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

[Petus@18]

An update?? For Option 1 or 2??

Didn't you see the cartoon? Just for laughs that is all

 

[Frau Blucher]

KW’s epiphany

 

[truthr]

Recent update received!!! View attachment 5775

An update?? For Option 1 or 2??

Didn't you see the cartoon? Just for laughs that is all

I did but wondered if he was sending out an update attempting to "gag" those who are speaking out.

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

-Law and Order-
Year after year of being subjected to circular reasoning, gaslighting, deception, manipulation, intimidation and threats – that’s the sound of the clients’ dignity and self esteem circling the bowl and the hand that is on the flusher belongs to the man who committed these offences, the man we put our trust and faith in.


-Cherilyn Clough-
If you give a Narc an apology, he’ll want some groveling to go with it.
He’ll say you owe him and ask you to pick up the pieces for all the messes he’s made.
If you give a Narc an apology, he will always ask you to play a game you can never win.

https://littleredsurvivor.com/narci...t-never-forget/if-you-give-a-narc-an-apology/

 

[truthr]

-Law and Order-
Year after year of being subjected to circular reasoning, gaslighting, deception, manipulation, intimidation and threats – that’s the sound of the clients’ dignity and self esteem circling the bowl and the hand that is on the flusher belongs to the man who committed these offences, the man we put our trust and faith in.


-Cherilyn Clough-
If you give a Narc an apology, he’ll want some groveling to go with it.
He’ll say you owe him and ask you to pick up the pieces for all the messes he’s made.
If you give a Narc an apology, he will always ask you to play a game you can never win.

https://littleredsurvivor.com/narci...t-never-forget/if-you-give-a-narc-an-apology/

Here is another one:

You can't be the arsonist and the firefighter who gets paid to put out the fire.

 

[MarcieL]

I have requested ALL documents from MG and requested a comprehensive file of all info so that I can process, move on and transition to the next phase. He has not yet provided the info.....has said they will look into it early March and there will be a cost associated (say what????). This is not fair and ethical in my opinion. All documents are likely in digital format and need to be shared and accessed by all. This sharing of info should have been done all along as it is part of effective communication an good legal counsel. As part of a withdraw, info should be shared in a timely manner. I have stressed that the hearing is scheduled March 8....and there is most certainly a timeline and crunch to get info...especially as withdrawal of service was initiated in January. There are guidelines associated with withdrawal as per BC Law Society

https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/suppor...ia/chapter-3-–-relationship-to-clients/#3.7-8

I believe it is our right to request the legal info. It is our right to receive it in a timely manner. If you have not requested it, you may want to consider doing so. If you have not yet received all info, then perhaps feedback needs to be made to the Law Society....just my two cents. If you don't speak up for your rights, who will? Take action

 

[MarcieL]

How can he refuse to release these documents if your attorney is requesting them?

 

[CleoB]

How can he refuse to release these documents if your attorney is requesting them?

He's not refusing, he's just taking his sweet old time doing it. I've added this complaint to my original complaint filed with the B.C. Law Society.

 

[Frau Blucher]

There’s a scene in the first “Iron Man” movie where Jim Cramer (from Mad Money) rants about Stark’s Industries and it was reminded me of when Northmont closed the sales office ...

(Jim Cramer ranting)
“New Stark’s business
plan ...
Look, that’s a weapon company that doesn’t make weapons!!!”

(whereas with Northmont)
“New Sunchaser’s business
plan ...
Look, that’s a timeshare company that doesn’t sell timeshares!!!”

 

[MarcieL]

He's not refusing, he's just taking his sweet old time doing it. I've added this complaint to my original complaint filed with the B.C. Law Society.

Wow how unethical.

 

[truthr]

From the BC law society code of professional conduct:

Suspended or disbarred lawyers
6.1-4 Without the express approval of the lawyer’s governing body, a lawyer must not retain, occupy office space with, use the services of, partner or associate with or employ in any capacity having to do with the practice of law any person who, in any jurisdiction,

(a) has been disbarred and struck off the Rolls,

(b) is suspended,

(c) has undertaken not to practise,

(d) has been involved in disciplinary action and been permitted to resign and has not been reinstated or readmitted,

(e) has failed to complete a Bar admission program for reasons relating to lack of good character and repute or fitness to be a member of the Bar,

(f) has been the subject of a hearing ordered, whether commenced or not, with respect to an application for enrolment as an articled student, call and admission, or reinstatement, unless the person was subsequently enrolled, called and admitted or reinstated in the same jurisdiction, or

(g) was required to withdraw or was expelled from a Bar admission program.


