No Trespassing signs on CMHC lands and trails

Sharon,

In a related topic, I am considering running for the NSMBA Board of Directors and inquire generally from all posters here who are NSMBA members what matters should the NSMBA be addressing given the new Societies Act.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

Oh come on people, don't be so harsh on 'Hazen Colbert' !!! I applaud his keenness to run as a director of the NSMBA and to help promote and grow Mountain Biking on the North Shore! All volunteerism should be appreciated.

Hey Haze, if you can persuade Monica to run as well that would be WONDERFUL! You two have such a unique way of looking at things and your fresh perspective would create such an AWESOME synergy with the current NSMBA Program Manager who is well known and regarded for his open-mindedness, receptiveness to ideas that are not his and his contemplative thoughtfullness!!

Also the directors meetings would become so much more interesting with the inclusion of your wit and clear cogent insight! I hope your commitment to transparency will mean that you will keep us all informed of what transpires.

Looking forward to the NSMBA AGM!

the current NSMBA Program Manager who is well known and regarded for his open-mindedness, receptiveness to ideas that are not his and his contemplative thoughtfullness!!

oh god, not this can of worms again…

:deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:

Oh come on people, don't be so harsh on 'Hazen Colbert' !!! I applaud his keenness to run as a director of the NSMBA and to help promote and grow Mountain Biking on the North Shore! All volunteerism should be appreciated.

Hey Haze, if you can persuade Monica to run as well that would be WONDERFUL! You two have such a unique way of looking at things and your fresh perspective would create such an AWESOME synergy with the current NSMBA Program Manager who is well known and regarded for his open-mindedness, receptiveness to ideas that are not his and his contemplative thoughtfullness!!

Also the directors meetings would become so much more interesting with the inclusion of your wit and clear cogent insight! I hope your commitment to transparency will mean that you will keep us all informed of what transpires.

Looking forward to the NSMBA AGM!

Yup two well balanced people. No anger issues at all!

Oh come on people, don't be so harsh on 'Hazen Colbert' !!! I applaud his keenness to run as a director of the NSMBA and to help promote and grow Mountain Biking on the North Shore! All volunteerism should be appreciated.

Hey Haze, if you can persuade Monica to run as well that would be WONDERFUL! You two have such a unique way of looking at things and your fresh perspective would create such an AWESOME synergy with the current NSMBA Program Manager who is well known and regarded for his open-mindedness, receptiveness to ideas that are not his and his contemplative thoughtfullness!!

Also the directors meetings would become so much more interesting with the inclusion of your wit and clear cogent insight! I hope your commitment to transparency will mean that you will keep us all informed of what transpires.

Looking forward to the NSMBA AGM!

Sharon,

You are not going to get the Woodro v Lee thing reset three weeks before the AGM are you?

I have been through it all previously in other provinces, the granddaddy of it all being Chico Racing v 24-Hours of Adrenaline along with Hardwood Hills v _24-Hours-of-Adrenaline. _

Best we all work together. I have a feeling the "Borg" are already planning to assimilate the land we rely on.

Best regards,

Hazen

1. http://britishproperties.com/ intends to develop most of the land on which lie Cypress Mountain mountain bike trails.

2. Grouse Mountain, yes the actual mountain, not just the commercial business, is for sale.

3. CMCH has just put ALL the Seymour mountain bike trails into play as a potential land development site.

Mr. Colbert is a mountain biker and a member of the NSMBA.

He has been dealing with the types of issues listed above since 1990 both as a mountain bike enthusiast and in his business.

He has knowledge of law and politics, albeit as a politician his success is suspect :-)

To beat him in the Supreme Court, Councillor Bond relied on two in-house lawyers, 3 external legal counsel and an entire staff contingent. It took them 4 hearings over 3 months, possibly a Supreme Court record against a self-represented party in such a short time. He prevailed at the first two, the third was adjourned generally. They then put together a team to work the media including two members of the NSMBA, friends of Bond, writing for newspapers. He still has not backed down :-)

It would seem to me that when the developers come to take away the Cypress, Grouse and Seymour trails, Mr. Colbert might be someone you would want on your side. At the very least he could run interference for the better part of a decade against the other parties :-)

He can't be bullied and doesn't care about campaign contributions from land developers. He is their worst nightmare LOL

Scrooge McDuck

WOW a real life evil genius
not just a character in a science fiction horror movie
although its tempting to take advantage of his secret powers, all the movies show the end result is things blowing up (often as a result of Bond)

too bad you don't have a twin in the City of Vancouver to take on Mayor Mussantolini and his quest to cover everything green and living with more black top

Let's not get too caught up in Mr. Colbert's "genius"

He didn't read the appropriate act, or if he did he didn't think he needed to follow it. Which is funny as he sought to rely on the same act.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc1703/2016bcsc1703.html?resultIndex=1

It wasn't "adjourned generally" his petition was struck. Gone, finito, Void Ab Initio.. See paragraph 24.

