Thursday, October 08, 2009

 

BC Rail Properties "has a mandate to sell off the properties that had been owned by BC Rail" ... if that's true, somebody please "Show us the deal!"

.
Brink Wins Court Case

By 250 News - Prince George
[Re-printed here by kind permission of Ben Meisner.]
Thursday, October 08, 2009

Prince George, B.C. - J.A. Brink Investments has won a court case against BCR Properties and it will send the company back to the drawing board on its efforts to buy the land on which it sits.

Brink has been leasing the property, and the case in court involves the appraisal of property on which Brink Investments had an option to buy.

Brink Investments argued the appraiser selected to set the price for the property, was not an independent third party and as such there was some bias which would have been in favour of BCR properties.

The Judge agreed, and issued an order that a new independent appraiser be appointed as well as extending the time frame for the preparation and delivery of the new appraisal as well as an extension of the time frame for Brink Investments to exercise it’s option to buy.

John Brink says the whole process has been very frustrating, that BCR Properties has a mandate to sell off the properties that had been owned by BC Rail, “But here we are four years later, still fighting with the Crown Corporation.”

Brink says the future of his company is at stake, with 180 employees now, and a plan to hire 120 more. “Our company has $5 million dollars invested in this” says Brink, who says his company still wants to exercise its option to buy the property once a new appraisal has been completed.


Read Opinion 250 Prince George HERE.

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Comments:
The first decision 09/05/07

41] I, therefore, make the following interim order:

The defendant is enjoined from selling, disposing or encumbering, or agreeing to sell, dispose of, or encumber the lands and premises described as Lot 1, District Lot 749, Cariboo District, Plan BCP39874 (PID: 027-828-051) in any manner that would be inconsistent with upholding the terms of the lease and option to purchase between the parties for a period of ninety (90) days following the date of this order, to accommodate a hearing by summary trial of the plaintiff’s claim to preserve its option to purchase the said lands and premises.

[42] I acknowledge the concerns of the defendant about the strength of an undertaking as to damages by the nominal plaintiff, so it is a condition of the granting of this interim interlocutory injunction that the undertaking as to damages must be provided by the plaintiff and BFP jointly and severally.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/06/2009BCSC0620.htm

Decision that the story is about
Date: 20091006

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/09/13/2009BCSC1369.htm

[3] The plaintiff argues that the defendant’s choice of appraiser breached the agreement because it had failed to appoint an independent third party appraiser. A reasonable apprehension of bias is alleged with respect to the appointment of the appraiser based on an extensive history of prior retainers of the appraiser by the defendant and on the conduct of the appraiser in the performance of his duties.

EM
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home