Robbins SCE Research
Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US & the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Donate
Letter from International pollster Glen P. Robbins to Roger Bilodeau at S.C.C [BC Ombudsperson]. - 35772 Rothstein, Moldaver, Abella defrauded - Ron Bakonyi, Chris Hinkson (CJ), BC Court Services, BCAG Law Society BC collude in filing fraud (I)
  Jan 13, 2017

Commentary
BCSC H130330
On March 20, 2013 Law Society of British Columbia member Ron Bakonyi, legal counsel for Cambridge Mortgage Investment files a Petition in Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street. Ita Robbins & Frana Matich owners of 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, B.C under BCSC file No.: VLC-S-H-130330, are the respondents. BMO Bank of Montreal is also a nominal respondent. There is no legal basis for BMO being a respondent.
Glen P. Robbins is the husband to Ita Robbins. They have been together since 1980, 36 years. They have lived at 1355 Honeysuckle since 1992.
The Petition is served during the Easter weekend 2013 making the expiration of time for filing and serving a response to petition about April 22, 2013 or thereabouts.
The Petition is in relation to a mortgage filed by Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation (“CMIC”) at New Westminster Land Title Office in January 2012. A loan agreement with another company owned by the same two owners of CMIC precedes this mortgage registration.
This preceding loan agreement is made on Government of British Columbia letterhead and is between Ita Robbins & Frana Matich and Peet and Cowan Financial Services (“PCFC”). “CMIC” and “PCFC” are both owned by the same persons.
Neither Ita Robbins (“IR”) nor Frana Matich (her mother) (FM”) receive independent legal advice.
The A.P.R of the “PCFC” loan is 98.7% listed in fine print on the bottom of the third page of this criminal (unconscionable) loan featured on Government of British Columbia letterhead.
[This loan agreement actually expires pursuant to the provisions within the contract provided for by “PCFC” and thus becomes technically invalid. $500 consideration is provided by “IR” and “FM” payable to the Royal Bank of Canada on behalf of “PCFC”].
“IR” and “FM” attend to sign the mortgage agreement (a mortgage is 'legally' a separate contract from a loan). Yet the original loan with PCFC is constituted of the same money amounts as the mortgage registration of CMIC, they are one and the same except the actual APR is criminal and the mortgage filing is not, although it is clearly filed in improper state with two different rates of APR (which should have raised flags).
Neither “IR” or “FM” are provided with Notice that the loan agreement has been rearranged as a mortgage in the name of “CMIC” prior to the signing. They believe they are signing a mortgage agreement with PCFC who they made the loan agreement with, not CMIC. Lawyers for “IR” (Cobbett and Cotton of Burnaby, BC) and specifically Michael Rathbone are contacted by Glen Robbins regarding the loan agreement with “PCFC” including the 98.7% A.P.R.
When “IR” attends to Cobbett & Cotton law firm to sign the mortgage agreement with “PCFS” she is confronted with the new mortgage agreement with “CMIC”, (all new to her). Lawyer Michael Rathbone refuses to endorse that “IR” has received independent legal advice, rather he signs the mortgage “As to Signature Only”. Glen P. Robbins has contacted the firm explaining the problems he has discovered with the loan agreement with PCFS.
Ita Robbins, the resident owner of property at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, receives no independent legal advice and signs the mortgage agreement with a company she has not heard of until her attendance to the law offices of Cobbett & Cotton at or about January 3, 2012. The loan agreement of PCFS is transferred to CMIC by virtue of an Order to Pay document (for which no independent legal advice is provided). This Order to Pay presumes an order of the court (see BC Civil Rules Consent Orders).
As such this Order to Pay is considered as a court order of a transfer of obligations under an illegal contract, making the new contract for mortgage registration also an illegal contract.
