• The TUGBBS forums are completely free and open to the public and exist as the absolute best place for owners to get help and advice about their timeshares for more than 30 years!

    Join Tens of Thousands of other Owners just like you here to get any and all Timeshare questions answered 24 hours a day!
  • TUG started 31 years ago in October 1993 as a group of regular Timeshare owners just like you!

    Read about our 30th anniversary: Happy 31st Birthday TUG!
  • TUG has a YouTube Channel to produce weekly short informative videos on popular Timeshare topics!

    Free memberships for every 50 subscribers!

    Visit TUG on Youtube!
  • TUG has now saved timeshare owners more than $23,000,000 dollars just by finding us in time to rescind a new Timeshare purchase! A truly incredible milestone!

    Read more here: TUG saves owners more than $23 Million dollars
  • Sign up to get the TUG Newsletter for free!

    Tens of thousands of subscribing owners! A weekly recap of the best Timeshare resort reviews and the most popular topics discussed by owners!
  • Our official "end my sales presentation early" T-shirts are available again! Also come with the option for a free membership extension with purchase to offset the cost!

    All T-shirt options here!
  • A few of the most common links here on the forums for newbies and guests!

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

wagga2650

newbie
Joined
Jan 15, 2018
Messages
17
Reaction score
39
Resorts Owned
Sunchaser
After reading page after page of great dialog, unanswered questions and in general hearing how our case was totally screwed up.The only recourse
is to take it to the supreme court.Not sure how we can do this but someone must have ani idea how to do this?
 

Late2Game

newbie
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
26
Reaction score
19
Location
Edmonton
You are correct, courts can only decide on the case presented. And please understand where I am coming from. Some battles have been fought and the no one likes the outcome. But what the settlement is, who it is binding upon, and the rights of those who are not represented by MG are unclear. Energy is better spent on attacking the issues the court has not ruled on, over fighting battles lost IMHO.

I tend to agree with this. I can not find fault with the judge (noun). Their role and responsibility is to weigh the arguments (ie. "JUDGE") presented and make a decision, not to take sides or advocate for one side or the other.

As an example, a judge in BAKING contest is to judge the pies presented and only those presented at that time. To put this is a different context, the judge cannot say "Pie-A is better than Pie-B BUT I think the baker of Pie-B left out a key ingredient that would have made it the clear winner, therefore I decide in favour of Pie-B". The judge must decide only on what's in front of them, not on what could-have or should-have been "baked" and presented. Furthermore, you can't go back after the contest with a different pie and expect to re-open the contest (appeal) unless there is some error on behalf of the judge, for example the decision was based on the key requirement that all pies must be gluten-free when that was not the case.

In this regard I believe the judge did her job. The baker? Well if he either didn't understand the contest rules, was baking for 1000+ people using experience gained from a neighbourhood bakeshop, or he decided to bring soup rather than pie, and it was both cold and late, then that's a whole different kettle of fish. How could you fault a judge for weighing in on the other side?

.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 20, 2017
Messages
5
Reaction score
12
Resorts Owned
Sunchaser
THEPETITIONSITE.COM. Every one should go to Facebook on the search for people,places and things and sign Dorthy Zazelenckuk. Northwynd Class Action Lawsuit. Dorthy needs you help we need 1000 signers. Thanks

I signed the petition however suggest that this matter would fall short to result in a criminal investigation given it is contractual (civil), would take years and at great cost to investigate and, most importantly, would be almost impossible to prove criminal wrongdoing "beyond a reasonable doubt". This fiasco is a civil matter and unfortunately the lawyers that we had absolute faith in failed to get ANY positive results INCLUDING reasonable interest rates and costs given the 3-4 year it took for us to see this through the courts as is our given right (in search of a just and reasonable outcome). I never imagined walking away without some form of payment but what they are asking of us to walk away, as echoed by almost everyone, is RIDICULOUS and will go down as one of the biggest miscarriages of justice I have ever been part of.
 

