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

[tssuck]

Have any of the US people contacted the Attorney General's office of their state to see if these rulings have merit in their particular state. If so, what did you find out?

 

[Petus@18]

I think...."why didn't this come up earlier? Why are you just now bringing this up?"

LOL, because we just find out!!

 

[aden2]

Gosh NM is coming across as if they are part of the Mifia!

 

[Hopeful_One]

I'll put money on this being MG or KW!!

I think ya right or may be their minion! And for MG to pretend he is a Christian with his family is atrocious. Man go to your church and repent if peradventure you may find mercy from the Lord you confess to love and serve. You collude with KW, who is still playing WOW Craft game, to defraud us and then set tight pay-out timelines to intimidate us, fixing a gag order to ensure there will be no time to dig out the truth. Whatever is hidden in darkness will come to light; you can take this to the bank. In the mean time, Edmonton Town Hall is the place to be later today for all those who can make it. I will try my best to be there in time. Come armed with all relevant documentation, cameras and sound recorders. This fraud must be dealt with once and for all. Next week we should march to Justice Ministers office for those who are available. In the mean time make sure you have all signed the petition, sent letters/ emails and/or called your MLAs, Prime Ministers office, Justice Minister office, RCMP. Also print out all email exchanges between yourself and MG and NM. NEVER AGAIN IN CANADA !!!!! This fraud MUST STOP whatever it takes. Where are you WHISTLE BLOWER ?

 

[Tanny13]

I have found a good litigation lawyer, in Edmonton, who is willing to represent those who have received the notice of withdrawal of service from SLG. If you are subject to Judge Young's decision, he will represent you. He would look at the submissions of cost and interest before JY (if the decision has not yet been handed down) and he would try to submit additional evidence (I.e. costs that were included in maintenance fees). If he could not submit additional evidence, he could represent us in an appeal of JY's original decision and/or her decision on cost and interest. He admitted it will be a tough road. I need to know asap if you are interested in moving forward in this group. Please email me asap at thebestboy@me.com to let me know. I will know, hopefully by the end of the week, what retainer he requires and how we can move forward. Following is the information he will require (please don't send anything yet):
Your notice of withdrawal from SLG
Copy of your driver's license with photo.

Here we go....

 

[servemeout]

We may be interested. There are a few issues that were NOT stressed that contributed to our court loss. The RPF was based on THE WHOLE RESORT being done. How can we be charged the amount claimed when only a fraction of the #NAFR has been done, plus the inflated interest. NM was also responsible to pay for the RPF and MAINTENANCE FEES on the units that they own. They have not paid their share. It is my understanding that three units at Riverside and Riverview are the only building done. Of the eight Hillside buildings, only three are to remain - Is that the whole resort? Judge Young has been given "alternative facts". The odds of any more work being done is probably slim to nil. This was a scam from the get go. If we would have gone the Pay to Stay, the out come would have been the same. There will be no resort, only a massive eye sore caused by our legal system and white collar criminals. Where is our compensation for the 23 years we had left on our 40 year lease? The Consumer protection Act did not come onto play, and that should have been part of our case. There has been one demographic group targeted - the retired. Kiss my grits!

 

[Punter]

Does anyone know about when JY is supposed to rule on interest?

No, but how hard can it be for a Judge to make this decision, especially knowing the implications of February 15th?

 

[Been Around Awhile]

No, I THINK this a large group of people were given false hope for years and now are in a horrible mess. That is the danger in listening to uninformed opinions and only listening to those who have no clue on the legal issues the court considered.

I HOPE this case will lead to some legal reform in Canada, protecting consumers from situations like this and requiring timeshare plans to implement some of the protections that would have prevented it... aka requiring homeowner associations, approval of members on special assessments, elected leadership, etc. Some are doing great work toward that end, while some are still stuck in the early stages of the grieving process, and can’t move past the denial phase.

Direct your angst elsewhere, my only role in this tragedy is helping people understand how the court ruled on the issues before them.

NOTE: As previously stated, this is my personal opinion, and has nothing to do with my role as a moderator on this forum.

