion filed a lawsuit against all members of the board of the SGCA and then used that action to file an application to prevent their expulsion. That application was denied.

Long Answer:

On Sept 19, 2025 the expellees filed a notice of civil claim (NOCC) claiming, among other things, they had been unfairly dealt with. You may recall that to get into court with an application you first have to have an NOCC which spells out the basic information, who is suing, who is being sued, why and what the damages are.

That same day they applied to the court for hearing on short notice which allowed them to schedule an application to be heard before the meeting which was only 5 days away. The short notice application was allowed.

On Sept 22 they filed an application to prevent their expulsion, set aside the motion passed at the June 25 meeting plus 3 other items (see the images for the complete list but those first two are spelled out as follows:

“1. Permanent Injunctive Relief preventing the expulsion from the SGCA, the Plaintiffs in this action.

2. Rescind the motion for indemnity moved and adopted by members on June 25, 2025 at a general meeting of members for the Stave Gardens Community Association.”

That application was scheduled for the next day.

Also on the 22nd the lawyer for the SGCA filed a response to the application on behalf of the SGCA arguing that an injunction could not be decided as an application but had to go through a more thorough consideration of the evidence than an application allowed for. That is my very sort interpretation of the 7-page response. See the images for more details

Unfortunately, I could not attend the hearing but the end result was that the matter was adjourned meaning they can come back to court on another day. The judge did make 6 orders which you can see in the images. Two of orders are significant:

1. Costs were awarded to the SGCA which is interesting in a number of ways. Firstly, the SGCA is not a party named in the NOCC but it is named in the application and in the response. Usually costs are awarded to the party that “wins” the day, not at all or to whoever wins the whole case. The fact that the judge awarded costs suggests that the Plaintiffs are fighting an uphill battle.

2. No application can be brought without notice. You may recall that “without notice” was a technique used extensively on the application to shut down the SGCA. I assume the lawyer was aware of that so asked for this order.

I will try to find time to listen to the recording of the hearing because I suspect the judge made some interesting comments. Unfortunately, that requires a trip into New West.

The NOCC lays out in good detail how we got to where we are so I will include a lot of images. It also spells out the reasons for the expulsion of each member while at the same time claiming that the SGCA improperly disclosed that type of detail.

It will be interesting to see how long they continue down this path without a lawyer. You may recall that 4 of these plaintiffs were also self represented when they tried to shut down the SGCA but later got legal counsel.

09/25/2025

Expulsion Part II

So how did the expulsion meeting go?

Short Answer:

All 9 members up for expulsion were voted out of the SGCA.
Colleen Beland, Greg Cowan, Birgit Keys, Brendan Keys, Phil Cooper, Ashley Robinson, Ray Smith, Tony Reid and John Cernovec are no longer members of the SGCA.

Long Answer:

Last night, Sept 24, 2025, at the Silverdale Hall A special Resolution meeting was held by the SGCA to vote on the expulsion of the above-named members. About 65 people were in attendance.

You may recall that this meeting was originally scheduled for June 25 but delayed because of threatened court action. A delay was negotiated between lawyers for the SGCA and the members facing expulsion. (see Expulsion Part I)

I have not been publishing much leading up to this meeting because this site is open to the public and I was not sure how much of the information I received as a member was publishable. That has now changed because the details of the expulsions have been spelled out in court documents which are available to anyone who care to pay to see them. I now have a lot of details which I can publish.

Leading up to this meeting there were more lawsuits filed by the Expellees. I will summarize those in the next post and then dig into some details as time permits.

09/11/2025

Defamation Action September 2025 Update

Readers may recall that on July 4, 2025 Justice Nielsen ordered that the defendants (Cardy, Davidson, Wood and Taylor) must file amended responses to the defamation action. He said that if the Plaintiffs accepted those amended responses, then the case would proceed with those responses as the position of the defendants.