Tanny13

newbie
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
59
Reaction score
100
Resorts Owned
FAIRMONT, Marriott
We need a laywer to talk to Judge Young. We can't do it. She has to hear from legal counsel. Then we can find out if she will rule on costs, interests and these items that are about expirations. That is what we need RIGHT NOW!!! WE NEED LAWYERS TO TALK TO THE JUDGE!!!

That's it right now. That's the big priority. The rest can wait. We need to have legal representation talk to the judge. We can also understand more about the apeal through that dialog but the priority is to have legal counsel say that the group is fragmented and does not all agree with the settlement. She needs to get the sides together, with us there hopefully (yes, anyone willing to drive there), but regardless the judge and the sides need to be together as she handles the decisions on the costs, interest and expirations.

The judge has received written arguments from SLG and NM regarding interest and costs. She will rule on it - there is no decision yet. Once she has ruled, those who did not accept Option 1, can either pay their invoices, with the interest & costs as decided by JY, or they can appeal. I am told there is not much else we can do at this point.
 

MgolferL

newbie
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
48
Reaction score
93
Resorts Owned
Fairmont Sunchaser Palm Springs Marriott
The judge has received written arguments from SLG and NM regarding interest and costs. She will rule on it - there is no decision yet. Once she has ruled, those who did not accept Option 1, can either pay their invoices, with the interest & costs as decided by JY, or they can appeal. I am told there is not much else we can do at this point.
Just to understand... people who chose Option 2...not continuing with MG will get a decision from JY on interest and costs and then choose to pay or wait. People who chose Option 1 are bound by the "release docs" and have to have pay as outlined. The only recourse for Option 1 at that point is to file for remuneration from MG.

Correct?
 

greyskies

newbie
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
21
Reaction score
9
Just to understand... people who chose Option 2...not continuing with MG will get a decision from JY on interest and costs and then choose to pay or wait. People who chose Option 1 are bound by the "release docs" and have to have pay as outlined. The only recourse for Option 1 at that point is to file for remuneration from MG.

Correct?
I think this is correct from what I've read. As for renumeration from MG, that ain't going to happen. Just my opinion. I think we can only complain to the law society about MG. I'm waiting until the very end before I pay, hoping for a miracle.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
 

MarcieL

newbie
Joined
Jan 1, 2018
Messages
142
Reaction score
152
Have you people not registered your complaints with the law society of B.C. yet? I did this in early January as have many others. This appears to be our only hope.
 

LilMaggie

newbie
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
290
Resorts Owned
I own Nothing!
Does anyone know of a good, trustworthy lawyer that could speak to Judge Young on our behalf?
 

LilMaggie

newbie
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
290
Resorts Owned
I own Nothing!
So possibly a dumb question but would the Alberta consumer protection act only apply to residents of Alberta in this case? Those of us in the states or BC it would not apply?
BC also has consumer protection laws. Not sure how they stack up against the new Alberta laws though.
 

Gingerpie

newbie
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I tend to agree with this. I can not find fault with the judge (noun). Their role and responsibility is to weigh the arguments (ie. "JUDGE") presented and make a decision, not to take sides or advocate for one side or the other.

As an example, a judge in BAKING contest is to judge the pies presented and only those presented at that time. To put this is a different context, the judge cannot say "Pie-A is better than Pie-B BUT I think the baker of Pie-B left out a key ingredient that would have made it the clear winner, therefore I decide in favour of Pie-B". The judge must decide only on what's in front of them, not on what could-have or should-have been "baked" and presented. Furthermore, you can't go back after the contest with a different pie and expect to re-open the contest (appeal) unless there is some error on behalf of the judge, for example the decision was based on the key requirement that all pies must be gluten-free when that was not the case.

In this regard I believe the judge did her job. The baker? Well if he either didn't understand the contest rules, was baking for 1000+ people using experience gained from a neighbourhood bakeshop, or he decided to bring soup rather than pie, and it was both cold and late, then that's a whole different kettle of fish. How could you fault a judge for weighing in on the other side?

.
Th
 

Gingerpie

newbie
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
That is an incredible analogy. My husband teaches law and I am going to show him this so he can explain the process to his students.
 

Gingerpie

newbie
Joined
Jan 8, 2018
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
I tend to agree with this. I can not find fault with the judge (noun). Their role and responsibility is to weigh the arguments (ie. "JUDGE") presented and make a decision, not to take sides or advocate for one side or the other.