The Original illegal Loan – and laundered fraudulent mortgage filing:
At the time of signing the loan agreement with PCFS, mortgage brokers in B.C. had 'quietly' become self regulating through the efforts of BC Liberal Cabinet Minister Bill Bennett and BC Liberal Party Cabinet. Although the First mortgage amount on the IR – FM property located at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane in Coquitlam is depicted as 8.9%, the legal Interest Rate is the A.P.R is as referenced – disclosed in loan agreement with PCFS at 98.7%.
Given that there is no change to the accounting that produced the 98.7% A.P.R. with PCFS, then the actual rate of the mortgage with CMIC is also 98.7%. The mortgage registration at Land Title and Survey (New Westminster) is a (constructive) fraud. IR and FM contend that the mortgage registration must be a constructive fraud as the actual interest rate is 98.7%. The criminal loan from PCFS has been laundered into British Columbia's Land Title Office. I it laundered on the basis of a document saying Order to Pay. The inference is that an authority...the court has sanctioned the transfer of rights and obligations from one illegal agreement to another for the purposes of filing.
CMIC, PCFS the Government of British Columbia and Government of Canada (Interest Act, Criminal Code) have all participated in the fraud of these two women at this point.
How many more title registrations are in the same condition?
The Government of Canada is responsible for Interest under the Constitution delineation of powers for the federal and provincial governments. The Interest Act of Canada governs Interest and Mortgage loans. The Act governs Annual Percentage Rates. The PCFS loan agreement is obviously not a legitimate loan. The mortgage registered by CMIC is obviously not a legitimate registration. For purposes of edification the loan agreement also features a prepayment of the years mortgage which is not legal under the federal Interest Act.
Section 6 of Canada's Interest Act stipulates: “6 Whenever any principal money or interest secured by mortgage on real property or hypothec on immovables is, by the mortgage or hypothec, made payable on a sinking fund plan, on any plan under which the payments of principal money and interest are blended or on any plan that involves an allowance of interest on stipulated repayments, no interest whatever shall be chargeable, payable or recoverable on any part of the principal money advanced, unless the mortgage or hypothec contains a statement showing the amount of the principal money and the rate of interest chargeable on that money, calculated yearly or half-yearly, not in advance.”
The mortgage agreement endorsed by lawyers for CMIC, members with the Law Society of BC, is filed at Land Title BC. The additional problem with this filing (besides it being a constructive fraud) is that two rates of Interest are featured in the Box designated for compliance the Interest Act (Canada) as between interchangeable between 8.9% and 9.2% with both amounts featured on the document. The lawyer (member of the Law Society of BC) has filed this mortgage registration and Land Title Office has accepted the mortgage document despite this obvious problem.
A lawful mortgage under Federal legislation of the Interest Act (Canada) must be declared to have been made semi annually or annually, but not in advance. The declaration in made in a box specifically designed for the Federal Interest declaration obviously to ensure that citizens like Ita Robbins and Frana Matich are not being financially raped over property as they were.
This loan was made in advance, it contains two rates of interest signed by a due paying member of the Law Society of British Columbia and received at Land Title Survey where oversight and authority of proper filing requirements does not exist.
No valid mortgage calculated semi annually not in advance would feature more than one rate of interest.
The filing of the mortgage registration by CMIC at Land Title New Westminster is a fraudulent document which emerged from a criminal agreement. A criminal loan agreement of PCFS has now been laundered at Land Title Office.
Obviously Land Title knows that two rates of Interest should not be included in any conventional mortgage. This alone ought to have raised questions about the legitimacy of the (any) mortgage filed at Land Title Office which draws its enabling authority from the Government of British Columbia.
Dustin Meyer a deputy register with Land Title informs Glen P. Robbins at 8:55-9:05 am January 12, 2017, informs us that Land Title does not check the interest on mortgages filed. They “don't police land title registrations”. They only deal with “registerable” documents, and “have no interest in enforceability”. Interest rates are part of section 5(b) and 5(d) of the mortgage registration form relating to Federal Interest rates. Like BC Court Services, Land Title and Survey just accepts documents.