Probably the best part is where he tried to have counsel for Mr. Bond removed as counsel of record. The Grayall J's response is priceless para 33 - "no basis" and then Mr. Colbert suggests that this is the whole reason he showed up aaaand.. "we are adjourned". Dude dropped the judicial mic right there. No wonder HC has had to deal with so many lawyers. They love unrepresented litigants like this. Takes away from the drudgery.

ps. Bruce Greyall J. is a Justice of the Supreme Court his honorific is "My Lord" - not "Your Honour". That is for provincial court judges.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc1703/2016bcsc1703.html?resultIndex=1

It wasn't "adjourned generally" his petition was struck. Gone, finito, Void Ab Initio.. See paragraph 24.

I also like paragraph 22. Apparently HC had been sending what the judge describes as "vitriolic correspondence" to the mayor, municipal clerk and Matt Bond. Sound familiar to any writings here??

Let's not get too caught up in Mr. Colbert's "genius"

He didn't read the appropriate act, or if he did he didn't think he needed to follow it. Which is funny as he sought to rely on the same act.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2016/2016bcsc1703/2016bcsc1703.html?resultIndex=1

It wasn't "adjourned generally" his petition was struck. Gone, finito, Void Ab Initio.. See paragraph 24.

Probably the best part is where he tried to have counsel for Mr. Bond removed as counsel of record. The Grayall J's response is priceless para 33 - "no basis" and then Mr. Colbert suggests that this is the whole reason he showed up aaaand.. "we are adjourned". Dude dropped the judicial mic right there. No wonder HC has had to deal with so many lawyers. They love unrepresented litigants like this. Takes away from the drudgery.

ps. Bruce Greyall J. is a Justice of the Supreme Court his honorific is "My Lord" - not "Your Honour". That is for provincial court judges.

There are so many errors in your analysis I have but no choice to respond.

There were four hearings. The ones on June 8 and 9, 2016 were decided in my favour. The one on June 28, 2016 was adjourned generally. The one on August 18, 2016 was decided in Bond's favour. There is a considerable cost to have an oral decision (the 3 decisions were all oral) transcribed and published, very considerable. I saw no reason to have the first 2 transcribed and published, so I elected not to pay the cost. The DNV paid the cost to have the 4th hearing transcribed so that either the DNV or their lawyer could then send it to the Vancouver Sun and the North Shore News for publication likely for some type of consideration, certainly from the North Shore News. Both outlets conveniently did not report on the first two hearings decided in my favour. The North Shore News had known all along that the first two decisions were in my favour and made a decision not to publish anything about the matter unless it concluded with a dismissal. Some time ago the North Shore News cut a deal with DNV Council not to ever write anything negative about a sitting councilor else Council would pass a resolution banning North Shore News boxes from the streets of the DNV. I challenge anyone to find, ever, a negative word about a member of DNV Council in the North Shore News. Even when disgraced ex-Councillor Alan Nixon was twice found offisde to rules of the BC Real Estate Council, the North Shore News refused to acknowledge the matter.

The decision of the court was based on a technical detail, not merit in law. As such, the entire question of law, but with different particlars, can be returned to the court. While Justice Greyall referenced a failure to serve the DNV and to serve affidavits within a timely fashion as a fatal flaw in the matter, his colleague Justic Macnaughton disagreed with him on June 9, 2016 and alowed the matter to remain open until alleged flaws could be remedied. Greyall also discounted Hunt v Carey as a precedent in the matter, again in contrast to Macnaughton relying on my argument that it was relevant and deciding in my favour. Geyall furhter errored by not considering that the matter must remain open until DNV Council votes "yea" or "nay" on whether Bond contravened the Community Charter. Such a vote never took place. The fundamental matter of whether a member of a BC Society can act for both the Society and a municipality at the same time remains a question for the court to answer. It is absolutely NOT "finito." In fact Bond's actions on behalf of the NSMBA in the No Trespassing signs matter with CMHC is a legitimate basis for another such petition. The only issue is whether 10 people would join for such a petition. That is not my concern. It might be Councillor Bond's concern.

The issue of counsel representing Bond was only one of several particulars. The judge erred in addressing that particular, certainly based on the judgement and written decisions of his colleagues.

The judge's remarks about words I used being unrelated to the petition were ironically related to this web site. I had taken great exception to Bond finding humour in the use of the phrase trail Nazi and swastikas drawn the locations of Monica Craver's home on a map posted on nsmb.com. Counsel for Bond tried to hoodwink the judge into thinking by position on the swastika matter was related to the petition. The judge would have none of it.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

In fact Bond's actions on behalf of the NSMBA in the No Trespassing signs matter with CMHC is a legitimate basis for another such petition.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

I thought that you rode bikes and are a member of NSMBA? Maybe that was Scrooge - this is getting difficult to keep track of who said what. What possibly could you have to complain about Bonds actions re CMHC?

way to go Hazel!

keep wasting our tax dollars on frivolous court cases that have no merit

that's a sure fire way to get yourself elected next time

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/03026_04#section104

Exceptions from conflict restrictions
104 (1) Sections 100 to 103 do not apply if one or more of the following circumstances applies:

(a) the pecuniary interest of the council member is a pecuniary interest in common with electors of the municipality generally;

Councillor Bond was acting on behalf of myself and other electors of the DNV.

