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

Stave Falls News, Pilgrim Street, Mission City, BC (2026)

12/24/2025

Court of Appeal Part III

In a comment on an earlier post, Gemma asked a great question about how all these legal threads weave together. Since the answer is a bit involved and the comment threads over there are getting long and hard to follow, I have broken this out into a full post.

Gemma asked: Will the Court of Appeal decision in Nielsen v. Beland have any effect on the defamation lawsuits filed by the former board?

SHORT ANSWER:

Yes. It has a major "domino effect." While the Court of Appeal was specifically dealing with the society governance case, its findings strike at the heart of the plaintiffs' credibility and provide a powerful boost to the defense of the community members being sued for defamation.

LONG ANSWER:

Here is why this decision changes the landscape for the defamation cases (S-236398):

1. The Credibility Factor:

In a defamation suit, the plaintiffs (the former board members) are effectively putting their own reputations on trial. They are asking a judge for money because they claim their reputations were damaged by accusations of "secrecy" and "shady dealings."

However, the highest court in BC has now unanimously found that a representation made by Greg Cowan to a judge—claiming they "ran out of time" before a previous justice—was "incorrect". Having a judicial finding from the Court of Appeal that you provided "incorrect" info to obtain a court order is a devastating blow to one's credibility when trying to claim a "spotless" reputation.

2. Validating the "Gist" of the Community's Criticism:

To defend against defamation, you don't have to prove every single word was 100% accurate; you just have to show the "gist" of the statement was substantially true. The community’s suspicion of "shady dealings" and "procedural maneuvering" was based on facts that occurred months before the court order:
• The "Full Slate" Rule: The board required that any ballot without a full eight votes would be spoiled, effectively forcing people to vote for incumbents they were trying to unseat.
• Unapproved Concepts: Presenting conceptual drawings to Mission Council for concrete "tilt-up" buildings that the general membership had not seen or approved .
• The Sign: Spending over the board’s authorized limit without a membership vote.
The BCCA’s finding that the board later obtained a "Shutdown Order" through a "procedurally unusual" process and a denial of procedural fairness validates the community’s underlying assessment: that this was a board willing to use procedural tricks to bypass the members.

3. Impact on Damages Even if a court were to find that a statement was defamatory, the plaintiffs' own conduct is a major factor in deciding how much money (if any) they should get. Courts are far less likely to award significant damages for "injury to reputation" to plaintiffs who have been rebuked by the Court of Appeal for conduct that "deserves reproof" in related litigation .

The Bottom Line: The Court of Appeal decision has essentially flipped the script. The findings in Nielsen v. Beland provide a roadmap for the defamation defendants to show that their concerns about governance were not "malicious attacks" but were rooted in a very real governance crisis that the BCCA has now documented.

In the other case where 9 members are contesting their expulsion for the SGCA, 4 of the expelled members are the respondents in Nielsen v. Beland it also has an impact.

In the expulsion lawsuit currently before the New Westminster registry, the former board members argue that they are "members in good standing" who were removed without cause. However, SGCA Bylaw 2.4 (b) explicitly states that membership may be withdrawn by a two-thirds majority vote for "wrongful behavior of any kind".

The Court of Appeal decision provides the community with a court-validated record of what that behavior looked like:

1. Misleading the Court: The highest court in BC has now confirmed that the representation made to obtain the November 1st order—claiming the parties had "run out of time" before a previous judge—was "incorrect".

2. Denial of Procedural Fairness: The BCCA found that the former board obtained a "procedurally unusual" order that granted them the "entirety of the relief they sought" before the Society had even been served or allowed to speak.

When a group is found by the Court of Appeal to have used the judicial system to legally paralyze their own association based on "incorrect" information, it becomes very difficult for them to argue that their conduct wasn't "wrongful."

So the decision has provided the evidence needed to show that the community was justified in protecting itself from a board that the BCCA has now documented as having operated in a "procedurally unfair" manner.

