[ 2012 ] Fairmont / Sunchaser / Northwynd official thread with lawsuit info!

[LilMaggie]

Interest Act.

• R.S., c. I-18, s. 1.

Rate of Interest
Marginal note:No restriction except by statute
2 Except as otherwise provided by this Act or any other Act of Parliament, any person may stipulate for, allow and exact, on any contract or agreement whatever, any rate of interest or discount that is agreed on.

• R.S., c. I-18, s. 2.

Marginal note:Interest rate when none provided
3 Whenever any interest is payable by the agreement of parties or by law, and no rate is fixed by the agreement or by law, the rate of interest shall be five per cent per annum.

• R.S., c. I-18, s. 3.

Marginal note:When per annum rate not stipulated
4 Except as to mortgages on real property or hypothecs on immovables, whenever any interest is, by the terms of any written or printed contract, whether under seal or not, made payable at a rate or percentage per day, week, month, or at any rate or percentage for any period less than a year, no interest exceeding the rate or percentage of five per cent per annum shall be chargeable, payable or recoverable on any part of the principal money unless the contract contains an express statement of the yearly rate or percentage of interest to which the other rate or percentage is equivalent.

• R.S., 1985, c. I-15, s. 4;
• 2001, c. 4, s. 91.

Marginal note:Recovery of sums paid otherwise
5 If any sum is paid on account of any interest not chargeable, payable or recoverable under section 4, the sum may be recovered back or deducted from any principal or interest payable under the contract.

• R.S., c. I-18, s. 5.

Maybe this is the reason for the reduction of the amount of interest that can be charged on contracts before 2004. Does this make you smile?

If a person has already paid the 27%, how is he/she supposed to recover the overpaid interest?

 

[servemeout]

How to recover the overpaid interest? Do not know. The interest paid as part of a "settlement" probably is not under the Interest Act. Our opinion is that the Geldert group was targeted. It is also our opinion that KMFW will not get his appeal on the interest rate, which will cut the amounts outstanding by a large amount. My logic tells me that I would not sue for $100.00 if it was going to cost $1000.00 to get it. It has been said many times, MG gave very poor legal advise and much of his farmed out crap put fear into people. Sauvageau is a lawyer and did not need to have a license in every province in Canada to be a collection agent.

 

[LilMaggie]

How to recover the overpaid interest? Do not know. The interest paid as part of a "settlement" probably is not under the Interest Act. Our opinion is that the Geldert group was targeted. It is also our opinion that KMFW will not get his appeal on the interest rate, which will cut the amounts outstanding by a large amount. My logic tells me that I would not sue for $100.00 if it was going to cost $1000.00 to get it. It has been said many times, MG gave very poor legal advise and much of his farmed out crap put fear into people. Sauvageau is a lawyer and did not need to have a license in every province in Canada to be a collection agent.

The settlement folks paid the same interest that everyone owes NM (those who were part of MG's litigation group and were advised to not pay the fees over the years).
Every statement from NM included this interest amount added to the yearly maintenance fees.

 

[servemeout]

Yes you are correct, however the contracts are different. The contracts before 2004 did not give a stated amount per year, hence the 5% by law. Remember the unilateral change to ALL contracts that KMFW wanted to change. At the Sept.15/15 court date with Young, she asked to have copies of all of the different contracts.

 

[dotbuhler]

So what happened in court on the 4th of July?? Can anyone fill me in please??

