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

[ecwinch]

Hello moderator: would you please tell me what Fairmont Vacation Villas Consumer Protection Agreement Means? Also tell why the President,Fairmont Resort Properties LD Collin Knight witnessed this document with his Signature. My spouse and I had to go threw every item on this document from 1 to 18 and initial and then Collin Knight signed. This is how item number 9 reads. I understand that the annual maintenance fee is currently $_441 gst incl per week of ownership. Said fee shall cover maid service,utilities,insurance,taxes,refurbishing and general maintenance.Fees are subject to increases as costs increase. If you cross reference this over to my 2002 Vacation Villa Lease to Item number 9 operating costs and reserve for Refurbishing it is saying the same thing. Now what won the case for Janet Lydiatt and the Banff Rocky Resort Ltd case was the knowledge of The Judge J.T. McCarthy. He used the Fair Trading ACT of Alberta to handle this case. This is not a Condominium. “Time Share Contract” is identified under the Fair Trading ACT, “time Share Contract” means a Contract in which an individual acquires the right to us, occupy or possess real or personal property whether or not it is located in Alberta. The Time Share Regulation A.R. Came in 1999 and it replaced the Condominium ACT. Moderator please read the 2002 Vacation Villa Lease contract over and also read the Canadian Consumer Handbook over under the topic Knowing Your Options and you will see the description of a “right-to-use” Time Share. Keep in mind in my case we paid $25000.00 up front fees and used the resort, for 12 years and paid maintenance fees. Just because we did not feel the Cancellation Agreement was designed so you might not ever get released,keep in mind majority of us are seniors quoted by Service Alberta. There is nothing in my 2002 Lease Agreement that states we have to pay Special Assessments. I was at the court June 28/2017 and what I heard in the room Justice Youngs biggest concern was Albertan’s winning their cases and this would tie up the Alberta Courts for years. I almost jumped up and said Albertan’s have the right to Justice. I also feel All Canadians and Americans have the right to justice. I bet I have talked to and emailed back and forth to BC Protection and the Office of the superintendent more than most Albertan’s. What is your opinion on the upfront money that Northmont never talks about. Do you feel there should of been a forensic Audit done on this resort so 14500 Time Share owners know where the money went?

Spark1 - While I do have legal training, I am not a lawyer, and certainly am not a judge. And I certainly do not want to be a drag on the momentum of this group. But since you have asked my opinion (which you will probably soon regret ), I will offer the following:

First off, my personal opinion is certainly that the group has legitimate grievances and I empathize with the situation you find yourself in. But I also cannot help to wonder if emotion is not overcoming logic in this situation. I understand the emotion this topic can foster, especially when for 3-4 years you have one picture painted for you and at trial the court views the legal issues presented completely differently.

With that as context, here is what I found regarding the Janet Lydiatt v Banff Rocky Resort case on the issues at trial (emphasis added).

The repairs undertaken pursuant to the "special assessment fee" appeared to be properly characterized in the Agreement as part of the "Annual Use Fee" as replacement reserves - The defendant underestimated the required increase in the "Annual Use Fee" over a number of years, resulting in an insufficient replacement reserve - This did not authorize them to impose an "Annual Use Fee" that did not otherwise comply with the terms of the Agreement - The "special assessment fee" exceeded the allowable increase in "Annual Use Fee" and there was no authority within the terms of the Agreement for imposing a retroactive "Annual Use Fee".

This summary is consistent with the reasoning the trial judge used in explaining why he rejected the precedent from the Lydiatt case. And when I review the VIA, I find no mention of a cap on increases in annual use fee. Absent that key clause, the court finds it reasonable that the owners should pay for the refurbishment. You might argue that unjustly enriches Northwynd as they will receive a resort in better condition they would have originally. And while that is true, that is the nature of the contract you entered into (that the property would revert to the developer).

