Half-Truths Revealed: The Shocking Story You Won't Believe Is Happening.
Decoding #McMortgageGate-An Unlawful MTG Foreclosure Exposed
Member's Disclosure Statement
A Credit Union member's fair comments, touching on public interest, based on fact, recognizable as commentary by the member or opinion, honestly held by the member and not malicious, in that the member believes the comments to be true at the time they are made, acting reasonably in expressing any opinions and has reasonable grounds to believe the words are true and/or substantially true relying on their own personal experience(s) as a Credit Union Member and Past employee, the Credit Union's PIPEDA documentation and response(s) and the Credit Union's Public court action(s) and executed documentation against this member QBG 290/16 and QBG 15/22 as sworn evidence.
Accountability: The Dynamics of A Credit Union Governance
Update: December 28, 2023 the OPCC confirmed that their draft report of findings dated March 17, 2023,
is in FACT the FINAL report of findings into their investigation.
The complainant under Section 14 of the Act can request a hearing in a Federal Court to take a fresh look.
Precedent Decision: Nammo Vs Trans Union
Update: January 6, 2024 QBG 15/22 Court of King's Bench,
Battleford Saskatchewan, Canada.
As a Defendant, and Plaintiff by counterclaim, The MEMBER initiated the NEXT step in the Court process on Sept 22, 2023 the member's Affidavit of documents have been filed (791 pages).
Still waiting for the the affidavit of documents from the plaintiff a Canadian Credit Union and defendant by counterclaim
that stated April 17, 2023 in a letter that they will advance this litigation EXPEDITIOUSLY, and because this matter is now before the courts it should be dealt within that context.
Next step once the Credit Union files their affidavit of documents:
Questioning witnesses under oath, which directors and employees sign a "Declaration of Office" on an annual basis, which is witnessed by a commissioner of oaths, knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath, and by virtue of the CANADIAN EVIDENCE ACT:
"That I will not knowingly violate or permit to be violated ANY of the provisions of the Credit Union Act or the provisions of the Regulations governing ALL credit unions in the province of Saskatchewan."
"Canadian Charter of rights and freedom which guarantees freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression"
The Fallout of Rejecting a CU Settlement Proposal over QBG 15/22 - #McMortgageGate; Standing up for #WorldCreditUnion Member's
Credit Union Dec 7, 2022 Defence filed with the Court of King's Bench:
1. The Plaintiff, (Defendant by Counterclaim), CREDIT UNION LTD., denies each and every allegation in the Counterclaim and puts the Defendant, (Plaintiff by Counterclaim) to the strict proof thereof.
2007.11.01 Credit Union Declaration of Office and Oath of Secrecy (pdf)
Download2007.11.01 Credit Union Fraud Policy (pdf)
Download2021.10.06 Market Code Complaint-CU ignored/cont'd to collect info without consent = Court QBG 15/22 (pdf)
Download2022.01.25 QBG 15/22 CU Claim for libel, slander & relief against frivolous and vexatious complaints (pdf)
Download2022.03.28 Credit Unions Proposed Settlement Proposal QB Against the Canadian Charter of Rights (pdf)
Download2022.11.18 - NOBLE's Statement of Defence to Credit Union's Court Action QBG 15/22 & Counter Claim (pdf)
Download2022.12.07 Credit Unions Defense to Members Counterclaim QBG 15_22 (pdf)
Download2023.04.17 CU will advance litigation EXPEDITIOUSLY, Sent Prior to Mediation Apr 24/23 (pdf)
Download2023.03.17 OPCC Final Draft PIPEDA-039834 - Investigation CU must comply by end of Dec 2023 (pdf)
Download2023.09.22 Nobles Affidavit of Documents filed Sept 22, 2022 includes 791 pages for QBG 15_22.1 (pdf)
DownloadNailing Financial Literacy; to Retrieve Lost Profit Shares $
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM ON BEHALF OF CREDIT UNION DECEMBER 2022
- Point 2: The Plaintiff, (Defendant by Counterclaim), states at no time has it failed to provide payment to the Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim) (of any amounts owing under its Profit Share Program that were properly due and owing to her and that it has complied strictly with the terms of its Profit Share Agreement as mandated both by The Credit Union Act and under the terms of its Bylaws and all contractual obligations.
- The Member of the Credit Union in good standing with a CMHC insured mortgage ($194,401.35; $127,800 represented as staff mortgage) on her home held by the Credit Union for a number of years, from October 2007, through March 2017.