Only Mr. Olsen was allowed Standing in the Appeal, and that was because a clerical error had been made that left his name off the original list of appellants. Wankel was not present, but Virtue and Barry King were both there. King excused himself at the very beginning as he said everything was covered in the documents (that Geldert had directed him to file with the court) and he was not prepared to argue over dates for the Appeal and cross-appeal. We were allowed to address the court on Standing but it was plain from the arguments filed prior by Virtue and King that they were severely opposed to anyone other than Mr. Olsen being included. Interestingly, the fact that King was even allowed a say, given his (Geldert's) history with us, kind of boggled my mind.
At the point when Jud Virtue turned to the survey the 10 or so of us and told Justice Gill: "There were 1300 people who were fighting this originally, and this is all that's left..." I had to leave. My "stupidity limit" had reached saturation point and I knew if I stayed one second longer I would probably be charged with contempt of court. (Or maybe it was after Virtue referred to me as 'Zazelenski' for the fourth or fifth time...) So, from that point on Mr. Hobbs, the Vaughters, and the others present will have to fill you in.
When I was coming to court this time I realized that if I won I lost, and if I lost, I won. Winning meant more paperwork, it has been a long 5 years! Research, study, travel, always on my mind. If I "lost", I get my life back. Get my drift?!
Because I was Served and I hear there is a Judgement in the B.C Courts, but I still theoretically have about 15 years left on the lease, that means I will be sued again in B.C. if Wankel wants to keep playing this game. BUT this time I will be aware. (I wonder if Virtue will be suing Wankel for 'breach of contract' like his last lawyer is doing, at that time??) Anyway, I am enjoying my breathing space. Life is great and I still haven't, nor will I ever, give the extortionists one red cent. I have no "gag order" in place and I am free as a bird to bear witness to the fraud perpetrated against us by the unholy duo of Wankel and Geldert. (Gee, that felt good!)

 

[LilMaggie]

Yes you are correct, however the contracts are different. The contracts before 2004 did not give a stated amount per year, hence the 5% by law. Remember the unilateral change to ALL contracts that KMFW wanted to change. At the Sept.15/15 court date with Young, she asked to have copies of all of the different contracts.

My contract was signed in 1992 and it stated that the per month charge was 2% for overdue accounts. Clearly there were others contracts at some point that did not specify that.
Sadly, many people paid over $10,000 in interest charges. Pretty expensive lesson to learn.

 

[LilMaggie]

Only Mr. Olsen was allowed Standing in the Appeal, and that was because a clerical error had been made that left his name off the original list of appellants. Wankel was not present, but Virtue and Barry King were both there. King excused himself at the very beginning as he said everything was covered in the documents (that Geldert had directed him to file with the court) and he was not prepared to argue over dates for the Appeal and cross-appeal. We were allowed to address the court on Standing but it was plain from the arguments filed prior by Virtue and King that they were severely opposed to anyone other than Mr. Olsen being included. Interestingly, the fact that King was even allowed a say, given his (Geldert's) history with us, kind of boggled my mind.
At the point when Jud Virtue turned to the survey the 10 or so of us and told Justice Gill: "There were 1300 people who were fighting this originally, and this is all that's left..." I had to leave. My "stupidity limit" had reached saturation point and I knew if I stayed one second longer I would probably be charged with contempt of court. (Or maybe it was after Virtue referred to me as 'Zazelenski' for the fourth or fifth time...) So, from that point on Mr. Hobbs, the Vaughters, and the others present will have to fill you in.
When I was coming to court this time I realized that if I won I lost, and if I lost, I won. Winning meant more paperwork, it has been a long 5 years! Research, study, travel, always on my mind. If I "lost", I get my life back. Get my drift?!
Because I was Served and I hear there is a Judgement in the B.C Courts, but I still theoretically have about 15 years left on the lease, that means I will be sued again in B.C. if Wankel wants to keep playing this game. BUT this time I will be aware. (I wonder if Virtue will be suing Wankel for 'breach of contract' like his last lawyer is doing, at that time??) Anyway, I am enjoying my breathing space. Life is great and I still haven't, nor will I ever, give the extortionists one red cent. I have no "gag order" in place and I am free as a bird to bear witness to the fraud perpetrated against us by the unholy duo of Wankel and Geldert. (Gee, that felt good!)

Yaaaaay for freedom and "winning"!!!

 

[Petus@18]

Yaaaaay for freedom and "winning"!!!