Suffice it to conclude (sic) that no documents at BC Court Services are checked and they must be. A ongoing ignoring of BC Chief Justices Practice Directives (Bauman CJ 2010) for accepting orders is the norm.
Now this conversation with Dustin Meyer, deputy registrar asking how a mortgage registration with two rates of interest could be accepted by the registry. Documents are not policed at all. BC lawyers can file any document they want. My working theory is that there are thousands of unenforceable documents filed at Land Title. With real estate on the hot seat....my assertion that a serious sub prime exists in BC -- ready to explode in a culture of massive fraud.
The Government of British Columbia has provided the letterhead for BC Mortgage Brokers to conduct their nefarious 'efforts' undertaken by PCFS and CMIC with assistance from members of BC Law Society Corporation , and are thus responsible for the original loan agreement made between Ita Robbins & Frana Matich and Peet & Cowan Financial Services and for the acceptance of an obviously corrupted document at Land Title Office.
The lawyer (Van Loan) involved with the filing of the mortgage registration for the lender, is clearly aware of the illegal (unconscionable) nature of the loan agreement and the mortgage filing. This lawyer is to greater or lesser degrees responsible for initiating the swapping the loan agreement from Company “A” PCFS to Company “B” CMIC (the laundering of an illegal/unconscionable loan @ 98.7%) and for filing the mortgage registration of that loan in the Box provided for declaration under federal laws for Interest at a percentage A.P.R they know to be false.
The Foreclosure – BCSC H130330 (Vancouver Courthouse)
On March 20, 2013 BC Law Society member Ron Bakonyi files a Petition for foreclosure in Vancouver Courthouse, 800 Smithe Street and serves it on Ita Robbins and Frana Matich at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, BC.
The Rules call for the court registry closest to IR and FM to be used (New Westminster, BC), as they are unrepresented. The wrong registry is used (this becomes more relevant down the line of argument). [This is worth investigation because of late disclosure in legal ed documents and other have been changed and some online documents describing process have been amended to stipulate that the filing can occur most convenient to the filer].
The Petition for foreclosure filed by CMIC includes an affidavit (as it must) from one of the two owners of both CMIC and PCFS. The petitioner is obligated to disclose any triable issue(s) in the affidavit but fails to do so. There are many issues of contention, that the proponent of the affidavit filing knew were contentious. (Although this detail is one to be dealt with through the court process it is nonetheless relevant when considered in totality of the misdeeds, fraud and corruption outlined here)
Lauri Anne Fenlon – a BC justice knows all of this and appears to assist the petitioner from foreclosure order to sale, she involves herself. BC Court Services.
Rule 1-3 of the BC Civil Rules stipulates at (1): “The object of the these Supreme Court Rules is to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every proceeding on its merits”.
“To start a proceeding in the following circumstances, a person must file a petition or if Rule 17-1 applies, a requisition (a) the person starting the proceeding is the only person who is interested in the relief claimed, or there is no person against whom relief is sought; (b) the proceeding is brought in respect of an application that is authorized by an enactment to be made to the court; (c) the sole or principal question is issue is alleged to be one of construction of an enactment, will, deed, and or a written contract or other document......(g) the relief sought relates to land and is for (i) a declaration of a beneficial interest in or a charge on land and enforcement of the interest or charge.”
At the point of filing of Petition, PCFS and CMIC have engaged the Government of British Columbia as collaborators of its commercial efforts for the 2nd time, the 1st the use of BC Government letterhead and perception of authority including provisions of the BC Consumer Protection Act to be used to secure a criminal loan agreement (98.7%), and the 2nd being permitted to file (many) documents at BC Court Registry through BC Court Services, [the responsibility of the Ministry of Attorney General on behalf of the Government of British Columbia], which should never have been accepted for filing in the first place.