And while I appreciate your position that this is a timeshare and not a condo, I find that is exactly the position the court took and is frequently cited as the reasoning behind their decisions. That because this is a timeshare, you have obligations to your fellow owners, and the trustee has a duty to protect the interests of your fellow owners. The court discusses this issue at length starting with para 26 - THE NATURE OF JEKE’S INTEREST.

So while I understand that some are seeking an outcome that allows them to walk away, the court is accurately pointing out that allowing such an outcome increases the burden on your fellow owners. And placed in the position of having to balance the rights of all the timeshare owners, they find the reorganization plan originally proposed in 2013 is the best outcome in that regard. That exit options offered at that time properly balance your obligations against the rights of remaining owners. IMHO - in a more perfect world - that would have been the legal strategy your counsel would have quickly negotiated. Instead they chose the path of attempting to invalidate the contracts, and that strategy failed.

On your other two points I fail to see merit in the argument. Courts naturally have responsibility to ensure efficient use of limited judicial resources. Nothing untoward there.

Likewise on the upfront money issue, it is not talked about because Fairfield's bankruptcy extinguished any claim on that point. As with almost any claim regarding Fairfield.

Just my 2 cents. Thanks for asking.

 

[Palms to pines]

With the Fairmont contracts timeshare leases could be terminated and the property management resold them, thus ensuring high usage of the resort and the financial responsibilities continued to be shared. Northwynd closed the sales office so the costs were going to have to be shared with fewer and fewer leasees. That was just one thing that breached our contract of 1997 . To this day I do not know the contents of a 2010 contract but that is what all of our contracts became. If I had thought for one moment I was paying to have anything defended other that what I signed my name to I would never have signed on and my biggest regret is that I didn’t get out right then. Mind you, we were told that if Jeke test case was lost we were insulated from it. Yeah, right.

 

[ecwinch]

With the Fairmont contracts timeshare leases could be terminated and the property management resold them, thus ensuring high usage of the resort and the financial responsibilities continued to be shared.

I thought the court addressed the termination provision. Ruling that it created a right to repossess the unit, but that Fairfield was not obligated to exercise that option. And in that regard I think being a lessee works against you, as it is well established at law that leases cannot be unilaterally terminated.

 

[DisgustedinWA]

Has the fact that a lessor has an obligation to mitigate a broken lease ever been addressed? Closing the sales office seems to make a statement that the lessor made no attempt to mitigate the leases that had defaulted.

 

[Broke Mama]

Spark1 - While I do have legal training, I am not a lawyer, and certainly am not a judge. And I certainly do not want to be a drag on the momentum of this group. But since you have asked my opinion (which you will probably soon regret ), I will offer the following:

First off, my personal opinion is certainly that the group has legitimate grievances and I empathize with the situation you find yourself in. But I also cannot help to wonder if emotion is not overcoming logic in this situation. I understand the emotion this topic can foster, especially when for 3-4 years you have one picture painted for you and at trial the court views the legal issues presented completely differently.

With that as context, here is what I found regarding the Janet Lydiatt v Banff Rocky Resort case on the issues at trial (emphasis added).

The repairs undertaken pursuant to the "special assessment fee" appeared to be properly characterized in the Agreement as part of the "Annual Use Fee" as replacement reserves - The defendant underestimated the required increase in the "Annual Use Fee" over a number of years, resulting in an insufficient replacement reserve - This did not authorize them to impose an "Annual Use Fee" that did not otherwise comply with the terms of the Agreement - The "special assessment fee" exceeded the allowable increase in "Annual Use Fee" and there was no authority within the terms of the Agreement for imposing a retroactive "Annual Use Fee".

This summary is consistent with the reasoning the trial judge used in explaining why he rejected the precedent from the Lydiatt case. And when I review the VIA, I find no mention of a cap on increases in annual use fee. Absent that key clause, the court finds it reasonable that the owners should pay for the refurbishment. You might argue that unjustly enriches Northwynd as they will receive a resort in better condition they would have originally. And while that is true, that is the nature of the contract you entered into (that the property would revert to the developer).