There are so many errors in your analysis I have but no choice to respond.

There were four hearings. The ones on June 8 and 9, 2016 were decided in my favour. The one on June 28, 2016 was adjourned generally. The one on August 18, 2016 was decided in Bond's favour. There is a considerable cost to have an oral decision (the 3 decisions were all oral) transcribed and published, very considerable. I saw no reason to have the first 2 transcribed and published, so I elected not to pay the cost. The DNV paid the cost to have the 4th hearing transcribed so that either the DNV or their lawyer could then send it to the Vancouver Sun and the North Shore News for publication likely for some type of consideration, certainly from the North Shore News. Both outlets conveniently did not report on the first two hearings decided in my favour. The North Shore News had known all along that the first two decisions were in my favour and made a decision not to publish anything about the matter unless it concluded with a dismissal. Some time ago the North Shore News cut a deal with DNV Council not to ever write anything negative about a sitting councilor else Council would pass a resolution banning North Shore News boxes from the streets of the DNV. I challenge anyone to find, ever, a negative word about a member of DNV Council in the North Shore News. Even when disgraced ex-Councillor Alan Nixon was twice found offisde to rules of the BC Real Estate Council, the North Shore News refused to acknowledge the matter.

The decision of the court was based on a technical detail, not merit in law. As such, the entire question of law, but with different particlars, can be returned to the court. It is absolutely NOT "finito." In fact Bond's actions on behalf of the NSMBA in the No Trespassing signs matter with CMHC is a legitimate basis for another such petition. The issue is whether 10 people would join for such a petition. That is not my concern. It might be Councillor Bond's concern.

The issue of counsel representing Bond was only one of several particulars. The judge erred in the matter, certainly based on the judgement and written decisions of his colleagues.

The judge's remarks about words I used being unrelated to the petition were ironically related to this web site. I had taken great exception to Bond finding humour in the use of the phrase trail Nazi and swastikas drawn the locations of Monica Craver's home on a map posted on nsmb.com. Counsel for Bond tried to hoodwink the judge into thinking by position on the swastika matter was related to the petition. The judge would have none of it.

Best regards

Hazen Colbert

So much winning with you.

I think I will take Bruce's views on the law over yours. After all having "legal acumen" involves the ability to convince the judge you are right. Which HC clearly failed to do. Plus if he was wrong - given Ducky's vast resources I am sure someone would fund the appeal. Also, if he was wrong you wouldn't be looking for "10 others" to join the petition.

So what did HC "win" in the previous hearing prey tell?

Judges, courts and court reporting companies can decide if a decision will be published - although they rarely do unless it is a "final decision". Believe me the court case referenced as Docket S164441 Vancouver Registry is certainly at an end as the petition was struck. Everything before that was likely just preliminary.

If there was another petition that was "adjourned generally" please post it. So far very little of what you have said is independently verifiable so it is hard to take you at your word.

So for completeness: The order from Aug 18, 2016
"OM PARA 1 - Strike Petition
OM Para 3 Each party bear own costs this proceeding
OM PARA 3 Mr. Colbert's NOA dated June 16, 2016 - NO ORDER MADE
OM PARA 3 Mr. Colbert's NOA dated June 16, 2016 seeking Order prohibiting Counsel for the Respondent to continue acting in the capacity as counsel as she is a material witness for the Petitioner in the original Petition is denied.
Rejected 07-OCT-2016 ea - term #2 is not in the Clerk's notes and missing a term of order"

The June 8 - the order was for short leave - basically the definition of a "procedural order" as it describes the procedure that will be followed. So if that was his big win - congrats.

The June 9th big win was to have the case adjourned to a date certain - again the definition of procedural.

The only application that was adjourned generally was HC's attempt to stop exactly what happened - the petition was struck. If HC is waiting for that to come back on - he may have to wait a bit yet.

I would publish the documents from Court Services Online - but as I believe someone objected to doing similar work for other parties - I will take the same stance here. Luckily HC is not the only one with a rich uncle.

Look - I get that some people like to play lawyer (Just as I do - but just on the internet). They may even think your motives are pure. They might be. But one shouldn't pretend that doing so is other than what it is. An ineffective waste of expensive court time and resources to further their own particular political agenda. There are productive ways to promote your vision. Like running for office (or board appointment). I again applaud HC for that part of his strategy.