I relied heavily on AI, specifically Gemini, to research and write this post.

12/20/2025

Court of Appeal Part II

What did the Appeal Court decide?

Short Answer:

Yesterday the Court of Appeal overturned the decision that labeled me a vexatious litigant and ordered me to pay $3,000 in punitive costs.
The Court held that I was denied procedural fairness, that there was no basis to brand my conduct vexatious, and no basis for special costs.
All orders against me were set aside, the respondents’ applications were dismissed, my costs application was sent back for a proper hearing, and I was awarded costs of the appeal.

Long Answer:

Yesterday the Court of Appeal for British Columbia released its reasons in Nielsen v. Beland, 2025 BCCA 458. The Court unanimously allowed my appeal and set aside all order made against me on February 18, 2025.

At the heart of the decision is procedural fairness. The Court held that I was never given a meaningful opportunity to be heard, despite repeatedly and respectfully asking to explain the background and context of the dispute.

As the Court stated:
“The foundation of procedural fairness ... encompasses a right to be heard. A party is entitled to a meaningful opportunity to present their case” (para. 59).

The Court emphasized that this right was especially important because the respondents were seeking exceptional and punitive relief against me:
“An opportunity to be heard was of particular importance in this case given that the respondents sought a finding that Mr. Nielsen was a vexatious litigant and a punitive order for special costs” (para. 59).

The Court found that I did ask to explain how the situation arose and why I brought the applications that I did, and that those requests were refused:
“The transcript reflects that Mr. Nielsen repeatedly, and respectfully, requested an opportunity to explain the relevant context to the chambers judge, and those requests were repeatedly refused” (para. 61).

Because of this, the Court concluded plainly:
“It is apparent from the transcript that the process leading to the orders under appeal was demonstrably unfair to Mr. Nielsen” (para. 62).

The Court then turned to the substance of the allegations that I was vexatious or had abused the court process. It rejected those claims outright.

First, the Court rejected the idea that I was a ‘stranger’ to the litigation:
“Mr. Nielsen is not a ‘stranger’ to the litigation… He is a member of the Society and was a member of the interim board at the time this proceeding commenced. He was clearly a person affected by the November 1 Order” (para. 69(b)).

Second, the Court confirmed that my concerns were legitimate:
“While it may be that Mr. Nielsen has not always followed a proper procedural path… his fundamental concern about how the orders were obtained was understandable and legitimate” (para. 69(b)).

Third, the Court rejected the claim that my applications were meritless:
“In short, Mr. Nielsen’s applications were not ‘meritless’” (para. 69(b)).

The Court also addressed the repeated claim that I had disobeyed court directions. It found that this assertion was simply wrong:
“The chambers judge did not direct Mr. Nielsen not to bring any further applications. Rather, he directed him not to proceed with his applications of December 13 and 22, 2023. Mr. Nielsen followed that direction” (para. 69(f)).

The Court placed significant responsibility for the procedural chaos on the respondents’ own conduct, including obtaining sweeping ex parte orders without notice and then abandoning the action:
“The procedural difficulties in this case flowed from the respondents’ actions in… bringing an ex parte application for an order suspending the operation of the Society… and taking the position that they were the only authorized representatives of the Society” (para. 69(a)).

After reviewing the entire record, the Court reached a clear conclusion:
“There is no basis in this case for a finding that Mr. Nielsen persistently and habitually brought vexatious proceedings, abused the court process, or engaged in reprehensible conduct” (para. 70).

Instead, the Court described my actions in these terms:
“He endeavoured as a self-represented litigant to remedy the respondents’ conduct in pursuing and obtaining ex parte orders that suspended the operation of the Society without opportunity for opposing views to be heard” (para. 70).

As a result, the Court made the following orders:
- All four terms of the February 18, 2025 order were set aside.
- The respondents’ application for a vexatious litigant finding and special costs was dismissed. -
- My application for costs was sent back to the Supreme Court for a new hearing, where I will be fully heard.
-I was awarded my costs of the appeal.