And while I appreciate your position that this is a timeshare and not a condo, I find that is exactly the position the court took and is frequently cited as the reasoning behind their decisions. That because this is a timeshare, you have obligations to your fellow owners, and the trustee has a duty to protect the interests of your fellow owners. The court discusses this issue at length starting with para 26 - THE NATURE OF JEKE’S INTEREST.

So while I understand that some are seeking an outcome that allows them to walk away, the court is accurately pointing out that allowing such an outcome increases the burden on your fellow owners. And placed in the position of having to balance the rights of all the timeshare owners, they find the reorganization plan originally proposed in 2013 is the best outcome in that regard. That exit options offered at that time properly balance your obligations against the rights of remaining owners. IMHO - in a more perfect world - that would have been the legal strategy your counsel would have quickly negotiated. Instead they chose the path of attempting to invalidate the contracts, and that strategy failed.

On your other two points I fail to see merit in the argument. Courts naturally have responsibility to ensure efficient use of limited judicial resources. Nothing untoward there.

Likewise on the upfront money issue, it is not talked about because Fairfield's bankruptcy extinguished any claim on that point. As with almost any claim regarding Fairfield.

Just my 2 cents. Thanks for asking.

So...then if what you are saying is right. Someone who paid 10,000 for a timeshare and paid maintenance fees on time yearly that started at 600 ish and ended at 1300 ish should have to pay 5 times that amount in one year to catch up the group? And if we don't have the money to give them then we lose the money we put in to begin with by walking away? What rights do owners have even signing a contract? Also with legal counsel we were told not to pay fees and now all of it with interest is on us? Was that the gamble for us and again with an attorney how is that a settlement versus giving up? I dont know of any of us that want to screw the other owners. We just paid alot to go to this place once a year. So to have to give 3 times the amount for less is very unfair.

 

[Spark1]

Spark1 - While I do have legal training, I am not a lawyer, and certainly am not a judge. And I certainly do not want to be a drag on the momentum of this group. But since you have asked my opinion (which you will probably soon regret ), I will offer the following:

First off, my personal opinion is certainly that the group has legitimate grievances and I empathize with the situation you find yourself in. But I also cannot help to wonder if emotion is not overcoming logic in this situation. I understand the emotion this topic can foster, especially when for 3-4 years you have one picture painted for you and at trial the court views the legal issues presented completely differently.

With that as context, here is what I found regarding the Janet Lydiatt v Banff Rocky Resort case on the issues at trial (emphasis added).

The repairs undertaken pursuant to the "special assessment fee" appeared to be properly characterized in the Agreement as part of the "Annual Use Fee" as replacement reserves - The defendant underestimated the required increase in the "Annual Use Fee" over a number of years, resulting in an insufficient replacement reserve - This did not authorize them to impose an "Annual Use Fee" that did not otherwise comply with the terms of the Agreement - The "special assessment fee" exceeded the allowable increase in "Annual Use Fee" and there was no authority within the terms of the Agreement for imposing a retroactive "Annual Use Fee".

This summary is consistent with the reasoning the trial judge used in explaining why he rejected the precedent from the Lydiatt case. And when I review the VIA, I find no mention of a cap on increases in annual use fee. Absent that key clause, the court finds it reasonable that the owners should pay for the refurbishment. You might argue that unjustly enriches Northwynd as they will receive a resort in better condition they would have originally. And while that is true, that is the nature of the contract you entered into (that the property would revert to the developer).

And while I appreciate your position that this is a timeshare and not a condo, I find that is exactly the position the court took and is frequently cited as the reasoning behind their decisions. That because this is a timeshare, you have obligations to your fellow owners, and the trustee has a duty to protect the interests of your fellow owners. The court discusses this issue at length starting with para 26 - THE NATURE OF JEKE’S INTEREST.