Northmont's behavior establishes a pattern that exposes the bigger picture. For nearly ten years Bernie Madoff escaped having his fraud detected. He was investigated numerous times by the SEC. In the end, his true intention was exposed, as will be Northmont's.

Northmont has fooled the courts, but in time, their behavior will tell the whole story.

 

[Lorene Keitch]

My name is Lorene Keitch, I'm the editor of the Columbia Valley Pioneer newspaper in Invermere, British Columbia. I'm looking to do a story on the latest court decision and am looking for reaction from timeshare owners and / or lawyers representing your interests. Can someone please direct me to who I could phone for further information? Thank you for your time.

 

[Petus@18]

I have found a good litigation lawyer, in Edmonton, who is willing to represent those who have received the notice of withdrawal of service from SLG. If you are subject to Judge Young's decision, he will represent you. He would look at the submissions of cost and interest before JY (if the decision has not yet been handed down) and he would try to submit additional evidence (I.e. costs that were included in maintenance fees). If he could not submit additional evidence, he could represent us in an appeal of JY's original decision and/or her decision on cost and interest. He admitted it will be a tough road. I need to know asap if you are interested in moving forward in this group. Please email me asap at thebestboy@me.com to let me know. I will know, hopefully by the end of the week, what retainer he requires and how we can move forward. Following is the information he will require (please don't send anything yet):
Your notice of withdrawal from SLG
Copy of your driver's license with photo.

Here we go....

We would be interested, who is the lawyer?

 

[Stung]

How many of us average Joes and Janes are familiar with the document (see link) below. I suspect very few. Our legal representatives know this information. Below are a few excerpts from the document.

http://flsc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Model-Code-as-amended-March-2017-Final.pdf



Federation of Law Societies of Canada, Model Code of Professional Conduct, as amended March 14, 2017

… CHAPTER 2 – STANDARDS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION


2.1 INTEGRITY


2.1-1 A lawyer has a duty to carry on the practice of law and discharge all responsibilities to clients, tribunals, the public and other members of the profession honourably and with integrity.


Commentary

[1] Integrity is the fundamental quality of any person who seeks to practise as a member of the legal profession. If a client has any doubt about his or her lawyer’s trustworthiness, the essential element in the true lawyer-client relationship will be missing. If integrity is lacking, the lawyer’s usefulness to the client and reputation within the profession will be destroyed, regardless of how competent the lawyer may be.


[2] Public confidence in the administration of justice and in the legal profession may be eroded by a lawyer’s irresponsible conduct. Accordingly, a lawyer’s conduct should reflect favourably on the legal profession, inspire the confidence, respect and trust of clients and of the community, and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.


[3] Dishonourable or questionable conduct on the part of a lawyer in either private life or professional practice will reflect adversely upon the integrity of the profession and the administration of justice. Whether within or outside the professional sphere, if the conduct is such that knowledge of it would be likely to impair a client’s trust in the lawyer, the Society may be justified in taking disciplinary action. …



…3.2 QUALITY OF SERVICE


Examples of expected practices

[5] The quality of service to a client may be measured by the extent to which a lawyer maintains certain standards in practice. The following list, which is illustrative and not exhaustive, provides key examples of expected practices in

this area:

(a) keeping a client reasonably informed;

(b) answering reasonable requests from a client for information;

(c) responding to a client’s telephone calls;

(d) keeping appointments with a client, or providing a timely explanation or apology when unable to keep such an appointment;

(e) taking appropriate steps to do something promised to a client, or informing or explaining to the client when it is not possible to do so;

(f) ensuring, where appropriate, that all instructions are in writing or confirmed in writing;

(g) answering, within a reasonable time, any communication that requires a reply;

(h) ensuring that work is done in a timely manner so that its value to the client is maintained;

(i) providing quality work and giving reasonable attention to the review of documentation to avoid delay and unnecessary costs to correct errors or omissions;

(j) maintaining office staff, facilities and equipment adequate to the lawyer’s practice;

(k) informing a client of a proposal of settlement, and explaining the proposal properly;

(l) providing a client with complete and accurate relevant information about a matter;

(m) making a prompt and complete report when the work is finished or, if a

final report cannot be made, providing an interim report when one might reasonably be expected;

avoiding the use of intoxicants or drugs that interferes with or prejudices the lawyer’s services to the client;

(o) being civil.