Yayyy

 

[Spark1]

I

Not sure what this has to do with claiming a capital loss?

If you are not registered as a land or property owner any where in BC why are you replacing the resort or paying for Capital expenses. Why was maintenance fees planned by the manager of the resort just fine according to the Lease contracts and after Northwynd takes over the Resort we are treated like we are the owners when all we own is time not property? Every one should not of paid them one thin dime. They are extorters.

 

[GypsyOne]

I

If you are not registered as a land or property owner any where in BC why are you replacing the resort or paying for Capital expenses. Why was maintenance fees planned by the manager of the resort just fine according to the Lease contracts and after Northwynd takes over the Resort we are treated like we are the owners when all we own is time not property? Every one should not of paid them one thin dime. They are extorters.

Unfortunately they are "extorters" with the blessing of at least two Court decisions, and I'm not ruling out that there may have been provincial influence in those Court decisions. We could be right in all respects but in the courts, and that's a tough hurdle to clear.

 

[Spark1]

Unfortunately they are "extorters" with the blessing of at least two Court decisions, and I'm not ruling out that there may be provincial influence in those Court decisions. We could be right in all respects but in the courts, and that's a tough hurdle to clear.

Yes and for some reason the Alberta Government was just as responsible for this. Was it that they did not want to protect us because of the costs or are they that incompetent with timeshare. If that is the case and the federal government is counting on Protection BC and Service Alberta to do their Consumer Protection and they totally failed than do not allow timeshares to be sold in Canada. But really look at these corrupt Lawyers and Judges,this needs to be looked at. The Law Society of BC should not be taking this long to come up with a decision with MG. He is a extortionist also. He should be disbarred. His clients were sucked in by this 162% interest. Any one trying to collect this off of me would have to do this in person I do not pay any one without meeting them in person and they would have to explain to me what I am paying for. I do not trust lawyers. I bet after MG a lot of people do not trust lawyers

 

[Tanny13]

Interest Act.

• R.S., c. I-18, s. 1.

Rate of Interest
Marginal note:No restriction except by statute
2 Except as otherwise provided by this Act or any other Act of Parliament, any person may stipulate for, allow and exact, on any contract or agreement whatever, any rate of interest or discount that is agreed on.

• R.S., c. I-18, s. 2.

Marginal note:Interest rate when none provided
3 Whenever any interest is payable by the agreement of parties or by law, and no rate is fixed by the agreement or by law, the rate of interest shall be five per cent per annum.

• R.S., c. I-18, s. 3.

Marginal note:When per annum rate not stipulated
4 Except as to mortgages on real property or hypothecs on immovables, whenever any interest is, by the terms of any written or printed contract, whether under seal or not, made payable at a rate or percentage per day, week, month, or at any rate or percentage for any period less than a year, no interest exceeding the rate or percentage of five per cent per annum shall be chargeable, payable or recoverable on any part of the principal money unless the contract contains an express statement of the yearly rate or percentage of interest to which the other rate or percentage is equivalent.

• R.S., 1985, c. I-15, s. 4;
• 2001, c. 4, s. 91.

Marginal note:Recovery of sums paid otherwise
5 If any sum is paid on account of any interest not chargeable, payable or recoverable under section 4, the sum may be recovered back or deducted from any principal or interest payable under the contract.

• R.S., c. I-18, s. 5.

Maybe this is the reason for the reduction of the amount of interest that can be charged on contracts before 2004. Does this make you smile?

This is precisely the reason why Judge Young ruled in the favour of those who have pre-2004 contracts. The interest rate was indicated per month, not by year, on our contracts.

 

[Spark1]

This is precisely the reason why Judge Young ruled in the favour of those who have pre-2004 contracts. The interest rate was indicated per month, not by year, on our contracts.