So while I understand that some are seeking an outcome that allows them to walk away, the court is accurately pointing out that allowing such an outcome increases the burden on your fellow owners. And placed in the position of having to balance the rights of all the timeshare owners, they find the reorganization plan originally proposed in 2013 is the best outcome in that regard. That exit options offered at that time properly balance your obligations against the rights of remaining owners. IMHO - in a more perfect world - that would have been the legal strategy your counsel would have quickly negotiated. Instead they chose the path of attempting to invalidate the contracts, and that strategy failed.

On your other two points I fail to see merit in the argument. Courts naturally have responsibility to ensure efficient use of limited judicial resources. Nothing untoward there.

Likewise on the upfront money issue, it is not talked about because Fairfield's bankruptcy extinguished any claim on that point. As with almost any claim regarding Fairfield.

Just my 2 cents. Thanks for asking.

I do not agree . How many of these resorts do they have left. What happened to the resorts in Mexico Belize,Hawaii Kelowna and if you think Northmont will be around for a long time you are a dreamer. My wife's 93 year old uncle would say a hand shake is much better Contract then a written one and that is very true to Northmont run by Wankel.

 

[DisgustedinWA]

I have been in this with Geldert from the beginning. I had hoped with number of owners involved that there would be a few attorneys in the group that would have steered this down the right track. Maybe Geldert was complicit from the beginning or maybe incompetent or he was playing against a stacked deck. Irregardless, I am totally done with Canada. I can't imagine the hardship that Canadian "justice" is imposing on innocent victims of this fraud and extortion aka "the settlement". And I thought the US judicial system was a joke. I'm sorry, I just needed to vent.

 

[Spark1]

Was any Owners of Villa Lease, Vacation Villa Lease contracts told my Northmont that their contracts had modifications to the Lease done. The Lessor reserves the right to adjust or modify this Lease from time to time for the benefit of existing and future lessees,provided that any such adjustment or modification will not in any way materially prejudice the rights of existing lessees. If any such adjustment or modification is effected,the Lessor well provide notice to each lessee setting out nature of the adjustment or modification,the reasons giving rise to such adjustment or modification and the effects thereof.

 

[Bewildered]

We all continue to try to dissect these court decisions, our fees, somebody getting out for $1700, etc,etc. I’m not sure even with some of the great information on here, that it changes our situation. I have had discussions with a number of lawyers that I know personally and the only thing still seemingly available to us is the interest argument. None of them seemed to be able to disagree with MG that there was probably nothing stopping Northmont to jack up the exit fee even if someone was successful with that argument as that is never really discussed by Judge Young.
I hope and pray people are truly contacting their elected official because I phoned my Member of Parliament today (he wasn’t in) but his aide said this is the first he heard of it! I know there are many people in Central Alberta with Fairmont timeshares and I’m the first to call. We need to start moving on this the clock is ticking, can anybody verify the Facebook group is doing anything other than online complaining. People should also start contacting the media, somebody must see this as a story?

 

[Scammed!]

Bravo

Here is another example of an awesome one-off letter for your elected officials. Again I am not part of the large facebook group but please someone spread the word on that forum to get going on some political/media pressure, without it all these facebook postings of facts/non-facts mean nothing.

Dear MLA/MP


I am a local constituent in ???? and writing you today to make you aware of a white collar crime being perpetrated against thousands of Canadian citizens and yet the court system appears to have their hands tied to prevent a corporation from extorting tens of millions of dollars.


I will attach the Alberta Court papers that were filed in October 2017 and will give a brief point summary of the facts to the best of my knowledge.


Fairmont Vacation Villas in Fairmont, BC. operated a business of selling timeshare weeks. Due to poor management over the years they began to fail and applied for creditor protection in 2009.


In 2012 Northmont bought the resort in a bankruptcy acquisition and quickly further mismanaged the resort from a 5 star rating to a state of deterioration. They made plans to sell off assets, close buildings, stopped sending the required financial statements, etc. It became very obvious that they purchased this resort knowing full well that they were planning to levy massive fees on the Owners which they did and quickly launched civil suits against thousands of people.


