Posted in Government

Historic day in BC. Finally, anti slapp legislation with “BILL 2 – 2019 PROTECTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT”

This might not seem like much to most people unless you’ve had a government body try to silence you with lawsuits. This is how democracy works.

Explanatory Note
This Act establishes civil procedures intended to discourage the use of litigation as a means to unduly limit expression on matters of public interest.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billscurrent/4th41st:gov02-1


2019 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 41st Parliament
FIRST READING

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

HONOURABLE DAVID R. P. EBY
ATTORNEY GENERAL

BILL 2 – 2019

PROTECTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

Contents
1 Definitions
2 Application
3 Qualified privilege
4 Application to court
5 No further steps
6 No amendments unless permitted
7 Costs
8 Award for damages
9 Procedure on application
10 Appeals
11 Stay of administrative proceedings
12 Rights not limited
13 Application of Offence Act
14 Commencement

HER MAJESTY, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia, enacts as follows:

Definitions

1  In this Act:

“administrative proceeding” means an application or other process for bringing a matter before a tribunal;

“applicant” means a person making an application under section 4;

“court” means the Supreme Court of British Columbia;

“dismissal order” means an order under section 4 dismissing a proceeding;

“expression” means any communication, whether it is made verbally or non-verbally, publicly or privately, and whether it is directed or not directed at a person or entity;

“proceeding” has the same meaning as in the Supreme Court Act;

“respondent” means a person responding to an application made under section 4;

“tribunal” has the same meaning as in the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

Application

2  This Act applies in respect of proceedings commenced on or after May 15, 2018.

Qualified privilege

3  If an oral or written communication on a matter of public interest, between persons who have a direct interest in the matter, has qualified privilege, that communication has qualified privilege regardless of whether the communication is witnessed or reported by the media or other persons.

Application to court

4  (1) In a proceeding, a person against whom the proceeding has been brought may apply for a dismissal order under subsection (2) on the basis that

(a) the proceeding arises from an expression made by the applicant, and

(b) the expression relates to a matter of public interest.

(2) If the applicant satisfies the court that the proceeding arises from an expression referred to in subsection (1), the court must make a dismissal order unless the respondent satisfies the court that

(a) there are grounds to believe that

(i) the proceeding has substantial merit, and

(ii) the applicant has no valid defence in the proceeding, and

(b) the harm likely to have been or to be suffered by the respondent as a result of the applicant’s expression is serious enough that the public interest in continuing the proceeding outweighs the public interest in protecting that expression.

No further steps

5  (1) Subject to subsection (2), if an applicant serves on a respondent an application for a dismissal order under section 4, no party may take further steps in the proceeding until the application, including any appeals, has been finally resolved.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an application for an injunction.

No amendments unless permitted

6  Unless the court orders otherwise, a respondent may not amend the respondent’s pleadings

(a) in order to prevent or avoid a dismissal order under section 4, or

(b) in order to continue the proceeding if the proceeding is dismissed.

Costs

7  (1) If the court makes a dismissal order under section 4, the applicant is entitled to costs on the application and in the proceeding, assessed as costs on a full indemnity basis unless the court considers that assessment inappropriate in the circumstances.

(2) If, on an application for a dismissal order under section 4, the court does not dismiss the proceeding, the respondent is not entitled to costs on that application unless the court considers it appropriate in the circumstances.

Award for damages

8  On an application for a dismissal order under section 4, the court may, on its own motion or on application by the applicant, award the damages it considers appropriate against a respondent if it finds that the respondent brought the proceeding in bad faith or for an improper purpose.

Procedure on application

9  (1) Subject to this Act, an application for a dismissal order under section 4 must be made in accordance with the Supreme Court Civil Rules.

(2) An application for a dismissal order under section 4 may be made at any time after the proceeding has commenced.

(3) An application for a dismissal order under section 4 must be heard as soon as practicable.