As an example, a judge in BAKING contest is to judge the pies presented and only those presented at that time. To put this is a different context, the judge cannot say "Pie-A is better than Pie-B BUT I think the baker of Pie-B left out a key ingredient that would have made it the clear winner, therefore I decide in favour of Pie-B". The judge must decide only on what's in front of them, not on what could-have or should-have been "baked" and presented. Furthermore, you can't go back after the contest with a different pie and expect to re-open the contest (appeal) unless there is some error on behalf of the judge, for example the decision was based on the key requirement that all pies must be gluten-free when that was not the case.

In this regard I believe the judge did her job. The baker? Well if he either didn't understand the contest rules, was baking for 1000+ people using experience gained from a neighbourhood bakeshop, or he decided to bring soup rather than pie, and it was both cold and late, then that's a whole different kettle of fish. How could you fault a judge for weighing in on the other side?

.
 

LilMaggie

newbie
Joined
Jan 11, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
290
Resorts Owned
I own Nothing!
That is an incredible analogy. My husband teaches law and I am going to show him this so he can explain the process to his students.
Yes. An excellent analogy. MG brought soup to a pie baking contest. Is that not incompetence? Many of us encouraged him to at least bring a pie. The courts even hinted...young man, bring a pie to be judged. He did not.
 

MgolferL

newbie
Joined
Jan 5, 2018
Messages
48
Reaction score
93
Resorts Owned
Fairmont Sunchaser Palm Springs Marriott
Here are some interesting links..go to ... http:documentCentre.eycan.com

Scroll down to Fairmont... when it opens, search Moore. ALL of 2010 history of Fairmont appears... I pasted a couple of links... it follows the history of bankruptcy... which if I read correctly, Fairmont followed the courts carefully and was actually doing well and then NM made an offer.

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...idavit of M.Moore, dated January 22, 2010.pdf

http://documentcentre.eycan.com/eyc...Ninth Stay Extension, sworn June 16, 2010.pdf
 

RippedOff

newbie
Joined
Jan 12, 2018
Messages
28
Reaction score
30
Why can't Judge Young declare a mistrial?!!!!!! She knew Geldert wasn't representing us competently!!! She HAS to know that these interest charges are scandalous!!! For heaven's sake does anyone care?

You can't tell me that judges have to go by what is presented to them - they should know and understand and follow the law of the land when coming to a conclusion and making a decision. Seems like they need to take a few business courses!!!! Even I know the difference between operational costs and capital costs!!!

Can we ALL as a group complain to the Law Society of Alberta/BC since we were represented as a group?
 

servemeout

newbie
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
66
Reaction score
125
Location
Edmonton
When the "settlement" was revealed we replied NO. Exsanguination is not a settlement, it is an attempt to grab low hanging fruit. Easy pickings. NM got the ruling, but they still have to collect. Did not everyone get the letter that the whole resort was to be renovated? The RPF was based on that amount. Lets fast forward - 55%of the #NAFR is now removed, but the amount NM claims you owe has remained the same and you are being charged interest on the inflated amount. Judge Young will base her decision on the incorrect RPF. Is there something wrong with the math? We also want to be compensated for the remaining years of the LEASE. We were all given conflicting information
1. The entire "resort" was to be done
2. The #NAFR can only survive if it is shrunk
3. NM does not have to pay their share, as they did not invoice themselves.
This has been a money grab from day one. Remember the Norton Rose letter from Feb 5,2013 which outlined the rights and obligations of the developer. There are too many conflicts in the information or should I say misinformation in what we have been feed.
 

Tanny13

newbie
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
59
Reaction score
100
Resorts Owned
FAIRMONT, Marriott
Just to understand... people who chose Option 2...not continuing with MG will get a decision from JY on interest and costs and then choose to pay or wait. People who chose Option 1 are bound by the "release docs" and have to have pay as outlined. The only recourse for Option 1 at that point is to file for remuneration from MG.

Correct?