In an attempt to find a resolution to this Geldert Law of Vancouver BC was hired to represent many BC and AB owners in the hopes of finding a resolution.


There were concerns that even if you paid the fees there was no guarantee that they wouldn't levy more fees or that they were planning to re-align the resort and close down many of the buildings. Many people wanted to simply get released from their timeshare and were willing to pay a fee to be legally freed from the resort.


Through these years, the owners were not permitted to use their owned weeks at the resort but Northmont was free to rent out owners week all while charging them a 27% compounded interest rate on the fees they levied. This has been happening since 2013, so the interest amounts are astounding.


However, the units that Northmont themselves own, (weeks owners paid large sums of money back to Northmont to be released from or unsold units), they are not paying any of these said fees. My understanding is they own around 40% of the units and are not paying the same fees they are suing other owners for.


When this case appeared in Alberta courts, the judge strongly suggested that a Northmont negotiate a fair settlement instead of having thousands of individual court cases coming forward. Judge Young was also very concerned about the interest and other costs and asked that this be worked out. If a reasonable agreement could not be reached then it would need to play out in the courts.


Fast forward to today:


All along the various law offices working with and on behalf of Geldert Group have been giving assurance that we should be able to get a decent settlement. In March we were offered an exit for approximately $13,800 but Geldert felt we would do better so most people continued on.


December 14, 2017 the "fair settlement" that Northmont bullied and threatened to all the owners was we are forced to pay all charges with the 27% compounded interest but then add to that total another random 20% to be released and return our asset back to them, for a total settlement of 120% of last compounded statement. The price basically doubled since March.


If any owner does not pay in full by February 15, 2018 they will increase the 20% to 42% so the settlement is now minimally 162% of last compounded statement and they will refuse to release you or come up with any price they deem to release you.


So basically 2000+ Albertans alone are being held hostage by Northmont who is demanding a random payment for an owner having a single week of approximately $24,000. (Some folks own multiple weeks). That is 48 Million dollars. The price of that ransom will be increased to an unknown sum if you cannot or do not make payment.


They have also assured people that if you do not pay, not only will the ransom fee increase to whatever they determine but they will start legal proceedings via liens on our property, seizing assets etc.


Northmont has a history of doing this type of scenario, buying failing resorts at a bargain price, force owners to pay huge sums of money for renovations or pay huge sums of money to be released all while Northmont increases the value and retains their asset. It is a legal scam that steals money from the owners who have no protection.


Owners are left holding the bag. They bought their timeshare for tens of thousands of dollars on average, are unable to use it and now must pay tens of thousands again to simply give it back. How can this happen?


This does not seem like a scenario that one would see in Canada unfolding and nobody seems to be taking notice at all.


I am reaching out to you today in a last ditch effort to help.


Sincerely,

I want to thank Bewildered for this letter. At this moment I would like to inform you all that 87 MLA's (not one missed) have received this letter in Alberta in last three hours. We will be heard! I received an email from two urging me to inform my MLA .... so I had to revise it a little to say this letter is to inform all MLA'S of Alberta what is happening to Canadians. Why did I do this? Because there are elderly people who I saw in court and it was heart breaking. Some may be sick, don't know how to use a computer, or have zero support. I don't know who they are or where they live but I covered every inch of Alberta. I will no longer be silenced. I have always stuck up for the under dog.....apparently that would be me right now. I can tell you that I have sent just over 100 emails so far. My work isn't finished until this is over!

 

[Spark1]

My concern about Modification to Lease is this. I down loaded the Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. And James Reid and Diane Reid. Decision of the Honourable Judge L.D. Young. The Overview says there is seven-hundred and sixty timeshare owners. The Civil Claims filed against the Defendants allege that the Time Share owners have failed to pay monies owing under a timeshare agreement known as a "Vacation Interval agreement" ("VIA") This is what it says on page 2 of my lease item 2 The Lessee is Desirous of purchasing a Vacation leasehold interest in the Villas for the term and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. This is my contract and it is called a Vacation Villa Lease. How many more Lease owners are called VIA's? You should check this out,how can a Provincial Judge rule on a case against us when she does not have the right contract? Modifications to Lease is just that you are modifying but not totally destroying the Lease.