[6] A lawyer should meet deadlines, unless the lawyer is able to offer a reasonable explanation and ensure that no prejudice to the client will result. Whether or not a specific deadline applies, a lawyer should be prompt in handling a matter, responding to communications and reporting developments to the client. In the absence of developments, contact with the client should be maintained to the extent the client reasonably expects….



I would like to believe the legal representatives have fully adhered to this document as part of their legal professions. There are many reasons thousands of us clients are feeling betrayed and let down by this whole process in the legal system and the judgments leading up to this point. If anyone should question it, just look at the 158 pages of documentation…

 

[Appauled]

Who is Higgerty Law? Are they familiar with the history of this litigation? Also, why would one go to Farrell if they have selected option one with Geldert? What am I missing here?

Higgerty Law has the Lawyer named Clint Dokken at their firm. He is a Class action Specialist and I understand he has been working with clients since 2013 on the Sunchaser/Northmont case that are not involved with Geldert Law

 

[truthr]

I have found a good litigation lawyer, in Edmonton, who is willing to represent those who have received the notice of withdrawal of service from SLG. If you are subject to Judge Young's decision, he will represent you. He would look at the submissions of cost and interest before JY (if the decision has not yet been handed down) and he would try to submit additional evidence (I.e. costs that were included in maintenance fees). If he could not submit additional evidence, he could represent us in an appeal of JY's original decision and/or her decision on cost and interest. He admitted it will be a tough road. I need to know asap if you are interested in moving forward in this group. Please email me asap at thebestboy@me.com to let me know. I will know, hopefully by the end of the week, what retainer he requires and how we can move forward. Following is the information he will require (please don't send anything yet):
Your notice of withdrawal from SLG
Copy of your driver's license with photo.

Here we go....

For what it is worth I endorse this.

 

[Petus@18]

Who is Higgerty Law? Are they familiar with the history of this litigation? Also, why would one go to Farrell if they have selected option one with Geldert? What am I missing here?

We selected Option 1 because MG lied to us! If we don't sign his bloody settlement, we can do whatever we want. So that is what you are missing!

 

[Hey lady]

My name is Lorene Keitch, I'm the editor of the Columbia Valley Pioneer newspaper in Invermere, British Columbia. I'm looking to do a story on the latest court decision and am looking for reaction from timeshare owners and / or lawyers representing your interests. Can someone please direct me to who I could phone for further information? Thank you for your time.

Truth Renaissance did a fabulous job on a Calgary radio station recently. Check out her posts and make contact with her.

 

[SAV]

My name is Lorene Keitch, I'm the editor of the Columbia Valley Pioneer newspaper in Invermere, British Columbia. I'm looking to do a story on the latest court decision and am looking for reaction from timeshare owners and / or lawyers representing your interests. Can someone please direct me to who I could phone for further information? Thank you for your time.

I would be happy to talk to you. I am not up to speed on the legal issues but can fill you in on what my perspective is. My phone number is 403 607 7479. Name is stephen

 

[terminator]

We may be interested. There are a few issues that were NOT stressed that contributed to our court loss. The RPF was based on THE WHOLE RESORT being done. How can we be charged the amount claimed when only a fraction of the #NAFR has been done, plus the inflated interest. NM was also responsible to pay for the RPF and MAINTENANCE FEES on the units that they own. They have not paid their share. It is my understanding that three units at Riverside and Riverview are the only building done. Of the eight Hillside buildings, only three are to remain - Is that the whole resort? Judge Young has been given "alternative facts". The odds of any more work being done is probably slim to nil. This was a scam from the get go. If we would have gone the Pay to Stay, the out come would have been the same. There will be no resort, only a massive eye sore caused by our legal system and white collar criminals. Where is our compensation for the 23 years we had left on our 40 year lease? The Consumer protection Act did not come onto play, and that should have been part of our case. There has been one demographic group targeted - the retired. Kiss my grits!