I believe that is correct, except that people who chose Option 2 (or no option at all) will have to pay once JY gives her decision on interest and costs, or continue the fight (I.e. continue the appeal).
 

Tanny13

newbie
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
59
Reaction score
100
Resorts Owned
FAIRMONT, Marriott
When the "settlement" was revealed we replied NO. Exsanguination is not a settlement, it is an attempt to grab low hanging fruit. Easy pickings. NM got the ruling, but they still have to collect. Did not everyone get the letter that the whole resort was to be renovated? The RPF was based on that amount. Lets fast forward - 55%of the #NAFR is now removed, but the amount NM claims you owe has remained the same and you are being charged interest on the inflated amount. Judge Young will base her decision on the incorrect RPF. Is there something wrong with the math? We also want to be compensated for the remaining years of the LEASE. We were all given conflicting information
1. The entire "resort" was to be done
2. The #NAFR can only survive if it is shrunk
3. NM does not have to pay their share, as they did not invoice themselves.
This has been a money grab from day one. Remember the Norton Rose letter from Feb 5,2013 which outlined the rights and obligations of the developer. There are too many conflicts in the information or should I say misinformation in what we have been feed.

There is an appeal in place regarding JY's decision. For those not part of the settlement, the fight can continue. These are all good points and perhaps we can use them if they were not presented in our first trial.
 

Timesharepain

newbie
Joined
Jan 22, 2018
Messages
11
Reaction score
4
Resorts Owned
Fairmont
Grand Okanagan
Lets keep hammering out there for some exposure to the public and help from the media, etc.!!!!!
As per the advise of others on this forum, I fired off an email briefly explaining our situation to:

marketplace@cbc.ca
Calgarynews@bellmedia.ca
mclaughlinonyourside@ctv.ca
fifthtips@cbc.ca
gopublic@cbc.ca

Lets keep emailing, calling and reaching out to whom ever may be able to hear our horror story and help!!!
If there is anything else anyone can suggest we all do please post or re-post your suggestions!
Let us try and flood these emails and others who may b able to get word out
 
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
54
Reaction score
56
I tend to agree with this. I can not find fault with the judge (noun). Their role and responsibility is to weigh the arguments (ie. "JUDGE") presented and make a decision, not to take sides or advocate for one side or the other.

As an example, a judge in BAKING contest is to judge the pies presented and only those presented at that time. To put this is a different context, the judge cannot say "Pie-A is better than Pie-B BUT I think the baker of Pie-B left out a key ingredient that would have made it the clear winner, therefore I decide in favour of Pie-B". The judge must decide only on what's in front of them, not on what could-have or should-have been "baked" and presented. Furthermore, you can't go back after the contest with a different pie and expect to re-open the contest (appeal) unless there is some error on behalf of the judge, for example the decision was based on the key requirement that all pies must be gluten-free when that was not the case.

In this regard I believe the judge did her job. The baker? Well if he either didn't understand the contest rules, was baking for 1000+ people using experience gained from a neighbourhood bakeshop, or he decided to bring soup rather than pie, and it was both cold and late, then that's a whole different kettle of fish. How could you fault a judge for weighing in on the other side?

.

You are missing some important parts of the analogy. If the FTA (Fair Trade Act) was applicable for the ruling, ie. was the applicable law, then the judge should know this and refer to this regardless of the lawyer's mistakes. If a lawyer tried to argue something for his client that was against some law that wasn't presented wouldn't you expect the Judge to step in and say, "you can't do that, Act so and so appllies and therefore your arguement is not considered"? And in this case the applicable Act not being referred to is a help to us. It is the relevant law and is applicable.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2017
Messages
107
Reaction score
315
Resorts Owned
Fairmount
How I see this playing out:
Judge Young will not be made aware of the details of Michael’s settlement agreement by either of the counsels involved when they approach her in the future probably scheduled for after March 1st. The message she will receive is just that “X” number of people consented to the terms of the settlement agreement on their own accord.

Based on court procedure the Judge will then say these parties have reached an amical agreement and will move to clear the active files out of the court system.

