RPS battle goes to court

Photo: Wayne Moore

Wendi Swarbrick is again at the centre of a controversy involving the Rutland Park Society.

Infighting between the board of Rutland Park Society and members has reached the courts.

The society's board has petitioned the court, seeking to have a general meeting called by membership ruled invalid.

Several members made applications by requisition to call a general meeting this Thursday. Included are six special requisitions.

Four of those are seeking the expulsion of board members, treasurer Wendi Swarbrick, and directors at large Bob Dhanwant, Chase Jestley and Mike Vasco. 

Two other directors, vice-president Traci Savel and director at large Sukhdev Goraya, are also asked to resign.

Those involved in the requisitions claim the two provided misleading information to the membership at the October 2016 AGM.

In a petition filed in B.C. Supreme Court Monday, and amended Tuesday, the society directors are asking the court to declare the requisition defective and not valid, the meeting and that all business, special resolutions and general resolutions voted on be declared invalid.

It further asks a declaration be made that the directors of the society be constituted as they were June 19, and asks the respondents provide in writing evidence of allegations made against the directors and an affidavit confirming those who signed the requisition were aware of its contents.

The directors claim two society members who signed the requisition were not aware of accusations made and did not see a majority of documents included before signing.

They further claim the requisition and supporting letters exceed the 200-word maximum set out in the Societies Act.

"The petitioner submits that by enforcing the requisition, and holding a meeting that allows the respondents to perpetuate of false information, misguide members and harass or bully director and members, the petitioner would be acting contrary to its purposes and would be rendering the proceedings of the meeting ineffective, pursuant to sections 105(1)(b) and 105(1)(d) of the act," the petition concludes.