A file has been opened with a police service. Too early to forecast expectations but optimistic. Got ourselves into a fraud situation in '15 with a MX TS, which was the slickest one I had ever been exposed to (have to say that). Took me 7 mos but was refunded all of the 40,000 from Visa...yeah I know. Will be checking in here on a regular basis and may need some help.

 

[ecwinch]

We may be interested. There are a few issues that were NOT stressed that contributed to our court loss. The RPF was based on THE WHOLE RESORT being done. How can we be charged the amount claimed when only a fraction of the #NAFR has been done, plus the inflated interest. NM was also responsible to pay for the RPF and MAINTENANCE FEES on the units that they own. They have not paid their share.

These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.

Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit

[384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs.

 

[Bewildered]

I would be happy to talk to you. I am not up to speed on the legal issues but can fill you in on what my perspective is. My phone number is 403 607 7479. Name is stephen

If your not up to speed on the legal then you would be doing this group a dis-service. Your also new and have little input to this group. I agree Truth-renaissance seems to have a good handle and probably the background required.

 

[Bewildered]

A file has been opened with a police service. Too early to forecast expectations but optimistic. Got ourselves into a fraud situation in '15 with a MX TS, which was the slickest one I had ever been exposed to (have to say that). Took me 7 mos but was refunded all of the 40,000 from Visa...yeah I know. Will be checking in here on a regular basis and may need some help.

What???? Please explain otherwise I call BS especially on the police file (well the $40G Visa too). Had too many discussions with RCMP all dead ends for this to now be happening.

 

[Sunchaser Barbados]

These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.

Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit

[384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs.

Are you serious? Is there no limit to what you will do or say to justify the Courts' decision? So they decide they don't have to pay and thats ok with you? Please moderate but, we don't need your capitulation with the Justices. If you've no skin in the game we'd prefer you didn't play.

 

[Tanny13]

These issues were raised with court. The court ruled that it was reasonable for NM to take out inventory that they held and to convert the building into a condo under the Resort Realignment Plan. Decision was upheld on appeal.

Para. 382: that Northmont was in breach of its obligation to pay its portion of the Renovation Project Fee. Para. 381: No merit

[384] Consistent with the intent to downsize the Resort, Mr. Wankel testified that the Resort Realignment Plan contemplates that the units previously owned by Northmont, and the units acquired by Northmont through the cancellation option, would not be renovated and would be removed from the Resort in a non-renovated state. Further, Mr. Wankel testified that the Manager has not invoiced the renovation portion of the Renovation Project Fee to Northmont because those units will not be renovated (aside from the units which are being used by the Manager and are the subject of the Usage and Amended Usage Agreements). [385] In my view, it is within the discretion of the Manager to do so in an appropriate fashion. Further, I consider that this is a reasonable approach until it is determined whether Step 4 of the Resort Realignment Plan will come to pass. JEKE’s counsel makes the somewhat vague assertion that if Northmont had paid its portion of the Renovation Project Fee, “we would not be here”. There is no evidence to support such an assertion. In fact, to the extent that the renovations have been completed by the Resort using the Renovation Project Fee, this has allowed time share owners, including JEKE, to use these renovated units, just as contemplated by the VIAs.

The RPF was based on renovating all the units. Why then wasn't the RPF reduced to reflect those units that were removed?

 

[Beelzebub]

kaput

 

[Been Around Awhile]

everyone venting, feels good, but anything concrete is lacking as we have been through the courts and lost. That bloody well it.

Have you heard of punctuation? If you are who you say you are, go to Hades.

 

[ecwinch]

Are you serious? Is there no limit to what you will do or say to justify the Courts' decision? So they decide they don't have to pay and thats ok with you? Please moderate but, we don't need your capitulation with the Justices. If you've no skin in the game we'd prefer you didn't play.

And I think you need a dose of reality. You can live in that echo chamber, but it clearly did not help you in the numerous court proceedings.