What some say could be a precedent setting court case , is giving hope to many in the case of BC Rail and the potential transfer of assets over to CN. Quietly, and without much press, legal minds have been hard at work in the case of J.A.Brink Investments Ltd.( Brink Forest Products) vs. BCR Properties limited.
It appears a temporary injunction has been granted in the case – passed on by an anonymous comment and detailed at The Legislature Raids– however, the final outcome has yet to be decided. But what is most revealing in this judgement is a section of the reasons for that details today’s headline, located by Gary E in his blog post today :
” 39] The only harm that I can infer would accrue to the defendant from a preservation of the plaintiff’s option to purchase pending a hearing of the issue on the merits is that the defendant would be delayed or hindered in marketing the premises in the intervening period of time. The defendant states in submissions that an injunction would prevent the defendant from dealing with the premises in accordance with its mandate from the provincial government to divest itself of all its real property. There is no evidence as to the terms of any such mandate or what losses may occur if there are delays experienced. The defendant also suggests that an injunction would be in place for some time as this action is unsuitable for Rule 18A summary disposition given the conflicts in evidence the require findings of credibility to resolve.
So BCRP tells the court that a interim interlocutory injunction prevents them from doing the governments bidding ie : divesting itself of all real properties. They say this has been mandated. Yet they fail to show evidence in court?
It will be interesting to see the final results of this interim injunction.”
My question would be then, why did BCR properties failed to definitively show the government mandate that orders them to divest themselves of their properties, and why could they not provide evidence to show what would happen if they did not?
9 thoughts on “BC Rail Properties fails to give evidence of provincial government mandate to divest itself of all it’s real property”
“My question would be then, why did BCR properties failed to definitively show the government mandate that orders them to divest themselves of their properties, and why could they not provide evidence to show what would happen if they did not?”
Exactly Laila, Exactly.
My thoughts are if they are still being mandated by the government then it would follow that someone doesn’t want evidence given out. I wonder how foolish any lawyer would feel after making a statement in court then apparently be unable to back it up? Or did they just forget? I submit that is highly unlikely for a high priced suit.
With all the stuff you talk about in your neighbourhood from drive by gun battles to rampant BO, I think its time you moved.
SB she does move and in fact she moves a hell of a lot better than you. Maybe you should try staying on topic instead of trying to put an obvious deflection on these blogs.Goof
RossK at Pacific Gazette has the definitive explanation for what was going on in Prince George with the BCRail Properties …
http://pacificgazette.com/ for anyone (is there anyone?) who doesn’t visit The Gazetteer at least once a day, every day.
My apologies Mr. Gary E., after reading through the various interesting entries, I mistakenly posted on this one rather than the one with the BO comment.
Although I made a mistake I do not believe your insulting is proper manners. Your opinion that I deliberately put in a deflection is quite wrong.
Perhaps the heat is affecting your judgment. And you will note that I do not name call either.
Not sure that folks that are ‘bored and tired’ stop by my place daily….
Here’s the correct URL for the story you were referring to.
Yoicks! Who was that masked woman … ?
Sorry for the mix-up.
Bsalvatore bennedetto said, I mistakenly posted on this one rather than the one with the BO comment.
I had assumed that something like that had occurred. Ive did the same thing a few times.
Don’t sweat it , Bsalvatore bennedetto, but ,I must admit you wrote a good comment.
Apology accepted Mr bennedetto. And Although the heat doesn’t get to me nor the cold up here (at-40C) things that are stated that don’t belong in context (which is done continually by the trolls in the PAB) Do get my ire up. Since you have corrected an error (2 days later) I will apologize for the name calling.
Comments are closed.