This negligence, clearly intentional and instigated at BC Court Registry, Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court (and BC Court of Appeal) by Government employees (BCGEU) suggests that these government employees are openly assisting Ron Bakonyi, member LSBC and his client(s) CMIC with fraud through their willful blindness.
[This is important to consider in light of the massive foreign investment fraud ongoing in British Columbia and elsewhere inclusive of mortgage broker operations connected to Toronto, Ontario and the Toronto Stock Exchange].
The Notice of Hearing document filed by Ron Bakonyi for Cambridge Mortgage Investment Corporation, signed by Robert Ellis for BMO Bank of Montreal (nominal respondent).
Under BCSC action No.: H130330 involving Ron Bakonyi legal counsel for petitioner Cambridge Mortgage Investment Inc (“CMIC”) and the British Columbia court registry, CMIC files a Notice of Hearing document in relation to a petition for foreclosure. The Respondents to the foreclosure are Ita Robbins & Frana Matich. Frana Matich is Ita Robbins mother. Ita Robbins is the wife of Glen P. Robbins.
The Notice of Hearing document is filed April 15th, 2013 in Vancouver Courthouse, BC Supreme Court, 800 Smithe Street. The reference disclosed is “1355 Honeysuckle Lane, Coquitlam, British Columbia”.
The petitioner knows full well the petition is filed in the wrong courthouse, as New Westminster is the closer one to IR and FM. The register for filing when self litigants are involved is the one closest to the subject property and must be within 30 kilometers. From the subject property located at 1355 Honeysuckle Lane to New Westminster courthouse is 16 kilometers. From property to Vancouver courthouse is 33 kilometers. Petition if filed out of jurisdiction.
Background to Notice of Hearing (British Columbia Ministry of Justice FORM 68):
According to British Columbia Ministry of Justice website www.ag.gov.bc.ca/courts/other/Supreme/2010SupRules/info/index_civil.htm entitled: Supreme Court Civil Rules – Forms including sub title “Using the Forms” if the reader “has (sic) difficulty using the forms” they should contact: AGCSBSmartforms@gov.bc.ca also related to the Government of British Columbia.
These Forms at all times and all places are produced for the exclusive purpose for filing at BC Supreme Court registries. They serve no other legitimate purpose. Therefore, the design and production of the Forms, the use for filing and initiating elements of Legal Profession Act (“LPA”) and specifically subsection 15 (5) “commencing, defending and prosecuting a claim” are all subsumed within the authority and control of the Province of British Columbia for the expressed purpose for use primarily by members of the Law Society of British Columbia. Each and every time these forms are filed at BC Civil Supreme Court registries, subsection 15 (5) of the LPA is engaged.
At the bottom of this Government of British Columbia – Ministry of Justice page is a “grid” of all the various Forms produced by Government of British Columbia, some 80 or so Forms, all 'Form Names' are in alphabetical order.
At the top left hand side of the 'grid' is the title “Form Name”. At the top right corner it states: “Prescribed Form Name”. The word “prescribe” is a verb, an action word (often) tied to authority. The original production and access to justice inherent with these Forms, their ties in provincial legislation to the LPA (BC), reaffirm their proprietorial relationship to the Government of British Columbia
Form 68 Notice of Hearing is one of these documents within the production authority of the Province of British Columbia. The Form itself features the conspicuous designation FORM 68 at the top and central of the Form page. [Below it is the corresponding rule: “((Rule 16-1(8))”].
Beneath this rule and to the right of the page is the designation “No.:” which is used to identify the particular court filing number provided by BC Court Services which is under the authority of the Province of British Columbia. The people working there (save for the justices) are all employees of the Province of British Columbia.
Section 15 (5) of the LPA ties these provisions in the provincial legislation to use of Forms at Court Registry. One cannot occur without the other.
The conventional style of cause format is set on this Form as in many other Forms and includes reference to: “The Supreme Court of British Columbia”. The Forms on this particular grid are for use in the various BC Supreme Court registries including the one located at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC where this Form was accepted by employees of the Province of British Columbia.
The BC Supreme Court registry is led by authority of various court Registrars who belong to the BCGEU “British Columbia Government Employees Union”. These forms including the Form 68 cannot be used at the BC Court of Appeal courthouse or the Provincial Small Claims provincial courthouse, the Federal Court of Canada or Supreme Court of Canada.
The designation prominent to the style of cause in Form 68 being Supreme Court of British Columbia provided for by the BC Government and Ministry of Justice can only be used at the Supreme Court of British Columbia with the authority and access provided for the filing and date stamping of these documents by mostly 'non lawyers' working at BC Court registries.
The opposing actors provided for in the Style of Cause on the Form 68 are listed as the “Petitioner” and “Respondents”. What is worth noting is that the 'Petitioner' is always included in placement at top of the style of cause while the respondent is below. Pursuant to subsection 15 (5) of the LPA a Notice of Hearing document is filed by a 'petitioner' in this instance CMIC who becomes the 'commencing' party in the filed action.
Let's consider the role of BC Court Services described in part here from BC Ministry of Justice website:
“Court Services Branch (CSB) is responsible for the delivery of all court administration and security services in British Columbia. The branch provides service to the three levels of court and to the public, ensuring the safety and security of all court participants, the smooth running of court and the timely processing of court documentation. There are 89 court locations throughout the province, 45 of which are staffed and include registry services. The remaining 44 locations are circuit court sites which are staffed on court hearing days. Court Services has three divisions:
Court Administration This division is responsible for the provision of court clerks to court, the operation of court registries, arranging court interpreter services, managing court files and providing information to the public. Services include: case documentation, initiation and processing; fine payment processing; file and exhibit management; preparation and distribution of court orders; and ensuring court records access policies are adhered to.”
Of course we all know this 'pledge' of “services included” (sic) in not intended to be fulfilled. It is like an advertisement for Government to give the appearance that events occurring in justice are all above board, when the practice, (as opposed to the exception) is actually corrupt.
The analysis of the filings involved in this foreclosure and other matters at BC Supreme Court will reflect that BC Court Services does as it pleases, ignores documents under a self declared 'smile and file' policy.
This on the fly policy is a bar to access to justice.
The real purpose of this (as described by more than one manager) is to permit lawyers, as officers of the court to file as they please and “let the decision maker at hearing sort it out” (another quote from Vancouver courthouse).
This attitude does not comply with the first rule and object of every court, including that advertised at Supreme Court of Canada that the administration of justice is paramount, in Canada is claimed to exceed the importance of solicitor client privilege.
The Notice of Hearing document appears particularized to a Petition as opposed to a Notice of Claim or to a Requisition. It stipulates within the Form “TAKE NOTICE that the petition of...”
The 1st paragraph deals with the designation “Date of Hearing”. The filer (normally the petitioner) attends to the court registry - Notice of Hearing - in hand ready for filing. Prior to being accepted by the courthouse registry the filer would have completed the Form including within the paragraph for 'Date of Hearing' “check whichever one of the following boxes is correct”. In this case however, the notice of hearing document is filed April 15, 2013 through BC Government registered court services online.
[Following a conversation with 'Mya' Registrar at BC Courthouse, BC Supreme Court January 5, 2017 at 9:34 am, I am informed that Affidavits cannot be accessed through online services. I am also told that BC Court Registry takes aware possession of a document filed by email the date the document is filed in that manner or within 24 hours. Therefore, the Government of British Columbia, Supreme Court Registry located at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, BC had possession of the notice of hearing document on April 15th, 2013 (H130330) or not later than April 16th, 2013].