She will not be asked, specifically in the case of Option 1 people, to decide on interest or costs or what the actual cost of the settlements are based on because as far as she knows an amical settlement agreement has already been reached by all parties involved to settle their dispute which the courts were never asked to make a decision on. The actual cost of the individual components should have been detailed out in the minutes for a better understanding but individual component costs is not the objective Northmont wants documented as this will allow them to disperse the awarded revenues as they see fit from individual settlements.

Michael created an environment where all of us have been misrepresented in the negotiations but did sign the settlement agreement on our behalf with Northmont and as far as Northmont is concerned the negotiations were a done in good faith by Michael on our behalf.

Has anyone specifically asked or can they ask their lawyer that is reviewing things on their behalf if any true remedy is available to get immediate judicial intervention or is everyone left with:
  1. Paying the negotiated settlement agreement preferably directly to Norton Rose in trust based on a proper release from Northmont as per the settlement
  2. Walking away from Michael’s settlement agreement which could potentially force Northmont back to the negotiation table
Any future for Michael will probably see a new action put in place against him where his business, his insurance, and the Law Society Lawyers funds will be held liable through future litigations as a result of actions taken during these proceedings. The crappy part is Judge Young’s court will be tied up with new individual claims and the lawyers who likes to hunt other lawyers will be the only winners at the end of the day.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
54
Reaction score
56
So we have SLG presenting arguements to the judge for interest and costs. Not good.

I hope people that have faxed the judge put relevant info in there about the costs and how NM is trying to get paid for everything under the sun. Didn't anyone put in their fax that the resort is being cut in half and that should affect the RPF? That is at least something the judge could use to do some good here. My hope is that the Judge will try to do as much good as possible. Considering how she was frustrated by our lawyers' bad work, was concerned about costs and interest and is getting pressure from our faxes and hopefully the government....maybe she'll do what she can.
 

GypsyOne

newbie
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
197
Reaction score
149
If you were going to pull off the great Canadian legally sanctioned heist, where would you do it? According to Macleans Magazine February 11, 2017 issue, it would be B.C.. Welcome to British Columbia, Where You 'Pay to Play'.
Some excerpts:
- B.C. has become a Wild West of political donations. Critics worry it’s slowly eroding public confidence.
- Last year, the British Columbia Liberal Party raised more money than any ruling party in any other province in the country.
- Now consider that in the three years since Christy Clark’s majority win, the Liberals have added some $32.5 million to their war chest.
- British Columbians’ faith in democracy is being undermined by the vast sums flooding the system, and there’s a growing concern that their government is essentially being bought and paid for by a wealthy clique.
- B.C. political fundraising is a free-for-all. Parties can accept any amount of money, property or services from any corporation, union or person living anywhere in the world.
- It’s so bad that the New York Times last month went to B.C. to write a scathing piece on the Clark government’s “unabashedly cozy relationship between private interests and government officials.”
- Unlike Ontario, however, lobbyists in B.C. can shower almost anyone except an MLA with gifts and benefits of any value, as often as they want.
- “No one is breaking any rules or laws or doing anything criminal,” the lobbyist is quick to add. “B.C. has no rules, so everything goes. It’s like the Wild West: only the fittest survive.”
- “I have to tell my bosses, ‘In B.C., you have to pay to play.’ ” If your client doesn’t donate, it puts you at a competitive disadvantage, he adds.
- on Jan. 23, Clark dined with Kelowna’s elite at a $5,000-a-plate event at the Mission Hill Winery, which has pumped $200,000 into B.C. Liberal coffers since 2005. (The next day, the premier refused to name her guests, who were shuttled into the winery in dark vehicles, cloaked in secrecy.)
- Clark is widely expected to cruise to a second majority in B.C. in the coming May election, giving the Liberals a record fifth term.
Note:
Clark won a narrow minority election vote but soon after lost a confidence vote. John Horgan's NDP government with support from the Green party became the ruling government party. Will John Horgan be any better than Christie Clark?
- “If I have someone who wants to sit down and talk to me and they want to give me 50 grand,” Horgan told the Globe and Mail last year, “I’ll take that.”

B.C., where you're more likely to survive if you grease the political wheels. Even though government is supposed to be independent of the judiciary, don't think for a moment word can't filter down.
 
Top