Preparing for Court and Looking Out the Window

.. the Bay in the forefront, the Calgary Tower in the backgound ..
as seen from Lawson Lundell

Present at the Court: Moiya and David Wood, Glen and Janet Pilling, Laynie Hicks, Wyona Bates, Rebecca and Arta Johnson, Marcia Bates

December 16th – 20th were days that LaRue (the holding company for the lands at the Shuswap) spent at the Court of Queen’s Bench.

Rebecca said that with all of its vagaries, she wouldn’t have missed it for the world.

For me, it was better to be there, than to be somewhere else wondering what was happening.

The final result is that the case was ruled a non-suit. That means that we failed to bring sufficient evidence, which may seem disheartening, and it was, a bit, to us.

LaRue’s job was to test if its lot licences were valid.

 The final answer is that the lot licences signed after 2007 are valid but are unenforceable.

... Glen, waiting for Robert in the boardroom of Lawson Lundell ...

And that is what we wanted test, so for us it was a win.

Now we will go to a different jurisdiction for LaRue to work out what is called the ping-pong problem: envoi.

We are a company that holds land in B.C., so there is a point to having the court in BC. However we are an Alberta Company, so with Alberta licences, the BC court would send us back to Alberta. You can see the ping pong problem.

We spent 5 days together in court and 3 days before hand in preparation.

Glen was tutored as to how to answer questions in court – just answer the question, no more, no less.

... snow on the Plaza of 7th Ave and 2nd Street ...

We had a judgement that is hard to make, or maybe for him the judge it was easy. 

Just hard for me to watch. 

When two of our lawyers gave Glen the pre-court challenge of answering questions that were to come up, the rest of us watched in awe and wonder – me always thinking, could I do as good a job?

Judge Keith Jamouci told us that he had been fascinated with the case.

He said that he could have ruled on it right from the outset, but that he hoped the rest of us would know he listened carefully and was interested in the complexity of what was going on.

I think he used the word, fascinated.

Darla was awarded minimal costs against us – ones on the schedule as though we had been in master’s chambers. We are happy to pay.

We got the advice of a seasoned judge who had once been a lawyer dealing with international bankruptcy and who had taught at the University of Calgary.

He told us how to narrow this down to one important issue and then to proceed on that basis. Wyona calls what we learned, “a magnificent loss”.

... the faint reline is the view of the
C-train from 11 stories up ...

Not everyone leaves court as happy as the four of us did.

That is what happened in that week in a nutshell.

Court is not over.

Darla has initiated another Statement of Claim (2019), this time to be heard in Kelowna, British Columbia.

So?

Litigious times still ahead from her, so if one can take the perspective that this is going to happen, then I shall also take the perspective that I will find any joy in being in the company of the rest of my siblings.

Arta