CEF: Higgerty Law Statement of Claim Section T – Punitive Damages / Remedy Sought

This article is part of the series from the Higgerty Law statement of claim. You can read what a statement of claim and a Quistclose Trust is in the first article in this series.

The allegations in this section are the punitive damages can be summed up in section “T. Punitive Damages.” The remedy’s sought largely consist of damages against various alleged offenders in this sad tale.

This is the last installment in the statement of claim.

Please note that these are allegations only and this case has not been adjudicated in a court of law. As always, if you have any legal questions or need legal advice please consult appropriate legal counsel.


From Higgerty Law Statement of Claim

T. Punitive Damages

234. The ABC District, it Officers and Directors, LCC and LCCFM, knew or ought to have known that the putative Class and Sub-class members are in large part elderly people who are dependent upon their deposits in the CEF for their retirement and future financial security.

235. Between 1993 and December 31, 2014, the ABC District and its Officers and Directors caused or permitted ABC District to solicit, receive or renew deposits to the CEF from the Plaintiffs and putative Class and Sub-class members when they knew or were willfully blind to the fact that:

a. the ABC District was in breach of the CEF Trust;
b. the ABC District was in breach of the CEF Quistclose Trust;
c. ABC District was insolvent or on the eve of insolvency; and
d. ABC District was preparing to commence the CCAA Proceedings.

236. Between 1993 and December 31, 2014, LCC and LCCFM knowingly caused or
permitted ABC District to solicit, receive or renew deposits to the CEF Trust from the Plaintiffs and the putative Class and Sub-class members when they knew or were willfully blind to the fact that:

a. the ABC District was in breach of the CEF Trust;
b. the ABC District was in breach of the CEF Quistclose Trust;
c. ABC District was insolvent or on the eve of insolvency; and
d. ABC District was preparing to commence the CCAA Proceedings.

237. The ABC District, its Officers and Directors, willfully concealed from the CEF Depositors the fact that the ABC District was insolvent or on the eve of insolvency.

238. The conduct of the ABC District, its Officers and Directors, LCC and LCCFM as set out herein has been arrogant, high-handed, callous and reprehensible. It offends ordinary standards of morality and is deserving of condemnation and punishment through an award of punitive damages.

239. The Plaintiffs propose that that trial of this action take place in Edmonton, Alberta

Remedy sought:

240. The Plaintiffs claim on their own behalf and on behalf of the Alberta Lutheran Class, the Extra-provincial Lutheran Class, the Alberta Non-Lutheran Class and the Extra-Provincial Non-Lutheran Class, the following relief as against the Defendants the ABC District, LCC and LCCFM, jointly and severally:

(i) Damages for breach of contract;
(ii) Damages for breach of trust;
(iii) General damages;
(iv) Damages for rendering knowing assistance to breach of trust;
(v) Damages for knowing receipt of trust property;
(vi) A constructive trust;
(vii) A resulting trust;
(viii) Special damages;
(ix) Punitive damages;
(x) Damages for oppression;
(xi) Pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act;
(xii) Costs of this proceeding on a solicitor and own client full indemnity basis;
(xiii) Such further and other relief as this Court deems just.

241. The Plaintiff Beinert claims on his own behalf and on behalf of the Alberta Lutheran Class and the Extra-provincial Lutheran Class, as do the Plaintiffs, Glen Mitchell and Wiley Hertlein, the following relief as against the Defendants the ABC District, LCC and LCCFM, jointly and severally:

(i) Damages for breach of fiduciary duty.

242. The Plaintiffs claim on their own behalf, and on behalf of Alberta Lutheran Class, the Extra-provincial Lutheran Class, the Alberta Non-Lutheran Class and the Extra-Provincial Non-Lutheran Class, the following relief:

a. As against Taman and Bishop & McKenzie, jointly and severally:

(i) Damages for breach of trust;
(ii) Damages for rendering knowing assistance to breach of trust;
(iii) Pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act;
(iv) Costs of this proceeding on a solicitor and own client full indemnity basis;
(v) Such further and other relief as this Court deems just.

b. As against Shepherd’s Village Ministries Ltd. and the Officers and Directors of Shepherd’s Village Ministries Ltd., jointly and severally:

(i) Damages for knowing receipt of the SVML Lands and the proceeds of the SVML CEF Loans trust in breach of trust;
(ii) Damages for rendering knowing assistance to breach of trust;
(iii) Damages for knowing receipt of trust property;
(iv) A constructive trust;
(v) A resulting trust;
(vi) Pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act;
(vii) Costs of this proceeding on a solicitor and own client full indemnity basis;
(viii) Such further and other relief as this Court deems just.

c. As against Shepherd’s Village Ministries Ltd., Taman and Bishop & McKenzie, jointly and severally:

(i) Damages for knowing receipt of the SVML Lands and the proceeds of the
SVML CEF Loans in breach of trust;
(ii) Damages for rendering knowing assistance to breach of trust;
(iii) Pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act;
(iv) Costs of this proceeding on a solicitor and own client full indemnity basis;
(v) Such further and other relief as this Court deems just.

d. As against the ABC District, the POP Congregation., Taman and Bishop & McKenzie, jointly and severally:

(i) Damages for knowing receipt of trust funds acquired in breach of trust;
(ii) Damages for rendering knowing assistance to breach of trust with respect to
the Sale Proceeds Assignment Agreement;
(iii) Pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act;
(iv) Such further and other relief as this Court deems just.

e. As against Prowse and Prowse Chown, jointly and severally:

(i) Damages for breach of trust with respect to the POP Village CEF Mortage Loan to ECHS;
(ii) Damages for rendering knowing assistance to breach of trust with respect to the above;
(iii) Pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act;
(iv) Costs of this proceeding on a solicitor and own client full indemnity basis;
(v) Such further and other relief as this Court deems just.

f. As against Encharis Community Housing and Services and the Officers and Directors of Encharis Community Housing and Services, jointly and severally:

(i) Damages for knowing receipt of the POP Village Lands and the POP Village CEF Loans in breach of trust;
(ii) Damages for rendering knowing assistance to breach of trust;
(iii) Damages for knowing receipt of trust property;
(iv) A constructive trust;
(v) A resulting trust;
(vi) Pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act;
(vii) Costs of this proceeding on a solicitor and own client full indemnity basis;
(viii) Such further and other relief as this Court deems just.

g. As against Encharis Community Housing and Services, Prowse and Prowse Chown, jointly and severally:

(i) Damages for knowing receipt of the POP Village Lands and the POP Village CEF Loans acquired in breach of trust;
(ii) Damages for breach of trust;
(iii) Damages for rendering knowing assistance to breach of trust;
(iv) Pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act;
(v) Such further and other relief as this Court deems just.

h. As against the ABC District Officers and Directors, jointly and severally:

(i) Damages for negligence;
(ii) Damages for rendering knowing assistance to breach of trust;
(iii) Damages for oppression;
(iv) Punitive damages;
(v) Pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act;
(vi) Costs of this proceeding on a solicitor and own client full indemnity basis;
(vii) Such further and other relief as this Court deems just.

i. As against the Prince of Peace Congregation:

(i) Damages for knowing receipt of the POP Congregation Loan and trust funds acquired in breach of trust;
(ii) Damages for rendering knowing assistance to breach of trust;
(iii) Damages for knowing receipt of trust property;
(iv) A constructive trust;
(v) A resulting trust;
(vi) Pre-judgment interest in accordance with the Judgment Interest Act;
(vii) Such further and other relief as this Court deems just.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Website Powered by WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: