Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme request

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Message
Author
User avatar
JasonE
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 354
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2014 8:26 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#51 Post by JasonE » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:49 pm

Jonas - I hope you win.
---------- ADS -----------
Last edited by JasonE on Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

7ECA
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#52 Post by 7ECA » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:51 pm

photofly wrote: That's what the courts are for. It's difficult when the municipality is the airport operator as well though; even if you win a court case you're now on the wrong side of the very people you need be friendly with. You can win the battle, but lose the war, so to speak.
Yep, you can't fight city hall. Well, you can - but you can never really win. Sort of like fighting "the regulator". We all know how that turns out.
---------- ADS -----------
Honour is a man's gift to himself ~Duke Elegant
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.

User avatar
hoptwoit
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:43 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#53 Post by hoptwoit » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:20 pm

7ECA wrote:
photofly wrote: That's what the courts are for. It's difficult when the municipality is the airport operator as well though; even if you win a court case you're now on the wrong side of the very people you need be friendly with. You can win the battle, but lose the war, so to speak.
Yep, you can't fight city hall. Well, you can - but you can never really win. Sort of like fighting "the regulator". We all know how that turns out.
In the case of Transport Canada I would agree. Jonas and myself have manged to outlast 5 airport managers in 8 years (hmmmm I wonder why so many?). Unlike Transport Canada the group pulling the strings at the airport is elected, and this is an election year!
---------- ADS -----------
People should not have to fear both the government and the criminal. It should be that the criminal fears both the people and the government.

crazyaviator
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 671
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:52 pm
Location: Ontario

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#54 Post by crazyaviator » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:30 pm

Simpleton,,, you have nothing to offer here, you come across as an asshole and i support jonas 100 % based upon the provided information so far !
---------- ADS -----------

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#55 Post by Simpleton » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:50 pm

Here's some of my favorite quotes...amongst so many others

...and I'm not going to give away the reference sources for these federally sourced quotes.....cause I like making people work for them (and I enjoy that Jonas has to pay a lawyer to, maybe, figure these things out)

"The exclusive jurisdiction over the location of aeronautical facilities has been repeatedly affirmed by Canadian courts. The federal aeronautics jurisdiction encompasses not only the regulation of the operation of aircraft and aerodromes, but also the power to determine the location of aerodromes."


"In the Lacombe and COPA decisions, the Supreme Court of Canada has recognized that a degree of jurisdictional overlap is inevitableIn cases of multiple jurisdictions' laws, compliance with these laws might be enforced by those jurisdictions."


"The Aeronautics Act may not grant immunity from compliance with other applicable federal, provincial, territorial or municipal legislation. As mentioned in the COPA Supreme Court decision, the test is whether the provincial law impairs the federal exercise of the core competence."


"Determination of whether or not provincial, territorial, or municipal legislation impairs the federal core competencies is a matter to be determined by courts on a case-by-case basis. Transport Canada does not provide advice regarding the applicability of provincial, territorial, or municipal legislation"


"In cases of valid and applicable jurisdictional overlap of laws compliance with provincial, territorial and municipal non-aeronautics legislation might be enforced by those jurisdictions"


"Some community/aerodrome situations have reached the point where the effect of land use planning guidelines may be minimal. However, there are still instances where the use of these guidelines will result in more compatible aerodrome and community development. Implementation of this guidance may result in provincial/municipal legislation or bylaws for compatible land uses, easements or land zoning."


"Where the facility is a non-certified aerodrome, the standards in TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices can be used but are not enforceable; however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions of the standards."
---------- ADS -----------

Black_Tusk
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:57 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#56 Post by Black_Tusk » Mon Jul 17, 2017 10:00 pm

That's a lot of bold letters and underlines. Good work Simpleton.
---------- ADS -----------

User avatar
hoptwoit
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 249
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 1:43 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#57 Post by hoptwoit » Tue Jul 18, 2017 12:25 am

Simpleton wrote:Here's some of my favorite quotes...amongst so many others

...and I'm not going to give away the reference sources for these federally sourced quotes.....cause I like making people work for them (and I enjoy that Jonas has to pay a lawyer to, maybe, figure these things out)
Wow the sweat was pouring off my brow trying to find these :rolleyes: Actually I've got them saved on my computer. I find that with most Transport Canada documents they must be read a couple of times to be fully appreciated.

The top part is Advisory Circular (AC) No. 300-009
The bottom part is TP 1247 - Aviation - Land Use in the Vicinity of Aerodromes part 1.1

There you go Jonas No charge :D


Simpleton wrote:"Where the facility is a non-certified aerodrome, the standards in TP312 Aerodrome Standards and Recommended Practices can be used but are not enforceable; however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions of the standards."
"however, the operational integrity of the non-certified aerodrome is enhanced if the designation of the use of land adjacent to the facility is done in line with technical portions of the standards."
An aviator would underline this portion.

Here is the thing. As an aviator you can come at this issue from one of three perspectives. Is it good for me? Is it good for my neighbor? Is it good for the airport? The perspective that you seem to be coming at this from is none of these. Instead you're only perspective on this is. Is it bad for Jonas? Kinda sad really.
---------- ADS -----------
People should not have to fear both the government and the criminal. It should be that the criminal fears both the people and the government.

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#58 Post by Simpleton » Tue Jul 18, 2017 5:58 am

Glad I was able to help you out with those, since the whole "the feds have sole control over everything on aerodromes" shtick was getting tiresome. "Well, you know...I knew about those all along"....yeah, sure you did Johnny.

It's going to be fun when the judgement comes down.
---------- ADS -----------

Schooner69A
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 283
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:17 pm
Location: The Okanagan

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#59 Post by Schooner69A » Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:13 am

Simpleton:

Do you have a dog in this fight?


J
---------- ADS -----------

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#60 Post by photofly » Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:46 am

Simpleton wrote:Glad I was able to help you out with those, since the whole "the feds have sole control over everything on aerodromes" shtick was getting tiresome. "Well, you know...I knew about those all along"....yeah, sure you did Johnny.

It's going to be fun when the judgement comes down.
It was only a magistrate judge, and in a different province, so no precedent but:


THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OSHAWA
— AND —
536813 ONTARIO LIMITED
[110] For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that (1.) the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 trenches on the protected core of federal competency as it applies to the defendant’s hangar, and (2.) Section 8 of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 unacceptably interferes with and, in fact, has a considerable and serious impact on the federal competency as it applies to the defendant’s hangar. I find, therefore, that the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applies such that the City of Oshawa cannot rely on provincial building code provisions to require the defendant to obtain a building permit for construction to its hangar located at the Oshawa Airport complex. Consequently, the charge against the defendant under clause 36(1) of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992, for failing to obtain a building permit as required under subsection 8(1), is ultra vires the City of Oshawa and, hence, I am quashing the Information that brought the impugned charge against the defendant.
My emphasis.

The judgement is worth reading. I don't see that an appeal has been filed.

(You're welcome.)
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#61 Post by Simpleton » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:03 am

photofly wrote:
Simpleton wrote:Glad I was able to help you out with those, since the whole "the feds have sole control over everything on aerodromes" shtick was getting tiresome. "Well, you know...I knew about those all along"....yeah, sure you did Johnny.

It's going to be fun when the judgement comes down.
It was only a magistrate judge, and in a different province, so no precedent but:


THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OSHAWA
— AND —
536813 ONTARIO LIMITED
[110] For the reasons stated above, I am satisfied that (1.) the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 trenches on the protected core of federal competency as it applies to the defendant’s hangar, and (2.) Section 8 of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992 unacceptably interferes with and, in fact, has a considerable and serious impact on the federal competency as it applies to the defendant’s hangar. I find, therefore, that the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity applies such that the City of Oshawa cannot rely on provincial building code provisions to require the defendant to obtain a building permit for construction to its hangar located at the Oshawa Airport complex. Consequently, the charge against the defendant under clause 36(1) of the Ontario Building Code Act, 1992, for failing to obtain a building permit as required under subsection 8(1), is ultra vires the City of Oshawa and, hence, I am quashing the Information that brought the impugned charge against the defendant.
My emphasis.

The judgement is worth reading. I don't see that an appeal has been filed.

(You're welcome.)

An appeal has been filed

http://oshawaexpress.ca/city-appealing- ... rt-hangar/

http://oshawaexpress.ca/city-judge-wron ... port-case/

(You're welcome)
---------- ADS -----------

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#62 Post by photofly » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:06 am

Great! let's see what the outcome is!

(It's not clear that then city's appeal turns on the jurisdiction issue though. Can you find any appal documents?)
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#63 Post by Simpleton » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:22 am

If you guys really wanted to get these things clarified, you'd be getting your MP's to request the reigning government draft up legislation to define who has what jurisdiction over what on airport development. At least 3 times in the last 20 years Bills were drafted up trying to clarify this, but each one died on the table on election years. Leaving all this to case-by-case legal judgements, and thousands spent on legal costs is pure crap. It's going to happen again and again and again.
---------- ADS -----------

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#64 Post by Simpleton » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:46 am

Schooner69A wrote:Simpleton:

Do you have a dog in this fight?


J
Nope, not at all. But I know all the players involved in this case. The outcome of this case has ramifications for planned airport development everywhere. Last count was around $2.2-2.6 million in hangar development is now sitting in limbo with at least 3 companies that were planning to pick up land at Whitecourt...all on hold over this pissing match over jurisdiction.

And because of Jonas' shenanigans, land that was going to be sold to pay for development costs, may not be sold....they only want to do leases now (to exercise some control). Those lots available need a huge amount of earth work to bring them up to suitable grade. The cost to the county to do that work, would mean land lease costs that nobody would pay. If you could buy the lot, you'd pay....but at least it would be a titled lot. Try getting financing on a leased lot....it's dicey.

So, until the "Jonas" issue is sorted out....pretty much everybody who was gearing up to purchase and build in Whitecourt has shelved their plans for now.
---------- ADS -----------

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#65 Post by photofly » Tue Jul 18, 2017 11:21 am

You know, it takes two sides to have a long-running dispute; you can't lay it all at Jonas Boll's door, and he's not the only party who can put an end to it.

And it's not like he's making hay while everyone else who wants to develop has to wait; the guy paid up in 2006 and eleven years later things aren't sorted. Eleven years is a big chunk of someone's lifespan, and a long time to wait to use a hangar. Is the taxiway to the hangar even usable right now? What does the City of Whitecourt want to be built on the site? If they didn't want him to build and use a hangar for airplanes there, then why on earth did they sell him the freehold in the first place?
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#66 Post by photofly » Tue Jul 18, 2017 1:14 pm

Here's another concurring judgement, with a bit more bite, since it comes from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Still the wrong province, but more senior judges anyway.

City of Mississauga v. Greater Toronto Airports Authority et al.
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2 ... 16948.html
The City of Mississauga contends that the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 23 and regulations passed under it, apply to all new buildings constructed at Pearson Airport. It also claims that the GTAA and Nav Canada must pay development charges levied by Mississauga under the Development Charges Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. D.9. The question is whether Parliament's exclusive legislative authority in relation to aeronautics, federal undertakings or public property under the Constitution Act, 1867 requires that the Ontario building code regime, including the development charges, be read down not to apply to the construction of new buildings at Pearson Airport. ...

Mississauga appealed a decision by MacPherson J., which decided all issues against the City.

Held, The appeal should be dismissed.

...
Federal jurisdiction over aeronautics includes much more than aerial navigation in the strict sense, and includes the construction of airport buildings and the operation of airports. The entire redevelopment project, therefore, comes under the aeronautics power. Because federal legislative power is exclusive, provincial laws cannot affect that essential core. A provincial law, valid in most of its applications, must be read down not to apply to the core of exclusive federal power. Under the test of interjurisdictional immunity, a provincial law that affects a vital or essential or integral part of a federally regulated enterprise cannot apply to that enterprise. Provincial or municipal laws that seek to regulate the physical structure of airports and airport buildings will affect a vital or integral part of an aeronautics undertaking. The Building Code Act and Development Charges Act stand on the same constitutional footing as provincial planning and zoning legislation, none of which applies to the construction of airports. The entire redevelopment was essential for the operation of the airport and a building-by-building analysis was unnecessary.
(My emphasis.)
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5956
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Part of the "me, me, me" crowd, and loving every second of it.

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#67 Post by photofly » Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:25 pm

Simpleton wrote: And because of Jonas' shenanigans, land that was going to be sold to pay for development costs, may not be sold....they only want to do leases now (to exercise some control). Those lots available need a huge amount of earth work to bring them up to suitable grade. The cost to the county to do that work, would mean land lease costs that nobody would pay.
A classic case of the county wanting both to have its cake and to eat it as well. It wants people to pay freehold prices, but it also wants to maintain control. There are other legal ways to achieve what it wants, such as restrictive covenants. But nothing that it can retroactively apply to Jonas Boll.
---------- ADS -----------
Control the horizon, control the airplane

7ECA
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 539
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#68 Post by 7ECA » Tue Jul 18, 2017 2:59 pm

photofly wrote:Great! let's see what the outcome is!

(It's not clear that then city's appeal turns on the jurisdiction issue though. Can you find any appal documents?)
They've got no grounds, instead what they're probably looking to do is bankrupt the defendant. Pretty simple really, the City has "unlimited" resources, so they can afford to drag out the appeal process for years.

Sort of like the BC Provincial Government fighting the teachers union, started in BC, went through every level of court possible - up to the Supreme Court of Canada - where the government lost the case in near record time.
---------- ADS -----------
Honour is a man's gift to himself ~Duke Elegant
Ass, Licence, Job. In that order.

jonas
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 11:34 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#69 Post by jonas » Tue Jul 18, 2017 4:04 pm

photofly wrote:You know, it takes two sides to have a long-running dispute; you can't lay it all at Jonas Boll's door, and he's not the only party who can put an end to it.

And it's not like he's making hay while everyone else who wants to develop has to wait; the guy paid up in 2006 and eleven years later things aren't sorted. Eleven years is a big chunk of someone's lifespan, and a long time to wait to use a hangar. Is the taxiway to the hangar even usable right now? What does the City of Whitecourt want to be built on the site? If they didn't want him to build and use a hangar for airplanes there, then why on earth did they sell him the freehold in the first place?
I should clarify that the airport is in the County of Woodlands (not run by the City of Whitecourt).

It is refreshing to hear unbiased assessments of the situation. Thank you.

This issue is not exclusive to me only at CYZU, there are many other individuals that have simply given up in frustration and silently moved on over the past ten years. (Simpelton must be fairly new in town.) I have many reasons that have kept me and my family from abandoning this otherwise great community, so I choose not to give up so easily.

I realized after years of being overly cooperative and more than patient with the County of Woodlands I have been led down the primrose path.
In not taking a stand, I would more likely die of old age before seeing this airport benefit from any new development.

The real issue is how this airport has been run since the municipality has taken it over. I speculate that even a person like Simpleton would agree with me. I would go so far as to say that we are actually fighting for the same thing, a functional, safe, thriving airport.
Contrary to Simpelton's allegations, I have no control over the spiteful actions of the Council. If someone has an issue with them not selling land, or the elevations being 6 feet too low on the land that was supposed to be available 5 years ago, he would logically take it up with Woodlands County Council. The problem is they will tell you it's "your neighbors" fault, instead of taking responsibility for their own blunders.

The majority of the Woodlands County Council really needs to be replaced this fall election before this airport will ever see its full potential. A steady flow of misinformation and the inability to accept legal facts has made the council ineffective in this matter.
---------- ADS -----------

Black_Tusk
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:57 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#70 Post by Black_Tusk » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:04 pm

Simpleton wrote:
Schooner69A wrote:Simpleton:

Do you have a dog in this fight?


J
Nope, not at all. But I know all the players involved in this case. The outcome of this case has ramifications for planned airport development everywhere. Last count was around $2.2-2.6 million in hangar development is now sitting in limbo with at least 3 companies that were planning to pick up land at Whitecourt...all on hold over this pissing match over jurisdiction.

And because of Jonas' shenanigans, land that was going to be sold to pay for development costs, may not be sold....they only want to do leases now (to exercise some control). Those lots available need a huge amount of earth work to bring them up to suitable grade. The cost to the county to do that work, would mean land lease costs that nobody would pay. If you could buy the lot, you'd pay....but at least it would be a titled lot. Try getting financing on a leased lot....it's dicey.

So, until the "Jonas" issue is sorted out....pretty much everybody who was gearing up to purchase and build in Whitecourt has shelved their plans for now.
I hear the sound of a tiny violin playing in the distance.
---------- ADS -----------

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#71 Post by Simpleton » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:16 pm

Likely echoing in that empty skull pan of yours.
---------- ADS -----------

Black_Tusk
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:57 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#72 Post by Black_Tusk » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:17 pm

Simpleton wrote:Likely echoing in that empty skull pan of yours.
Because I disagree with you? Resorting to personal attacks, nice.
---------- ADS -----------

RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 527
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#73 Post by RatherBeFlying » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:41 pm

It seems to me that the operator was subdividing and offering freehold hangar lots. It would be interesting to see what representations were made when the lots were put up for sale.

Were there marketing literature, website text or council minutes?

Lacking written materials, it may be arguable that there was an implied contract that Jonas parcel was for a hangar and that it would be an obligation of the vendor not to obstruct usage of the parcel as a hangar.

Regrading immediately adjacent to the hangar made it unusable (especially as it was subsequently demolished) and may have been a breach of the implied contract and general obligation of contracting parties to act in good faith. However the Limitations Act would apply.

The Council richly deserves being taken to Queen's Bench where current and past officials will have to submit to discovery.

Their rezoning shenanigans might not survive the scrutiny of the court.
---------- ADS -----------

Simpleton
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 2:10 pm

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#74 Post by Simpleton » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:50 pm

edited iWbd
---------- ADS -----------

Black_Tusk
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 8:57 am

Re: Legal Hangar Battle at CYZU Whitecourt Alberta (previously titled "Things are getting ugly at CYZU") gofundme reque

#75 Post by Black_Tusk » Tue Jul 18, 2017 8:56 pm

edited iWbd
---------- ADS -----------

Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”