Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Ottawa CAS Avoids Compliance with Act

The following letter was sent to the Ottawa CAS's externally retained lawyer, in the ongoing matter where Dunn requested a list of the Society's members so he can communicate with them to ask them to requisition the Board for a meeting to amend their By-Laws to allow former wards to become members regardless of their location.

A Justice of the Peace suggested Dunn attempt to resolve the matter with the CAS prior to pressing private charges against them. It appears the Society is not willing to comply with the law and these communications are the result of those attempts to resolve the matter.

From John Dunn to Robert Morrow (Lawyer for CAS)

Robert C. Morrow

In your latest e-mail dated Wed 9th of September, 2009 you offered the following.

Before this proceeds any further, please confirm that if (i) the Society agrees to circulate a further proposed by-law amendment to its members, and (ii) commits to an annual one-time notification process in the future; you in turn are agreeing not to issue any further notices/requests/requisitions, under the Corporations Act. That is what I understand your "bombardment" comments to mean.

I can not agree to this offer by the Society since doing so would make me party to the offence committed by the Society or at least would put me in the position of agreeing to allow the Society to commit the offence they have committed under section 307 (5) of the Corporations Act.

This offer by the Society is also another attempt by them to unduly limit my rights under the Act to do what any Ontarian is permitted to do, and I have done nothing to deserve such an unfair, unjust treatment by the Society.

I have stated to you what it is I intend to do with the list, have sworn an affidavit to that effect in accordance with the statue, and it is not acceptable for the Society to tell me what I can and can not do when it is my right to do so.

Further, as everyone is aware, the Corporations Act is soon to undergo amendments so I do not want to make a permanent agreement today, which may unnecessarily limit my options after the amendments to the Act have been made.

Again, I repeat that I have never abused the Act, nor it's processes at any time and therefore do not require unnecessary limitations to be placed upon me. I have always treated the Society and the members with respect, even if that respect is sometimes overshadowed by justified mistrust due to the Society's repeated failures to respect the statute in its dealings with me.

No comments:

Post a Comment