(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6) of this section, on an application for a dismissal order under section 4, evidence must be given by affidavit.

(5) An applicant or respondent may, before the hearing of the application,

(a) call, out of court before an official reporter, the witness who swore or affirmed the affidavit for cross-examination on the witness’s affidavit, and

(b) cross-examine the witness on the witness’s affidavit, provided that

(i) the total period of cross-examination of all applicants in the proceeding does not exceed 7 hours in duration, and

(ii) the total period of cross-examination of all respondents in the proceeding does not exceed 7 hours in duration.

(6) The court may extend the period permitted for cross-examination under subsection (5) if the court considers it necessary in the interests of justice.

Appeals

10  An appeal of a dismissal order under this Act to the Court of Appeal must be heard as soon as practicable.

Stay of administrative proceedings

11  (1) This section applies if a respondent has commenced an administrative proceeding that the applicant believes to be related to the same matter of public interest alleged by the applicant to be the basis of the proceeding that is the subject of the applicant’s application for a dismissal order under section 4.

(2) The applicant may serve the tribunal with a copy of the notice of the application for the dismissal order.

(3) Service by the applicant on the tribunal under subsection (2) operates as a stay of the administrative proceeding.

(4) The tribunal must give to each party a notice of the stay and a copy of the notice of the application that was served on the tribunal.

(5) A stay of an administrative proceeding under subsection (3) remains effective until

(a) the application for a dismissal order, including any appeals, has been finally resolved, or

(b) an earlier date, if, on application, the court considers that

(i) the proceeding that is the subject of the application for a dismissal order and the administrative proceeding that was stayed under subsection (3) are not connected enough to warrant a stay, or

(ii) the stay is causing, or would likely cause, a party undue hardship.

(6) An application for the costs of any proceeding under this section must be heard only on the basis of written submissions unless

(a) the tribunal is satisfied that a party would suffer significant prejudice if the tribunal did not allow oral submissions, or

(b) the applicant and respondent consent to oral submissions and the tribunal agrees.

Rights not limited

12  The remedies under this Act are in addition to any other right or remedy that may be available to an applicant or a respondent.

Application of Offence Act

13  Section 5 of the Offence Act does not apply to this Act.

Commencement

14  This Act comes into force on the date of Royal Assent.

 
Explanatory Note

This Act establishes civil procedures intended to discourage the use of litigation as a means to unduly limit expression on matters of public interest.

Copyright (c) Queen’s Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada

Posted in UBID, Funny, Government, Dictatorship, Imitation board

Boo hoo – I’m too negative. How do you spin what has transpired by an imitation board into something positive?

I realized I haven’t made my position clear for a number of years – so here’s what I have always stated: I’m not interested in making friends, auditioning to become a member of a group/organization and don’t care what people think of me. I am free and love it! No one is forcing you to visit this blog. If you don’t like it – take a hike.

I don’t like people as a group – I think they’re rotten. I do like some people and they know who they are.

When the dysfunction ends at the UBID, I will have something positive. Until then, suck it up. You have individuals masquerading as members of the Improvement District continually making unlawful decisions. Dump them and start insisting on democracy and then I will have something positive to say.

Posted in Dictatorship, Government, Hillbilly, Imitation board, UBID

Part of the oath the trustees take: “I have read and agree to comply with all Improvement District Bylaws, Policies and Directives.” And yet, we are locked out and they want you to re-elect one of the violators of the oath!

Worst board ever – even surpasses the pre April 2011 UBID board.

Anyone choosing to become a running mate with this tainted trustee must believe in the actions this rogue imitation board has unlawfully taken. Are you going to vote for someone who believes they are above the bylaws, policies and directives that have been established by boards since the beginning of the Improvement District?

The existing trustees believe they have done more for Union Bay in the last 2 to 3 years than all the boards in the last 20 years. It’s time to get rid of the gong show.

The oath means something. It’s not just words you read and forget. These four trustees have failed miserably due to their resistance to research and educate themselves on the duties they swore to uphold.