The boxes offered for a tick [ ] located on the face of the document correspond to the filers elected choice of factual declaration being made and presentation to the Government of British Columbia courthouse registry as either “The parties have agreed as to the date of the hearing of the petition”, and “The parties have been unable to agree as to the date of the hearing but notice of the hearing will be given to the respondents in accordance with Rule 16-1 (8) (b) of the Supreme Court Rules” or “The petition is unopposed, by consent or without notice.”
The Notice of Hearing filed by Ronald Bakonyi for CMIC, informs the BC Government employee working at the BC Supreme Courthouse registry in Vancouver, BC that the parties have been “unable to agree as to the date of the hearing”. [In fact no discussion ever occurred between the petitioner and respondent (affirmation of this fact is included in many affidavits)]. What is most important to note is that the 2nd choice “The petition is unopposed by consent or without notice” is not chosen by the filer Ron Bakonyi, member, Law Society of British Columbia.
This latter choice could not be made unless the time for expiration for the filing and service of the petition response had been completed (or there was evidence that the petition respondent did not elect to defend the petition).
The Notice of Hearing document numerically follows the Response to Petition, an easy marker for court registry employees (while they are 'smiling' [insert crocodile here]).
The choices on the Forms are poorly written relative to the Rule which corresponds to the Form. The primary example of this criticism is that the filer can easily trick the registry into believing that some type of dialogue has occurred with respect to the hearing date as evidenced here. It empowers lawyers with access, and greatly reduces power of self litigants.
Although a number of circumstances will be dealt with which are far worse (including criminal) than the Notice of Hearing document, [insofar as it being dealt with at this juncture of the process] is that it represents how easily self litigants can be deceived when we consider that: (a) foreclosure orders cannot be easily be overturned, and (b) lawyers can take advantage of their superior access to justice to take advantage of self litigants and obtain leverage in the process knowing that BC Court Services will not check any documents.
It also underscores how the courts are not for the ordinary citizen but more 'user pay' [read: legal monopoly] in the sense that the lawyers pay the bills of the courts and behave as if they have a monopoly on them as they do on the practice of law. This statement should be considered in context of the fact that the Legal Profession Act a BC Government measure covers persons who are self litigants. (See Law Society of B.C. v Glen P. Robbins (S111171, Grauer J decision October 3, 2011) & Glen P. Robbins v Law Society of B.C. SCC 35302).
The 2nd paragraph of the Notice of Hearing Form is entitled “Duration of Hearing”. Here, Ronald Bakonyi and Robert Ellis (respondent for BMO Bank of Montreal) that “the parties have been unable to agree as to how long the hearing will take and “(a) the time estimate of the petitioner is “5” minutes.” The document clearly indicates that “(b) the Petition Respondent, Bank of Montreal, is TEN (10) minutes; and (c) the remaining Petition Respondent(s) has(ve) not given a time estimate.”
On its face, when considering “1. Date of hearing”; and “2. Duration of Hearing” BC Court Services should have questioned accepting this document. The petition process had just been “commenced” & the notice of hearing document is produced in a way which demands it naturally follow a conclusion to the petition process including the response to petition or expiration of time of the process (21 calendar days exclusive holidays). Under Date of hearing this is reflected in “The Petition is unopposed, by consent or without notice.” The other two options deal with an assumed contact between parties relating to a hearing date agreeable to both. This never occurred.
Paragraph number 2 also reflects similar intent of the notice of hearing document. The first option reads “It has been agreed by the parties that the hearing will take.....”. This is left empty...the parties have not agreed. The remaining option under this paragraph reflects that the Petitioner CMIC believes its petition will take “(a)... FIVE (5) minutes..” Option (b) informs us that the “Petition Respondent, Bank of Montreal, is TEN (10) minutes;”. Option (c) informs us that “the remaining Petition Respondent(s) has(ve) not given a time estimate.”