The Court also addressed untrue representations made by the respondents to obtain the shutdown order.

They told the chambers judge that, at an earlier hearing before Taylor J., they had “run out of time.” The Court of Appeal found this to be incorrect. As the Court explained:
“It appears from the record that this statement was incorrect. The respondents did not run out of time before Taylor J., rather the application was dismissed.” (para. 12)

The Court later identified this misrepresentation as part of the broader pattern of conduct that caused the procedural breakdown:
“The procedural difficulties in this case flowed from the respondents’ actions in… bringing the same application before the chambers judge after it had been dismissed by Taylor J.” (para. 69(a))

The respondents also repeatedly asserted that I had disobeyed a court direction by continuing to bring applications. The Court found this was untrue.

These incorrect assertions were central to the respondents’ attempt to portray me as abusing the court process — a narrative the Court ultimately rejected, finding there was “no basis” to label my conduct vexatious or reprehensible (para. 70).

The decision does not decide every remaining issue between the parties, but it does firmly correct the record. It confirms that the Nov. 1 shutdown order was granted after an “incorrect” statement. It confirms that I was wrongly labeled, wrongly penalized, and wrongly denied a voice — and that those errors could not stand once properly reviewed.

I have included some images of the decision but if you want to read the whole thing use this link: https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/ca/25/04/2025BCCA0458.htm

12/13/2025

Defamation Action December 2025 Update

It has been 3 months since I last looked at the defamation action. In September I reported that the defendants had 60 days to file amended responses. Those responses have now been filed and they are much longer than previous filings — and now there are three responses for a total of 163 pages, although about 30 pages of that are deletions from the older response. They were filed Oct. 28 and Oct. 30. I will post some images but if you want the full documents you can get them online by searching “CSO online BC”. It will cost about $12, or email me and I’ll send them for free 😊.

It’s also worth noting that the documents were filed by the individuals rather than lawyers. That doesn’t mean they don’t have legal advice, but it does mean no lawyer is “on record.” The documents certainly look like they were professionally drafted.

The responses go into a lot more detail. Below are a few examples. Keep in mind that none of the allegations have been proven in court. The images give a fuller context of the quotes used.

Jim Taylor alleges that the plaintiffs knowingly gave SGCA’s lawyer fraudulent minutes suggesting that bylaws had been properly approved when they had not. He writes:
“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…” (para. 49(g)).

He then quotes the wording he says was improperly inserted into the minutes:
“RESOLVED AS A SPECIAL RESOLUTION THAT … the Bylaws of the Society … be rescinded in their entirety and replaced with the Bylaws attached hereto as Schedule ‘A’.” (paras. 49(g)–49(h)).

He further alleges:
“the Plaintiffs… did not ensure compliance with the Societies Act… and were concealing information… including information that exposed dishonest acts.” (para. 77).

Rhonda Davidson and Courtney Cartney claim that the plaintiffs “were knowingly relying upon bylaws that had never been approved by the members of the SGCA.” (para. 313(b)(vii)).

They also allege that the Board “used SGCA funds to pay for the Signage, despite not having approval from the members…” (para. 313(b)(v)).

Another passage states that the board “were not providing adequate answers or making the documents requested by members available.” (para. 313(b)(viii)).

Diana Wood alleges:
“In or around March 2021, the Directors of the SGCA… informed the other SGCA Directors… that they would be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement, failing which they would not be permitted to attend future Directors’ meetings.” (para. 35).

On the matter of the $593.60 sign purchase, she states:
“Members had previously discussed a proposal… which was not supported… The Board did not seek approval for the purchase of the sign from its membership.” (paras. 38–40).

On the 2022 election, she writes:
“Members were required to vote for eight Board Members… The ballots were placed in an opaque bag… There were no procedures in place to ensure the confidentiality, transparency, or integrity of the voting process.” (paras. 43–46).