 

[Punter]

the only thing still seemingly available to us is the interest argument. None of them seemed to be able to disagree with MG that there was probably nothing stopping Northmont to jack up the exit fee even if someone was successful with that argument as that is never really discussed by Judge Young.

If NM increases one cost (exit fee) to offset a reduced interest (actually a contractual obligation) in order to get more money, it is a perfect example of greed and arbitrarily inflated costs on NM's behalf. I'm sure Judge Young would frown upon that as they were the two items that she had concerns with in her decision.

I also challenge paying the RPF in option 1. NM is charging to stay and charging to go.

Under sworn oath KW said " any owner who chooses to cancel does not have to pay the RPF"

This further exemplifies their greed and true intention.

 

[Lostmyshirt]

IF??? I am an owner do I benefit when they start selling off the property??? .........ya right. such a freaking joke this is

 

[Broke Mama]

I have been in this with Geldert from the beginning. I had hoped with number of owners involved that there would be a few attorneys in the group that would have steered this down the right track. Maybe Geldert was complicit from the beginning or maybe incompetent or he was playing against a stacked deck. Irregardless, I am totally done with Canada. I can't imagine the hardship that Canadian "justice" is imposing on innocent victims of this fraud and extortion aka "the settlement". And I thought the US judicial system was a joke. I'm sorry, I just needed to vent.

We're are you in Washington? I'm in spokane?

 

[DisgustedinWA]

We're are you in Washington? I'm in spokane?

I'm in Spokane. Unfortunately, I don't see much future in the fight.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

I want to thank Bewildered for this letter. At this moment I would like to inform you all that 87 MLA's (not one missed) have received this letter in Alberta in last three hours. We will be heard! I received an email from two urging me to inform my MLA .... so I had to revise it a little to say this letter is to inform all MLA'S of Alberta what is happening to Canadians. Why did I do this? Because there are elderly people who I saw in court and it was heart breaking. Some may be sick, don't know how to use a computer, or have zero support. I don't know who they are or where they live but I covered every inch of Alberta. I will no longer be silenced. I have always stuck up for the under dog.....apparently that would be me right now. I can tell you that I have sent just over 100 emails so far. My work isn't finished until this is over!

Scammed you are one person wrecking ball!!!

Your are so right - we need to keep working to share our voice for the people who are afraid or not able to speak!!!

Keep pushing everyone - when we hit that right person my bet is things will begin to happen quickly, we just need to find that right person.

 

[NotWhatIPaidFor]

Ok, there was a post here that said it was understandable for a judge to worry about tying up limited court resources. Of course. That doesn't take priority over the letter of the law or of the rights of taxpayers to get justice from the legal system they pay for. When a judge says we'll probably win, then that's it, if the courts want to make things quicker or cheaper then they can expidite things they can pressure the side that will probably lose but they have no right to make decisions against the party they feel is in the legal right in order to save court time. Baloney.

 

[den403]

Can legacy people lean the property?

 

[Broke Mama]

I'm in Spokane. Unfortunately, I don't see much future in the fight.

Are you all taking settlement offer? I would like to talk to u. We said no to settlement but are unsure what to do.we don't want to get in another lawsuit too.

 

[NotWhatIPaidFor]

I'm signing off tonight but let's make a comprehensive list of contacts. Let's get it together and make it easy for everyone, even you people that are too busy because of kids and activities, to call, write and email. Got time for a coffee, some tv, then you got time to call, write and email. It's a short amount of time we have so let's get going.

I imagine the list will include what we've seen here and media contacts. Let's keep a running list that gets reposted all the time so no one misses it, no one needs to find it. We have the MLAs and MPs, I like what was done, not just your own representative but all of them. We have the law societies. We have the consumer fraud contact. We have RCMP. Like Spark1 and Scammed have done. Let's compile that. Scammed can you get the MLA contact info up for us?