Why am I posting this - check the last couple of financials for the name Bradley Willis
https://dvbat5idxh7ib.cloudfront.ne...2017/02/04232740/Willis-Notice-Disbarment.pdf

What are the chances Geldert asked for and received "express approval of the lawyer's governing body" prior to using our "trust" money to retain a disbarred lawyer.

 

[Shake Down]

Was Geldhart was focusing on his new calling “Timeshare exit lawyer” as other evidence piled up in front of him?

and what about that darn contract .....
The Law of Tort ~ Fraudulent Misrepresentation

From 1018429 Ontario Inc. v Fea Investments Ltd., (1999) CanLII 1741 (Ont. C.A.), a company entered into a contract for the purchase of a residential complex, which stated the amount of rent allowed to be collected. Shortly after, the plaintiffs received notice from the Ministry of Housing that their rent was too high and that this amount could not be collected. The Court of Appeal cited the following passage with regards to remedies for fraudulent misrepresentation with approval (para 51):

“A fraudulent misrepresentation is one which is made with knowledge that it is untrue and with the intent to deceive. It may constitute a term of the contract. Whether it does or not is immaterial, since fraud gives rise to effects in law of contract and the law of tort.” A contract resulting from a fraudulent misrepresentation may be avoided by the victim of the fraud. In such instances, the consent is not real consent. [underlining added]

In other words, rescission may also be granted, but the equitable remedy of rescission is discretionary.

 

[Been Around Awhile]

From the BC law society code of professional conduct:

Suspended or disbarred lawyers
6.1-4 Without the express approval of the lawyer’s governing body, a lawyer must not retain, occupy office space with, use the services of, partner or associate with or employ in any capacity ...

Prima Facia evidence, Geldert committed a fundamental breach of the BC Law Society Code of Professional Conduct. Or, as they used to say, "Birds of a feather flock together." How about, "Careful of the company you keep". And, "Show me who your friends are and I'll tell you who you are."

 

[Frau Blucher]

Its ironic that Geldert eventually joined the Northmont team as he mentioned at the ‘townhall’ meeting in Edmonton that he had rejected a job offer to join Northmont/Sauvignon. Knowing how Geldert’s survival instincts operate, I’m sure he didn’t slam the ‘door’ on Northmont’s offer. In the end MG was only concerned about himself during the rushed negotiations.
Thanks Michael, for throwing us under the bus to save your hide.

 

[Sunchaser Barbados]

Its ironic that Geldert eventually joined the Northmont team as he mentioned at the ‘townhall’ meeting in Edmonton that he had rejected a job offer to join Northmont/Sauvignon. Knowing how Geldert’s survival instincts operate, I’m sure he didn’t slam the ‘door’ on Northmont’s offer. In the end MG was only concerned about himself during the rushed negotiations.
Thanks Michael, for throwing us under the bus to save your hide.

What? Geldert was offered a job by Kirk Wankel and Francois Sauvageau? During the negotiations? While he was the lawyer for the Geldert Group? Are you sure? And, he said this with his outside voice?

That would be a big deal for the BC Law Society. Anyone who heard this needs to both report it to the BC Law Society and Judge Young. I'm not sure this qualifies for a mistrial but it does provide "prima facia" evidence to question and examine Geldert's motives. Especially if he has not reported it. It is a violation of both the Law Society and Charter Accountants professional code of conduct. Wholly Mother of ....

 

[truthr]

What? Geldert was offered a job by Kirk Wankel and Francois Sauvageau? During the negotiations? While he was the lawyer for the Geldert Group? Are you sure? And, he said this with his outside voice?

That would be a big deal for the BC Law Society. Anyone who heard this needs to both report it to the BC Law Society and Judge Young. I'm not sure this qualifies for a mistrial but it does provide "prima facia" evidence to question and examine Geldert's motives. Especially if he has not reported it. It is a violation of both the Law Society and Charter Accountants professional code of conduct. Wholly Mother of ....

Check the April 1st, 2016 update

 

[Ultimate_Betrayal]

What? Geldert was offered a job by Kirk Wankel and Francois Sauvageau? During the negotiations? While he was the lawyer for the Geldert Group? Are you sure? And, he said this with his outside voice?

That would be a big deal for the BC Law Society. Anyone who heard this needs to both report it to the BC Law Society and Judge Young. I'm not sure this qualifies for a mistrial but it does provide "prima facia" evidence to question and examine Geldert's motives. Especially if he has not reported it. It is a violation of both the Law Society and Charter Accountants professional code of conduct. Wholly Mother of ....

Geldert UPDATE | April 1, 2016

"Let me be clear – Mr. Wankel asked me in Calgary to “join the team” as Northmont would be prepared to steer owners and lessees who are desperate to get out of this Resort to my office. I said NO."