The file now has 109 document and has run for about 2 years. Maybe it is time to take another look at complexity and just how long this could still be part of our community discourse. I think we already looked at a very long case, maybe 5 years or so, involving Cowan but have not yet looked at Cooper's cases. I will try to find time to give us some time related context.

12/08/2025

SGCA Annual General Meeting – Dec. 4, 2025

What happened at the AGM?

Short Answer:

Two new board members were added: Terri Adams and Johan Nielsen. One member left the board, Brooke Christianson.

The members approved an expenditure of $40,000 to: “ provide a perpetual scholarship fund, annually providing a vocational and academic scholarship to a graduating student residing in Stave Falls. The scholarship fund will be managed by the Mission Foundation”.

A motion was defeated which stated: “THE CURRENT GIC OF $244,625.70 THAT WAS FROM THE SALE OF THE COMMUNITY HALL SHOULD BE PRESERVED UNTIL A COMMUNITY-WIDE CONSULTATION PROCESS CAN BE UNDERTAKEN.”

Long Answer:

45 people were in attendance.

There were several other expenditures for various projects which were all defeated.

Only one members left the board because Anita had already resigned when the board was threatened with a lawsuit.

The main reason the community consultation motion was defeated seemed to be, as a number of members satated, there has already been several attempts to engage the community and if people want a say in what happens to the money they can join the association.

Item D was on the ballot so it did not need to be voted on separately.

This means that the GIC can be cashed in when the board decides to implement the decisions made. Other proposals or infact the same proposals could come forward in the future because motion A include this statement:

"THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS IN COLLABORATION WITH THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP, SHALL DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT CLEAR GUIDELINES FOR THE SELECTION, VETTING, AND APPROVAL OF CHARITABLE INITIATIVES, ENSURING APPROPRIATE DUE DILIGENCE, FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT, AND ALIGNMENT WITH THE ASSOCIATION’S MISSION AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS"

12/03/2025

Expulsion Part XIV

What does the new Application Response say?

Short Answer:

The amended application filed Nov. 28 is stronger in tone, draws on additional case law, and puts major emphasis on the point that the plaintiffs must proceed by petition rather than Notice of Civil Claim.

Long Answer:

In the Nov. 20 hearing, the defendants succeeded in adjourning the plaintiffs’ application and were granted permission to file an amended response. That amended response is now filed, and it is noticeably more detailed and forceful.

The earlier November 18 version was a short, pre-hearing draft focused mainly on obtaining an adjournment. It summarized events and raised procedural concerns, but did not yet contain full legal argument because counsel did not have the complete record and the adjournment issue was unresolved.

The amended response filed after the Nov. 20 appearance is quite different. It includes a fuller factual narrative covering all three applications (September, October, and November), the October 16 consent requisition, the refusal to adjourn, and the court’s direction against further ex parte attempts. It also adds significant legal analysis: limits on an Associate Judge’s jurisdiction, why oppression-remedy matters must proceed by petition, the tests for both permanent and interlocutory injunctions, and new case authorities showing that the plaintiffs have not met the legal threshold for any of the relief sought.

A major focus is the plaintiffs’ incomplete evidence. They listed thirteen affidavits but filed only two in the application record, leaving the record “incomplete” and providing “no evidence of harm whatsoever.” The amended response says plainly that “proof of irreparable harm cannot be inferred,” and highlights that the plaintiffs are seeking what is effectively final relief—reinstatement and a declaration on the indemnity motion—long before disclosure or a proper hearing on the merits.

The tone is also much sharper. The amended response characterizes the plaintiffs’ filings as “meritless applications through which they seek to circumvent the proper Court processes” and an attempt to “impermissibly expedite the ultimate disposition of their action.” It notes the unnecessary costs caused by refusing to adjourn and stresses that the plaintiffs are attempting to “undo a democratic process” by asking the court to invalidate motions passed by the membership.

Taken together, the amended filing is a much stronger, more comprehensive challenge to the plaintiffs’ approach. It strengthens the defendants’ position going forward.