MG knew that Justice Young did not rule on interest rates yet so what was it in it for him by working with KW? What did he get paid under the table from KW my scaring time owners with 162% rates if they backed out of Option No. 1. Were these SIF Documents Legal? I did not see any Signatures. How many more millions were paid because of these heartless Assholes. Many people are living from cheque to cheque now days as it is. He is a liar if he is saying that this is what we wanted for a settlement to get out of our Lease Contracts. We know what we want and that is to see you two put in jail for the rest of your life.

 

[Spark1]

Yes you are correct, however the contracts are different. The contracts before 2004 did not give a stated amount per year, hence the 5% by law. Remember the unilateral change to ALL contracts that KMFW wanted to change. At the Sept.15/15 court date with Young, she asked to have copies of all of the different contracts.

You can not just do unilateral amendments to contracts until all items of the different contracts are satisfied. This is where the Judge failed all of us. I will never fall for this just because they are judges. We paid big money for this 40 year contract and signed in good faith with Collin Knight, Ben their Manager and Their Sales Lady Marylyn. All the items are important and I have brought up item no. 37 before. The reason item no. 37 was part of this contract is it is the same as the new bill 37 that was passed Dec. 2017. You have to give notice to Lease Time Owners by Registered Mail for all events such as bankruptcy,Modifications,unilateral amendments,new owners etc. We have never received any registered postal mail informing us of any of these events. These are all breaches of our contract. Why did none of these judges see any breaches to our contracts because there was many? The condo Association and the same email addresses and phone numbers Northwynd used would of helped also instead of Just Social media. I have sent tons of information to Richard and will set up a meeting with him. I am a UCP member and there are other Lease owners that want to meet with him. We have to stop this not just for us but also future lease owners taken over by White Collar Crime.

 

[Meow]

In an earlier post I had hoped to attract the attention of someone knowledgeable in Canadian Income Tax law. My question is - those of us that have walked away from our timeshares - did we suffer a capital property loss that can be carried back 3 years or forward to offset capital gains? I paid X$ for the timeshare a few years ago and disposed of it for 0$ this year. Do the B.C. and Alberta court decisions support an argument that we disposed of a Capital Property when we "settled" with Northmont?

 

[GypsyOne]

In an earlier post I had hoped to attract the attention of someone knowledgeable in Canadian Income Tax law. My question is - those of us that have walked away from our timeshares - did we suffer a capital property loss that can be carried back 3 years or forward to offset capital gains? I paid X$ for the timeshare a few years ago and disposed of it for 0$ this year. Do the B.C. and Alberta court decisions support an argument that we disposed of a Capital Property when we "settled" with Northmont?

My tax preparer said that the loss on my timeshare is not deductible for the reason that losses from the sale of a personal use timeshare are deemed to be personal losses and are not deductible. You should check your own situation with your own tax preparer.

 

[Meow]

GypsyOne, I'm not sure I understand your tax preparer's point. If you dispose of a recreational property that you own in addition to your principal residence you are subject to capital gains rules. I would expect in most cases the recreational property would be for personal use. I believe the issue is if the timeshare is deemed to be a capital asset like any other real estate asset. Did the courts not treat the timeshare leases like capital properties when they ruled that we had to pay our share of capital improvements? Perhaps we wouldn't have the answer without a tax ruling from CRA.

 

[bizaro86]

With the caveat that I'm not providing tax advice, it seems likely that your timeshare is personal use property. That is thr same category as recreational real estate/cottages/RV.

This document: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...se-property/personal-use-property-losses.html

From the tax folks says that losses aren't deductible but gains are taxable.

 

[LilMaggie]

GypsyOne, I'm not sure I understand your tax preparer's point. If you dispose of a recreational property that you own in addition to your principal residence you are subject to capital gains rules. I would expect in most cases the recreational property would be for personal use. I believe the issue is if the timeshare is deemed to be a capital asset like any other real estate asset. Did the courts not treat the timeshare leases like capital properties when they ruled that we had to pay our share of capital improvements? Perhaps we wouldn't have the answer without a tax ruling from CRA.

