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.

2019 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 41st Parliament

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


BILL 2 – 2019


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:


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.


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.


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.


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.


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 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    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

Posted in Dictatorship, Government, Imitation board, UBID

Another major screw up by the Union Bay Improvement District Admin – it’s never ending. Doesn’t care or understand the importance of accuracy.

A word of advice – check to make sure where you can vote. This Admin and the rest of the imitation board really screwed up the election this year. The Jan. 10, 2019, meeting that 5 landowners had and unlawfully changed the dates for the election which had been set in April 2018, continues with their screwups. Everything they touch, they screw up.

Today I found out the venue for the General Election on Apr. 20, 2019, is now the Union Bay Community Hall. I checked on UBID’s website and could not find any notice correcting the location for the election. I phoned and asked where the location was for the General Election and was told it is now the Community Hall due to wheelchair access. I was also told the change was made this week and that notices had been sent out and that the correction was posted on the website. Bullshit.

I can only imagine the mess the UBID office must be in. This Admin makes one mistake after the other and never admits it or learns from his mistakes.

On Feb. 28, 2019, the Admin sent those on the email list a link to view the “UBID Notice of Nomination”. See below:

This is the document and you will note it states:

The Election Poll will be held at the Union Bay Improvement District office on April 20, 2019 from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.

This notice was also published in the Comox Valley Record Mar. 5, 2019.

The screenshot below shows the “UBID Notice of Nomination” dated Feb. 28, 2019. That link originally took you to the ad above.

If you want to view the update with the correction, you must hit that old link (Feb. 28) to view this document with:

The Election Poll will be held in the Bill Wood Room at the Union Bay Community Hall, 5401 South Island Highway, Union Bay, BC on April 20, 2019 from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.

Here’s a screenshot showing the Notice of Nomination was created Mar. 19, 2019. I added the red,

Posted in Dictatorship, Government, UBID

Union Bay Improvement District Chairman – “I believe in honesty and communication with the landowners.”

In the last 30 days.

Feb. 19, 2019:

When contacted by the newsroom for comment on the cancellation, Haraldson declined to explain his decision.

Feb. 24, 2019:

Haraldson declined a request for comment on the cancelled meetings and the protest.

Feb. 28, 2019:

A request for comment has been sent to Haraldson.

Mar. 7, 2019:

Haraldson also declined to comment.
“I really can’t talk about that, because I’m not going to talk about that,” said Haraldson.

Mar. 14, 2019:

UBID Chair declined to comment.