I was going to dig deeper into that petition issue but it turns out to be simple enough to just include it here:

A petition is a streamlined court process designed for matters that can be resolved based on documents and affidavits instead of a full trial. It is used where the facts are largely undisputed and the court can decide the issues without a trial. That reduces the expense of not only holding a trial but all of the procedures that lead up to the trial like discovery which is very expensive especially in a case where there are so many people suing and being sued.

12/01/2025

Expulsion Part XIII

What was said at the Nov 18 and Nov 20 Hearings?

Short Answer:

I did go to the courthouse to listen to the hearings but there was not much in them that had not already been said in the applications. Only a few comments of the judge stand out.
Beland appeared on behalf of the plaintiffs and none of the others are listed as present. The defendants were represented by Ms. Fu.
There was however a comment by Beland that caused me to dig into a very large box of documents that I had hoped I would not need to read.

Long Answer:

On Nov 18 there was an application for short notice for an application by the defendants to adjourn the Nov. 20 hearing so it could also be heard on Nov. 20. On Nov. 20 that application was successful so the plaintiffs’ application to have their expulsions set aside was not heard.
One of the main questions I was wanting an answer to was why costs were not awarded. The judge said that each party would pay their own costs even though the defendants were successful in their application. Usually, the successful party is awarded costs. She did say:
“So, here's the thing: technically, you don't have to ask the other side when they're available. But it makes things. A lot easier for the other side, the court, and for you if you do that. … because you know, it really, truly, is only in cases of real urgency or a very long period of delay where… If someone comes to court and says, look. They picked the date unilaterally, and I can't make it for these reasons for you know these legitimate reasons. It's very, very difficult to counteract that … Because even though litigation is by nature and adversarial process, it actually confusingly requires a bit of cooperation in order to get things done as efficiently as possible.”
I can only conclude she felt there was sufficient urgency so as not to award costs. She did also appeared to be sympathetic to the plaintiffs because they were self-representing and spent some time making sure Beland understood the proceeding.

The following comment by Beland made me wonder what kind of discussions were happening:
“On the previous application we had made. That was supposed to be heard October 17th. The plaintiffs actually offered to adjourn that understanding that we were on a path to resolution…“
It struck me that resolution without consent of the membership would be very difficult. So I dug into a very deep box of affidavits. I did not get the full extent of the discussions but there is reference to a settlement agreement in an email from Beland to Anil, then acting for the SGCA, dated Oct. 14 saying:
“We forwarded the release and settlement agreement on Friday, to our lawyer for her review…Shelley says she can have a review back to us on Thursday…we will apply to adjourn the Friday appearance….”

A follow-up email from Beland to the defendants dated Nov 5 she spells out three requirements to be met or they will reset the hearing. Again we see reference to a settlement agreement apparently initiated by the defendants in an effort to “…avoid further court time…” adding “…and that we have since also agreed to…”.
So there was an agreement but it was obviously never signed. The email shows that it is attached but the affidavit does not include it; probably because it was marked without prejudice. Both emails are in the images.

There is one other reference to the agreement in the hearing where Ms. Fu says:
“…if the plaintiffs believe, there is an enforceable settlement agreement they should bring that forward as an application…”
There was also reference to a redacted document filed in one of the affidavits but I may not get to looking at that in detail.

What I will be looking at is the other order granted, which was to allow the defendants to amend their response to the application.

11/21/2025

Expulsion Part XII - quick update

What happened Nov. 20th?

Short Answer:

There was a hearing and an order was given. I do not know what the order says.

Long Answer:

As you can see in the images the hearing was held today and an order was given. There was also another affidavit filed.

I may have to go to the courthouse because the order cannot be printed. I will try to do that tomorrow especially if I can get a slot to listen to the hearing.

The fact that the order was signed on the bench suggests to me it may have been one prepared by the defendant's lawyer. Lawyers usually bring a prepared order for the judge to sign. I have never seen a self represented litigant do that.