We know from paragraphs 1 & 2 that parties have been unable to agree to a hearing date. This statement does not concern the Petition Respondent BMO Bank of Montreal, but does concern the Petition Respondents Ita Robbins & Frana Matich who: “Has(ve) not given a time estimate” and who it is acknowledged by inference of the filing representations of the petitioner that the response to petition has not been filed yet, and there is time yet to file it as option (3) in paragraph 1 “The Petition is unopposed...”, has not been picke
A red flag should have gone up at BC Court Services when this notice of hearing document was submitted by Ron Bakonyi to Vancouver courthouse, BC Supreme Court for filing through BC Court Services online. It should have been rejected by BC Court Services online as invalid and no date should have provided at the registry for this hearing.
Canadian citizens like Ita Robbins & Frana Matich have put their heart soul and effort into their property for 4 decades should not be dealt with like they are worthless by government employees and dishonest lawyers. The registry is there to protect everyone. Disregarding everyone is not an acceptable rationale ('smile – file'- maybe hire more of us and we might do our job).
Because the Notice of Hearing is permitted to be served by ordinary mail, one can readily see how a less than ethical person could take advantage of petition respondent(s).
[The Notice of Hearing document is the last document the respondent is likely to receive prior to receiving the Index from the petitioner in an ordinary foreclosure].
Paragraph 3 of the Form 68 Notice of Hearing includes paragraph denoted as “Jurisdiction” which again demands that the filer check a box as to one of the following: “This matter is within the jurisdiction of a master” or “this matter is not within the jurisdiction of a master”.
[This tells us much going forward. The respondent(s) IR & FM have already commenced litigation against CMIC at New Westminster court....the petitioner knew this mortgage was very contentious prior to filing the petition in the incorrect courthouse].
The remainder of the notice of hearing document includes a space for “Date” “{ddmmmyyyy}” and space for either “signature of petitioner” or “lawyer for petitioner”.
The Notice of Hearing corresponds to BC Supreme Court Civil Rules and specifically Rule 16-1 (8).
Let's examine BC Civil Rules (to be used by the court registry) in consideration of document filing, to ensure that the Object of the Civil Rules is complied with (one would assume).
Under subsection (4) “Response to Petition” it stipulates: “A person who has been served with a copy of a filed petition under subrule (3) of this rule must, if the person wishes to receive notice of the time and date of the hearing of the petition, do the following: (a) file a response to petition in accordance with subrule (5), file, with the response to petition, all affidavits.....which the person intends to rely at the hearing of the petition.” ........ “(i) if the petition respondent was served with the petition anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after that service.”
Subsection (5) stipulates: “A response to petition must be in Form 67 (preceding Form 68 [for point]) and must indicate, for each order sought, whether the petitioner respondent consents to, opposes or takes no position on the order, and (b) if the petition respondent wishes to oppose any of the relief sought in the petition, (i) briefly summarize the factual and legal bases on which the orders should not be granted, (ii) list the affidavits and other documents on which the petition respondent intends to rely at the hearing of the petition, and (iii) set out the petition respondent's estimate of the time the (response) will take for hearing.”
Clearly the drafters of the BC Civil Rules and producers of the Forms, the Government of British Columbia through the Ministry of Justice and specifically BC Court Services all of whom are operating in conjunction with the Law Society of British Columbia intended the petition response to precede the filing of the Notice of Hearing, unless the time for filing the response to petition had expired.
[It is worth noting that the petition response calls for the respondent to make conspicuous declarations in response to those assertions made under the petition and to designate a time requirement for purposes of achieving a consensual hearing date and time estimate for hearing with a view to achieving a fair hearing of the matter].
It is essential therefore that the petitioner (in commencing the petition process) wait until either the petition response is filed, or the time for filing and serving the petition response has expired before seeking a hearing date. Alternatively, actually contacting the petition respondent as it did the petition respondent BMO Bank of Montreal.

Home| British Columbia Polls| Canada Polls| US and the World Polls| Contact| Register| Search| Site Map
Copyright Robbins SCE Research Inc. ©2017