New A.C.J. Rooke decision

[Chief2k13]

Ok, So sure silence is kind of a complex topic. The one thing i notice with multi million dollar corporations is, you sign up say for President's Choice bank. The bank say no fee for banking at all. Only on overdrafts and NSF etc.. Nothing is mentioned about normally banking fee, so day to day banking and cheq use is free. Even ordering Cheq is free. So i sign up and it is all going well. A year or so later i get a letter in the mail alerting me to the new changes and monthly account fees. Now, i did not consent to these and when inquiring and informing them in writing i am not consenting to these new changes, they were more like its new policy nothing they could do.

So, number one, they inform me of the new contract or changes to it. Unilaterally changed without my consent, offer to close account if i dont wish to pay their monthly fees, do not offer me any remedy other than go bank else where. Now, sure they can say that or not wish to do business with you but the point was they changed the contract without consent of the client. Why send a notice at all if there is nothing that can be done, why not let client find out once he opens his statement ?

It would appear as an offer to me, i mean, they send over the new terms and i do not reject in writing right away, so what my silence made it binding ? Same with Credit cards, they send over letters indicating the increase in the % on the card, or informing you of a change in the contract. I did not agree but it was just changed anyways. So, am i to understand only a corporation is able to alter and unilaterally change contracts and we are not, they hold more power than people ? Keeping in mind, i read no where they could or would make changes without my consent nor did they make mention of it when signing up, full disclosure was not offered up.

I got one more, i may have posted about it. I altered a Rogers Contract, crossed out terms in the contract i did not like, even the monthly price. I lowered it a stupid small amount like 3 dollars a month. Crossed out and initialed the area where i crossed out. Agent signed and signed again but indicated he did not change the contract, client did. So, i pay for the new phone. The contract gets executed and im on my way with a 3 dollar a month contract for 3 years, all the bells and whistles. Now comes a monthly bill and it say 60 for the month, inform them of the changes and its been agreed to by the agent, who had the ability to reject my counteroffer. Keeping in mind, their contracts a boilerplate contracts, take it or leave it. Rogers did not want to acknowledge the written contract, signed by me and Rogers Agent, twice on same contract.

So, what i would like to get, is what is your perspective and why ? I understood going into Rogers store of the monthly price and everything but i still made a counter offer by altering the original contract. Does the Billion Dollar Corporation have more rights with their boiler plate contract or do people have the full right to counter offer ?

[AndyK]

Perhaps you could go back through your files and take a look at the original paperwork associated with your opening the bank account.

I'm positive that no one here will be the least bit surprised when you report back that the ORIGINAL agreement specifically allowed the bank to change the terms and your only recourse would be to (1) accept the changes by continuing to use the account or (2) close the account and take your banking business elsewhere.

There is a great difference between a mutually agreed-on contract containing such terms (which you were free to not accept at that time and walk elsewhere) AND a unilaterally issued "contract" stating failure to respond implies acceptance.

Perhaps you could read some of the earlier posts which discussed this matter in detail.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

So this particular legal saga has come to a rather sad denouement. The entire series of A.N.B. decisions relate, ultimately, to him and a female partner losing custody of their two children. At the Provincial Court level permanent guardianship was ordered. Both A.N.B. and his partner then appealed that to Queen's Bench. A.N.B.'s appeal was rejected, but his partner, A.R., was successful, and a re-trial was ordered.

That has led in the last while to a number of Alberta Court of Appeal decisions. A.N.B. initially appealed the Queen's Bench result, but then dropped his appeal. Alberta Family Services appealed the order of a retrial. Two decisions follow:

Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director) v AR, 2014 ABCA 38: http://canlii.ca/t/g2v44

A.N.B., the OPCA litigant in this action, applied to be re-added as a party to this litigation, or in the alternative to be added as an intervener. This is rejected:

[18] The applicant’s grounds of appeal in his appeal from Provincial Court to the Court of Queen’s Bench were rejected, and are totally unrelated. Adding the applicant as a respondent to the existing appeal would not allow him to upset or to have varied the Court of Queen’s Bench order, and so adding him really does not help him. He would need a cross-appeal or notice of intention to vary, and it is far too late for that, and indeed it might be an abuse of process, given the fact that he had an appeal and abandoned it.

[19] Now in the alternative, the applicant asks to intervene in the appeal. Intervention is not a matter that goes as of right. There is no special expertise or viewpoint of the applicant shown here.

[20] I do note that it is not certain whether the mother will or will not turn up next week to oppose the appeal. She has not filed a factum, and does not appear to have a lawyer, but she may come and oppose it. In any event, the children are separately represented. This is not a case where no one responds to the Director’s appeal. The children have experienced counsel, and they (through their counsel) elect to support the appeal, not oppose it. And I reiterate that the appeal is not about fitness of parents, or unfitness of parents. There does not seem to be any real dispute about that. The appeal of the mother to Court of Queen’s Bench and the appeal therefore from that to the Court of Appeal is all about procedure alone in the mother’s case. The Courts cannot guarantee that all appeals will be opposed.

[21] The applicant has not been a helpful litigant in this case, and has not chosen to argue actual merits; quite the contrary.

[22] The applicant has not shown a right to be added as a party, and it would be very harmful to the children and the process to add him at this very late stage, and so delay the appeal. The motion is denied.

That ends A.N.B.'s involvement.

The next decisions sees the Alberta Court of Appeal reverse the Queen's Bench result and confirmed that A.R. loses her challenge to the original permanent guardianship order: A.R. v Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, Director), 2014 ABCA 148 (http://canlii.ca/t/g6pdd). Since there is no Freeman/OPCA aspect to this decision I will simply note that the court decided that it would not be in the children's interest to delay this process, and that at the Queen's Bench level the judge was wrong to prioritize A.R.'s (disputed) right to procedural justice and counsel over the security of the children.

As far as I can see that now ends this litigation, with a result which is, simply, a sad one. A.N.B. and A.R.'s children are now permanently wards of the state, or until they are adopted by other parents. It is clear from the litigation that both biological parents are deeply distressed by this result, which is easy to understand.

As I think I have previously observed, I am not reporting the results of my Internet investigation of this litigation and parties. The Alberta Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, s. 126.2. prohibits everyone from publishing the name and photograph of a child, or the child's parents or guardians in a manner that reveals that the child is receiving, or has received, intervention services. For this reason I am limiting my reporting on A.N.B. and his activities.

SMS Möwe

[grixit]

There's a country song in this.