Stay tuned.

11/20/2025

Expulsions Part XI – A lot of filings
What’s happening.

Short Answer:
The hearing of the application the expelled members of the SGCA made Nov. 6 and set for Nov 20 is on the docket today.

Long Answer:

There have been a lot of filings in the past 2 days. It took some time but reading through the documents I think I understand what’s going on.
On Nov. 18 the defendants (current board members of the SGCA) filed a notice of application (NOA) and a requisition for short notice asking that they be allowed to be heard on Nov 20, to serve it the next day and be allowed to hand up their materials at the hearing on Nov. 20. That request was granted.

The NOA asks for 3 orders: that the application of the plaintiffs to be heard on the Nov. 20 be adjourned, that any future application be brought on dates “mutually agreed upon” and costs be awarded to the defendants.

The NOA lays out the history of the civil claim and then in paragraphs 12 to 16 explains why the short notice was needed:
12. Neil MacLean of Guild Yule LLP was retained on or about November 6, 2025 to act for the Applicants. He learned of the application on November 10, 2025, and wrote an email to the Plaintiff-Respondent, Colleen Beland on November 12, 2025, to advise that the November Application would need to be rescheduled because he was out of the country on November 20, 2025. Additionally, Mr. MacLean informed Ms. Beland that because the November Application was set for two hours, the date and time of the hearing should be fixed by the Registrar. Furthermore, Mr. MacLean informed Ms. Beland that he had not received any filed documents.
13. Ms. Beland replied by email on November 13, 2025 to advise that the Plaintiffs-Respondents were not adjourning the November Application.
14. Mr. MacLean wrote an email to Ms. Beland on November 14, 2025 to again request adjournment of the November Application, adding that in addition to the other reasons for adjournment, the November Application raises several issues and will involve enough evidence that it will take more than the estimated two hours. If the Plaintiffs-Respondents persisted in proceeding on November 20, 2025, the Applicants would seek an adjournment and to seek costs thrown away.
15. When Mr. MacLean wrote the email to Ms. Beland on November 14, 2025, he was unaware of the terms of the requisition of October 16, 2025 adjourning the October application, which included that the future date of the October Application had to be agreeable to the parties. Ms. Beland, however, would have been aware of the terms of the requisition.
16. As of November 18, 2025, the Plaintiffs-Respondents have not adjourned the November Application, causing the Applicants to incur unnecessary fees in preparation of a short notice application and application to adjourn the hearing of the November Application generally.

The response to this NOA by the plaintiffs filed Nov. 19 opposes all of the orders. It points out that a requisition for dissolution is being circulated and that money matters will be voted on at the AGM. The crux of their argument for moving ahead with the Nov. 20 hearing is stated in paragraph 12:
12. Should the Defendants application to adjourn the November 6, 2025 Notice of Application be granted, all nine Plaintiffs would be excluded from all parts of the upcoming AGM. They would not be able to run for a seat on the board, they would not be able to vote on significant motions to allocate the assets of the society away from the society. This would cause non-compensable prejudice against the Plaintiffs.

Also, on Nov 18 the defendants filed their response to the application being heard Nov. 20. The response states the same facts as their NOA plus two additional paragraphs adding to the history and saying counsel still did not have all the files they needed.

There are also a number of affdavits filed recently but I have not read those.

Unfortunately I will not be able to attend the hearing.

I think this could go one of two ways.
The judge could feel he is bound by the order which says the parties need to agree on the date for hearings and refuse to hear the meat of the matter. On the other hand if he decides he is not bound by that he could order that the AGM be postponed.
In either case I suspect this is not the end of it because counsel for the defendants has made it clear he needs more time to prepare and suggests that there is so much evidence that a one day hearing would be needed.

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.

Stave Falls News

12/24/2025

12/20/2025

12/13/2025

12/08/2025

12/03/2025

12/01/2025

11/21/2025

11/20/2025

11/08/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category