OK. Tomorrow I am going to see if there is anyone available to talk about this from the CRA. As we all know, the courts treated our timeshare properties as capital assets and ordered us to pay expenses.
I will bet however, that the CRA deems timeshare as personal property, as Gypsy stated and as I understood is while reading through the property loss business.
CRA has it's rules and the courts have theirs and timeshare lessees get shafted.

 

[bizaro86]

OK. Tomorrow I am going to see if there is anyone available to talk about this from the CRA. As we all know, the courts treated our timeshare properties as capital assets and ordered us to pay expenses.
I will bet however, that the CRA deems timeshare as personal property, as Gypsy stated and as I understood is while reading through the property loss business.
CRA has it's rules and the courts have theirs and timeshare lessees get shafted.

Lots of capital property is also personal property for tax reasons.

On the other hand, if you've been renting your unit (and declaring the revenue/deducting MF) you'd have a great case for a business loss.

**again not tax advice

 

[GypsyOne]

GypsyOne, I'm not sure I understand your tax preparer's point. If you dispose of a recreational property that you own in addition to your principal residence you are subject to capital gains rules. I would expect in most cases the recreational property would be for personal use. I believe the issue is if the timeshare is deemed to be a capital asset like any other real estate asset. Did the courts not treat the timeshare leases like capital properties when they ruled that we had to pay our share of capital improvements? Perhaps we wouldn't have the answer without a tax ruling from CRA.

True, the disposition of recreational property is subject to capital gains rules. But, the rules are stacked in favour of Revenue Canada. If you sell a recreational property for a gain, the gain is subject to capital gains tax. If you sell for a loss, you can only write that loss off against gains on other recreational property. So, for example, if you had sold a recreational cottage for a gain, you could reduce the gain on the cottage by the loss on the time share property (Assuming the timeshare is deemed to be property, and assuming you have not converted your time share to a rental property, which is probably not likely.) You could confirm this by phoning Information at your local Revenue Canada office, or any accountant or tax preparer as I am not in the business of giving tax advice.)

 

[bizaro86]

True, the disposition of recreational property is subject to capital gains rules. But, the rules are stacked in favour of Revenue Canada. If you sell a recreational property for a gain, the gain is subject to capital gains tax. If you sell for a loss, you can only write that loss off against gains on other recreational property. So, for example, if you had sold a recreational cottage for a gain, you could reduce the gain on the cottage by the loss on the time share property (Assuming the timeshare is deemed to be property, and assuming you have not converted your time share to a rental property, which is probably not likely.) You could confirm this by phoning Information at your local Revenue Canada office, or any accountant or tax preparer as I am not in the business of giving tax advice.)

This isn't correct. A loss on the disposal of personal property can't be offset against the sale of like-kind personal property, unless it is Listed Personal Property.

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...ting-schedule-3/listed-personal-property.html

and

• "However, if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property."

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...se-property/personal-use-property-losses.html

 

[GypsyOne]

This isn't correct. A loss on the disposal of personal property can't be offset against the sale of like-kind personal property, unless it is Listed Personal Property.

See: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...ting-schedule-3/listed-personal-property.html

and

• "However, if you have a capital loss, you usually cannot deduct that loss when you calculate your income for the year. In addition, you cannot use the loss to decrease capital gains on other personal-use property."

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-ag...se-property/personal-use-property-losses.html

Conflicting information and different situations. That's why I suggest that you check with Revenue Canada for your own personal situation.

 

[bizaro86]

Conflicting information and different situations. That's why I suggest that you check with Revenue Canada for your own personal situation.

The CRA is specifically not bound by things their agents say on the phone. It's goofy, but that's the rules. Their written communication, which I've cited above, is much more reliable.

 

[GypsyOne]

The CRA is specifically not bound by things their agents say on the phone. It's goofy, but that's the rules. Their written communication, which I've cited above, is much more reliable.

It's a moot point if there are no capital gains on other personal property. The loss on our timeshare will not be tax deductible for the vast majority of us. But check with CRA if not certain.