Also, there was a post with some media contacts. Let's add to that. We'll organize this and make it easy on ourselves. Let's have categories and then you can routinely check to see if more ideas/contacts have been added. ie. if there's a new contact in the Government category or a new category altogether.


Media Contacts


Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta


Government Contacts - Provincial BC


Government Contacts - Federal


Legal Organization Contacts
British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org


??? Other Categories ???


The amount of posting here is great but a bit tough to keep track of. If I'm struggling I think others may be too. Let's make it as easy to be voicing our plees for help as possible.

 

[NotWhatIPaidFor]

Ok, turns out Bewildered started this. Let's keep a running list. Someone had some media contacts and let's just post the MLA, MP info here. Easy to cut and past into your cc list in an email, or just start going down the list and phoning.


Media Contacts


Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta
Alberta Consumer Protection Line: 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)

Honourable Kathleen Ganley
Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
Members of Executive Council
Executive Branch
424 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
T5K 2B6
Phone: 780 427-2339
Fax: 780 422-6621
E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca



Government Contacts - Provincial BC
BC Ministry of Attorney General
Honorable David Eby, Minister
JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca


Government Contacts - Federal
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS):

Legal Organization Contacts
British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/


??? Other Categories ???

 

[melamike]

Ok, turns out Bewildered started this. Let's keep a running list. Someone had some media contacts and let's just post the MLA, MP info here. Easy to cut and past into your cc list in an email, or just start going down the list and phoning.


Media Contacts


Government Contacts - Provincial Alberta
Alberta Consumer Protection Line: 1-877-427-4088 (toll-free)

Honourable Kathleen Ganley
Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General
Members of Executive Council
Executive Branch
424 Legislature Building
10800 - 97 Avenue
Edmonton, AB
T5K 2B6
Phone: 780 427-2339
Fax: 780 422-6621
E-mail: ministryofjustice@gov.ab.ca



Government Contacts - Provincial BC
BC Ministry of Attorney General
Honorable David Eby, Minister
JAG.minister@gov.bc.ca


Government Contacts - Federal
Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre: 1-888-495-8501 or through the Fraud Reporting System (FRS):

Here is a link to all the MP's in BC , phone numbers and email addresses
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Parliamentarians/en/members?currentOnly=true&province=BC

Legal Organization Contacts
British Columbia Law Society: professionalconduct@lsbc.org
Alberta Law Society (link to submit form): https://www.lawsociety.ab.ca/public/providing-information-concerning-a-lawyer/intake-specialist/


??? Other Categories ???

 

[melamike]

I just added a link to all the MP's in BC. I've written many and already had a positive phone call. Keep up the fight everybody!

 

[NotWhatIPaidFor]

Immediate term we are looking for a halt of actions taken against us until this can be looked into.

Medium term we are looking for any negotiations to take the path that Justice Young laid out. I'd feel far more comfortable with a mediated deal as opposed to what's happened by MG who did not follow what he promised.

Longer term, who knows, the new bill passed that addresses these issues may help us. Media attention and pressure on government MLAs/MPs may do something. Was it Spark1 who even contacted the PM. Good for you!! Add that contact to the list. Let's all contact the PM. Maybe he'll try to win some browny points by setting this obvious fraud right.

I think it's important, if even in a quick statement, to note this group's history of destroying resorts and grabbing money. The fact that they are not paying anything for their units held but we have to is significant in my eyes. It also won't hurt, especially with media and MLAs/MPs to note that this group was identified in the Panama Papers. What government official wants to be tied to that? Having their constituents fleeced by a group that has a record for this and was identified in something as visible globally as the Panama Papers.

 

[Scammed!]

MLA - Legislative Assembly of Alberta Click on and you have all 87 MLA's emails of Alberta. Including Premier of Alberta Rachel Notley who's very important!