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

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

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.

07/06/2025

DO NOT Forget.

Community cleanup TODAY 1 to 4 pm at the school. Followed by FREE Hamburgers at 4.

07/05/2025

Defamation Action July 6 2025

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

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

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

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

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

07/01/2025

Expulsions Part I

What’s happening in the SGCA?

A quick update.

Short Answer:

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

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

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

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

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

Long answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

06/09/2025

An Abundance of Riches – Part IX

What about the Mission Community Foundation?

Short Answer:

5.5% return on investment adjusted for inflation.

Long Answer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

05/27/2025

An Abundance of Riches – Part VIII

What if we had invested our money with Vancouver Foundation?

Short answer:

In round numbers since 2018:

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

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

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

Long Answer.

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

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

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

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

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

The grey line shows what VF would have paid out.

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

(all numbers approximate and based on some extrapolation)

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

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

05/22/2025

An Abundance of Riches Part VII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Up next a more detailed look at the Vancouver Foundation.

04/10/2025

Anti-SLAPP Hearing Part VI

What was the decision?

Short Answer:

The antiSLAPP application has been denied.

Long Answer:

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

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

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

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

What could happen next?

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

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

The Plaintiffs have the unilateral right to discontinue the case.

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

Paragraph 145 of the decision says:

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

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

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

If I hear anything I will let you know.

03/12/2025

An Abundance of Riches – Part VI

The magic of compounded interest.

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

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

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

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

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

Stave Falls News

10/04/2025

09/25/2025

09/25/2025

09/11/2025

07/06/2025

07/05/2025

07/01/2025

06/09/2025

05/27/2025

05/22/2025

04/10/2025

03/12/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category