 

[ecwinch]

Seems like he might have wanted to mention that in the court proceedings..... since he threw everything else against the wall to see if it stuck.

 

[CleoB]

Check the April 1st, 2016 update

Even though he reported it in his update don't you think it would be a cause for mistrial seeing as the settlement offer was so outlandish and one sided?

 

[Punter]

What? Geldert was offered a job by Kirk Wankel and Francois Sauvageau? During the negotiations? While he was the lawyer for the Geldert Group? Are you sure? And, he said this with his outside voice?

That would be a big deal for the BC Law Society. Anyone who heard this needs to both report it to the BC Law Society and Judge Young. I'm not sure this qualifies for a mistrial but it does provide "prima facia" evidence to question and examine Geldert's motives. Especially if he has not reported it. It is a violation of both the Law Society and Charter Accountants professional code of conduct. Wholly Mother of ....

Witnessed in person at the Edmonton town hall meeting following day 1 of the Reid hearing......
MG: "Northmont offered to make me a rich man"
ME: WTF?
And yes, it has been reported to the BC Law society.

And, when we received the 'excellent settlement agreement" my very FIRST thought was - yup, MG was bought off.

 

[NeverNeverAgain]

Witnessed in person at the Edmonton town hall meeting following day 1 of the Reid hearing......
MG: "Northmont offered to make me a rich man"
ME: WTF?
And yes, it has been reported to the BC Law society.

And, when we received the 'excellent settlement agreement" my very FIRST thought was - yup, MG was bought off.

I had heard this said before about NM and MG, but did not know it was in writing in an update.

Punter, did you report it to the BC Law society, or are you saying the MG told you he had reported it?

Seems like this is huge and should cast serious doubt on the settlement process, if there was not any doubt before. If MG really said NO, it still seems like a total violation of any legal process and standards of conduct on NM, kind of like bribing a witness.

Anyone with expertise in legal matters heard of anything like this happening before and know what it could mean? Can we register a complaint (other than the BC Law society) to get this investigated? This should be criminal.

 

[Punter]

I had heard this said before about NM and MG, but did not know it was in writing in an update.

Punter, did you report it to the BC Law society, or are you saying the MG told you he had reported it?

Seems like this is huge and should cast serious doubt on the settlement process, if there was not any doubt before. If MG really said NO, it still seems like a total violation of any legal process and standards of conduct on NM, kind of like bribing a witness.

Anyone with expertise in legal matters heard of anything like this happening before and know what it could mean? Can we register a complaint (other than the BC Law society) to get this investigated? This should be criminal.

We, and others that witnessed it, have reported it to the Law Society.
MG SHOULD have reported it, as it is a violation of his professional code of conduct (and KW's too).

Yes, this is 'huge' as is all the other overlooked, disregarded behaviour of Northmont / Fairmont et. al. And, that of our own legal representation.

 

[SentimentalLady]

But the Act specifically states that you must agree to it in writing. Did you do that?

What Act is that?

 

[SentimentalLady]

Then you did not sign anything agreeing to the new owners, ergo your contract is void under the Act.

I read that act before, and I re-read again. I cannot see where it says that.

 

[aden2]

Consumer protection changes
Changes to Alberta's consumer protection legislation include:

• a new name - Alberta’s primary legislation to protect consumers from unfair practices and businesses from unfair competition was renamed to the Consumer Protection Act
• a new preamble to the Act – a plain language preamble was added to the Consumer Protection Act to further explain the intention and purpose of the act, and to help the courts interpret any provisions that may be unclear
• an authority for the Minister-responsible to make publically available a Consumer Bill of Rights
  • as required by the new legislation, a Consumer Bill of Rights will be established as a general guideline to recognize and protect consumer rights and to help consumers understand their rights and make well-informed decisions
• enhanced fairness between consumers and businesses – new provisions that are now in place include:
  • prohibiting businesses from making unilateral amendments to contracts, unless the consumer is provided advance notice and given the right to cancel the contract
  • prohibiting businesses from including clauses in contracts that prevent consumers from posting negative reviews of the business or transaction, provided the negative review is not malicious or vexatious
  • protection for consumers who file complaints in good faith, and are not vexatious or malicious, with a right of defense against lawsuits or other actions intended to coerce consumers to withdraw or not make complaints or publish reviews
  • prohibiting suppliers from enforcing mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts
  • expanded right to sue when a consumer has suffered a loss from a breach of the Act or regulations beyond unfair practices
  • allowing the government to act in the public interest by enabling the release of information about charges, convictions, and other enforcement actions taken under the Act