They had 60 days to file. Prior to filing the defendants sent letters to the Plaintiffs (Cooper, Beland, Cowan, Birgit and Brendan Keys) requesting that the amended responses be filed “by consent”. The Plaintiffs decided to challenge the filing of the responses so on September 2, 2025 Taylor made an application to have his amended responses accepted by the court. That application is scheduled to be heard Oct. 21, 2025. Apparently Cardy and Davidson made a similar application on the same day although I could find no record of it. Wood filed a similar application on Sept. 4 also to be heard Oct. 21.

On Sept. 9 the Plaintiffs filed responses to those 3 applications.

There is a lot to digest here. For example, Taylor’s application is 41 pages long because it includes the amended response of 35 pages. Each application response from the Plaintiff is 7 pages long. The images are screen shots from the applications and responses.

After the July 4 hearing I thought it most likely that the Plaintiffs would consent to the filing of amendments because they had requested “particulars” which were to be included in the filed responses. Since that didn’t happen I read the application response to Taylor to try to figure out why they did not consent.

I am still not sure because the response to Taylor says:
“21. The Plaintiffs take no position on the Defendant Taylor's application for the relief sought in
Paragraph 1 of Part I : Order( s) Sought.”

The “relief sought” according to Taylor’s application is:
“Part 1: ORDER(S) SOUGHT
1. The Defendant Taylor be granted leave to file his amended response to civil claim in the form attached as Appendix “A”.
2. Costs of this application be payable forthwith in any event of the cause.”

So are they objecting only to the costs part which would not have been necessary if they had simply consented? I mean the application is being brought because they did not consent to the filing of the amendment.

Perhaps it is a technicality because Taylor’s response now includes more details of the filing of the 2018 bylaws including the words “Fraudulent Misrepresentation”:
“49 … (g.) that notwithstanding the facts set out at paragraphs 29 to 31 herein evidencing that there was no special resolution to have members approve of any Bylaw amendments at the November 5, 2018 AGM, or even the November 5, 2018 GM, the Plaintiff Birgit Keys on or about September 7, 2019 provided to the SGCA’s lawyer a revised version of the November 5, 2018 AGM minutes (“Fraudulent November 5, 2018 AGM Minutes with purported Special Resolution”) which contained the following fraudulent misrepresentation, in that Birgit knew it to be false or was reckless as to its truth:
RESOLVED AS A SPECIAL RESOLUTION THAT:
1. Effective as of the time at which the Society files
its Transition Application:
(a) the Constitution of the Society, as filed with the
Registrar prior to the Act coming into force, be
amended by deleting all of the provisions therein
other than the name and purposes of the Society;
(b) the Bylaws of the Society, as filed with the
Registrar prior to the Act coming into force, be
rescinded in their entirety and replaced with
the Bylaws attached hereto as Schedule "A".”

The Plaintiffs response seems to be objecting to that part of the amendments when they say:

“20. The proposed amended response to civil claim of the Defendant, Jim Taylor would add the defence of justification (truth) in paragraphs 16, 63, 70 and 77 with respect to, inter alia, allegations that the Plaintiffs engaged in dishonest acts and fraudulent misrepresentations.”

And then goes on to say:
“30. The Plaintiffs therefore are well within their rights to withhold consent to amendments that seek to justify defamatory allegations that they engaged in serious misconduct such as dishonesty and fraud.”

This will probably become clearer at the October 21 hearing so I will leave it for now.

There are two other hearings coming up:

Oct 27, 2025 – The Plaintiffs have an application in front of Justice Francis dealing with costs for the PPPA application which I reported on earlier.

October 30, 2025 – The BC Court of Appeal will hear my appeal of the Justice Ball’s decision to fine me $3,000 for my efforts to get his shutdown order set aside.

I will probably give some context to those two hearings before they happen but certainly report on the outcome of both.

There are also 3 Civil Resolution Tribunal cases pending. I will need to make an access to information request for them just to be clear on how much of that information I can legally publish.

Stave Falls News

11/08/2025

11/01/2025

10/27/2025

10/25/2025

10/17/2025

10/16/2025

10/04/2025

09/25/2025

09/25/2025

09/11/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category