This clip is the four male trustees who swore an oath when they were elected. Every one of them violated the oath they took within weeks of being elected, breaking their own bylaws, ignoring policies and misleading the landowners.

One of them actually thinks he’s done such a great job, he’s campaigning while locking the electorate out and unlawfully meeting to unlawfully ‘suspend’ a fellow trustee. You just can’t make this up.

Posted in Kensington Coastal Pointe, Kensington Island Properties aka KIP Costanza, 34083 Yukon Inc., The Union Bay Community, Union Bay Estates, Union Bay Resorts

McMahon, Kensington Island Properties, Kensington Coastal Pointe, Union Bay Resort, Union Bay Community, 34083 Yukon Inc., singing the same tune since 2006. Only approved for 50 – 100 residential units.

The first homes should be getting built in May or June of 2019, according to McMahon.

https://allthingsunionbay.com/2018/03/01/kensington-island-properties-aka-34083-yukon-inc-announcing-new-development-again/

So there is contaminated soil and that’s why it’s covered with soil condoms. So where does it go now and was the whole railbed raised using contaminated soil?

The MyComoxValleyNow.com newsroom sought comment from the provincial Ministry of Environment on the matter. According to the ministry, contaminated railbed soil was temporarily stockpiled as part of the pre-development land clearing, including the work to establish an access road.

This is an amusing quote considering there has been a ‘prescription’ in place since 2012 to apply an engineered cover and the three parties have been haggling over who was going to pay what portion. Since 2012, so unless they’ve agreed on the money, don’t expect anything from a ‘review’.

West Fraser is developing a detailed designed for a planned engineered cover of the coal pile, with the plan anticipated to be sent to the ministry for review in 2019’s second quarter.

You don’t have to take my word for it. The West Fraser rep and Duncan Williams agreed to answer questions after the presentation to the CVRD. Go to the 27:12 point you will hear directly from the representative from West Fraser who has been involved in the coal hill remediation since at least 2012.

What a kidder McMahon is. Still trying to convince people of alternative facts. “According to Brian McMahon, who’s been working on the project for the last 19 years, the name change was meant to show the development as part of the community.” Didn’t these names he used contain “Union Bay”: Union Bay Resorts, The Union Bay Community?

Another gem: “At the time of the launch, McMahon believed the coal hills would eventually become a provincial park.” Then why does he have it as part of a 100 acre park within KIP’s development? He dumped 27 contaminated acres back on the province and now wants to claim the whole coal hill area as part of his development.

https://www.mycomoxvalleynow.com/51920/union-bay-estates-developer-says-work-is-going-as-planned/

UNION BAY ESTATES DEVELOPER SAYS WORK IS GOING AS PLANNED

Ashley Roberts, staff Friday, Mar. 22nd, 2019

 The Union Bay Estates work site along Highway 19a just north of the Washer Creek crossing is pictured on March 18th, 2019. Photo by James Wood/98.9 The Goat/Vista Radio 

UNION BAY, B.C- Union Bay Estates is still on track.

The development, which officially launched in March of last year, will be bringing huge changes to Union Bay, a small community in the Comox Valley’s south end.

The project, run by a company formerly known as Kensington Island Properties (KIP), is planned to bring in a total of 2,949 homes in the lightly-populated area, under the name of Union Bay Estates.

According to Brian McMahon, who’s been working on the project for the last 19 years, the name change was meant to show the development as part of the community.

“Everyone has known us as KIP, or Kensington, or whatever,” said McMahon, at the time of the launch.

“We’re Union Bay. That’s who we are. We’re part of Union Bay, and we want to be fulfilling that name, that our development is Union Bay.”

The project will take up 346 acres in total, around the core of the current Union Bay community, with multiple phases.

An overall population increase of around 7,500 to 9000 people is expected once the project is complete, along with an influx of new businesses.

