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

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

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“RESOLVED AS A SPECIAL RESOLUTION THAT … the Bylaws of the Society … be rescinded in their entirety and replaced with the Bylaws attached hereto as Schedule ‘A’.”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.

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.

Stave Falls News

12/13/2025

12/08/2025

12/03/2025

12/01/2025

11/21/2025

11/20/2025

11/08/2025

11/01/2025

10/27/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category