Work on the site has picked up in recent months, with land getting cleared along the Old Island Highway and near the Union Bay coal hills.

Reached on Monday, McMahon said everything is still on track, with applications in to the Comox Valley Regional District (CVRD) for subdivision and a development permit to build an office for the company near the boat launch, across from their temporary trailer.

McMahon said those applications would be going in front of CVRD council in the next few months, with no delays in building at the site.

“As fast as we can get applications into the regional district, subdivision applications, we’re going to start building,” said McMahon.

The work at the site is clearing, putting in roads, and getting infrastructure in the ground, according to McMahon.

Large piles of soil have also been put together at the site, visible from the highway and covered with plastic.

“Our environmental consultants, they’re looking after everything for us, they’re environmental consultants that we’ve had for many, many years,” said McMahon.

“They know their role, and they look after it for the Ministry of Environment.”

The soil has attracted attention from concerned local residents, due to the area around the coal hills being contaminated from the old coal shipping operation.

The MyComoxValleyNow.com newsroom sought comment from the provincial Ministry of Environment on the matter. According to the ministry, contaminated railbed soil was temporarily stockpiled as part of the pre-development land clearing, including the work to establish an access road.

A request to start the work was submitted to the provincial Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure on September 24, 2018.

The stockpiles were located away from riparian areas, and covered to control erosion.

“Stockpiles subsequently became snow-covered and, following recent snowmelt, it was observed that the stockpile covers required repair/replacement,” read the statement from the ministry.

“SLR and their client, Union Bay Estates, are onsite addressing these circumstances to ensure appropriate environmental protection and longer term management in accordance with the Environmental Management Act and the Contaminated Sites Regulation.”

According to the ministry, SLR is the environmental monitor and “qualified professional” on the project, and will be submitting a report to the ministry for review and potential follow up.

The newsroom also sought comment from WorkSafeBC, after rumours of a stop-work order being put in place at the site.

According to the agency, there was no order in place at the work site, with none ever being issued.

“There are no outstanding orders for this workplace, the employers, or owners at this time,” read the statement from WorkSafeBC.

The environmental ministry also provided more information on the remediation work at the main coal hills site, southeast of Washer Creek.

LINK: https://www.mycomoxvalleynow.com/32575/union-bay-coal-hills-covered/

According to their statement, West Fraser has had preliminary discussions with the CVRD about development permit requirements.

West Fraser is developing a detailed designed for a planned engineered cover of the coal pile, with the plan anticipated to be sent to the ministry for review in 2019’s second quarter.

SLR has told the ministry that no work is being carried out on the coal pile portion of the Union Bay site.

At the time of the launch, McMahon believed the coal hills would eventually become a provincial park.

Posted in Government, UBID

Vote for Paul Healey and Hein Vandenberg for Union Bay Trustee in April 2019

Received the following email that is circulating:

My name is Paul Healey and I am putting my name forward as a candidate  a a trustee for UBID. I plan to file my nomination papers early in the week . I am fairly new to Union Bay area,  but have lived in the Comox Valley since 1991, mostly in the Regional District north of Courtenay.  My entire career has been in the finance industry, as a banker and mortgage broker. I was involved in Comox Minor Hockey for a decade and was president of the association in 1996.  I believe our future lies in  joining the regional district and taking advantage of the programs and services they can offer.

Hein Vanderberg is the other candidate in the Join the CVRD ticket. I believe most of you know Hein as he has been active in this community for 26 years.  We will need all the help we can find to win this election.

please email be at 
pcmehealey@gmail.com    if you can help.
I would like to know what  area you live in (Craigdarroch, Union Bay proper or south.) ), how much time can you help a week.  How can you help, canvassing or phoning. We should have printed materials early in the week.   
What special talents do you have. I will then set up a email list and work with others to get you involved.
We can also use any cash donations for signage, print material etc.
please let me know asap, if and how you can help.
Paul Healey