- Under PIPEDA documents received by the Credit Union January 21, 2020 it was discovered that The Credit Union executed incorrect Mortgage Documents in October 29, 2007 for the Member's Mortgage; including (1) Changes that were made that were not initialed by the member (2) The Member's name was not correct (3) The member's signature was not witnessed (4) Had the member incorrectly sign a "Profit Share Withdraw/Reinstatement" Form for the withdrawal of profit share on the full amount of the simplicity mortgage of $194, 401.35 (5) Did not execute documentation for Staff Loan Program that $127,800 of the mortgage was eligible for profit shares.
- The Credit Union revised the documents on December 17, 2007, which the Member did execute. At page 3, Point 14 there of the Credit Union form states: "I acknowledge and accept that loans issued under the Staff Loan Program are eligible for sharing In the "Profit Share Program" allocation at the Credit Union. Member Profit Share Account #201101447614; as per Credit Union Statement(s) from 2007 to 2015.
- The Credit Union failed/refused to have the member complete and sign the correction to the "Profit Share Withdraw/Reinstatement" Form to reinstate her profit shares for the staff MTG amount of $127,800 that were represented under the staff loan program and to date denies any profit shares are owed.
- On October 5, 2011 an employee of the Credit Union, created a note on the Member's profile, "Removed from Staff loan program October 5, 2011". The Credit Union increased the Member's mortgage by over 2% without the legislated 30 days notice. The Member's payment was increased without her knowledge increasing the risk of her biweekly mortgage payment to become delinquent for insufficient funds. The Member was able to ensure that no payments became delinquent despite the insufficient notice provided by the Plaintiff.
- The Credit Union did not pay any profit shares due and owing to the member under their staff loan program on the MTG $127,800 represented as staff mortgage; the Credit Union closed the Profit Share Account December 2015 with a zero balance without the member's knowledge or consent.
- The Credit Union failed/refused to include the December 17, 2007 revised Mortgage Documents from (1) Court File QBG 290/16 (2) December 22, 2016 Mortgage Affidavit sworn to the Court by the Credit Union's Manager of Risk (3) Court File QBG 15/22; they only reference Mortgage Documents from October 29, 2007 that were incorrect and incomplete when audited by the Credit Union themselves in December 2007.
October 3, 2007 Documented Proof of Member and Profit Share Accounts (pdf)
Download10.05.07 CMHC Fees CU added to Original Mortgage (pdf)
DownloadOctober 29, 2007 Credit Union Incorrectly Withdrew the eligibility of Profit Shares on MTG (pdf)
DownloadNov 23, 2007 CU Statement Proof of Membership, Profit Share, CMHC & Staff MTG Amount (PDF)
DownloadDecember 17, 2007 Documented Proof $127,800 of Staff MTG Qualified for Profit Shares (pdf)
Download2015.12.23 CU Statement shows Profit Share Account with Zero Balance; Terminated without notice (pdf)
DownloadJourney into The Dark Side of A Credit Union Operations.
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM ON BEHALF OF CREDIT UNION DECEMBER 2022
- Point 3: The Plaintiff, (Defendant by Counterclaim), states that it did not wrongfully or maliciously commence any legal action including any such foreclosure against the Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim).
- The Credit Union's Manager of Risk, in a statement to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission said in September of 2017 that when she saw the Member's August 5th, 2015 Facebook Post about the Credit Union's $75 fee. She entered a note about it in the "relationship profile" for the member in the Credit Union's computer system. It was a restriction on the member's ability to renew their mortgage in July of 2016.
- In an attempt to justify the Credit Union's choice not to renew the member's mortgage, the Credit Union indiscriminately collected Facebook posts that the member made to a private Facebook group, for unidentified purposes and without authority. In turn, distributed the Facebook posts to external parties such as, but not limited to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission Investigator who was in charge of the Investigation into the members July 5, 2016 complaint filed against the Credit Union File #16-17-122 for imposing a financial loss and disadvantage against her.
- On June 2, 2016, the Credit Union had internal discussions to reach an agreed upon approach regarding the member's business relationship and mortgage renewal. The email included their CEO, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial and Risk Officer, Manager of Risk and several other management. The Credit Unions CEO and management decision of freeing the member up from their relationship with the Credit Union by having the member move their business from the Credit Union including their mortgage. Statement at the end of the email: "We should expect some social media BUZZ when the member learns of this." The Credit Union had named their Chief Operating Officer as a witness for the members File #16-17-122 Human Rights Complaint but the Chief Operating Officer failed or refused to be interviewed.
- June 27, 2016 the member's counsel received an email from the Credit Union's counsel: Please take this email as 30 days notice that the mortgage will not be renewed (July 23, 2016) and we would ask Ms. McDonald begin making arrangements to find alternate financing... The Credit Union is unprepared to have Ms. McDonald continue as a member.
- This email was intended to have the member believe that the Credit Union Board voted for the termination of her termination, which was not true. Pursuant to section 69 of The Credit Union Act, 1998, termination of membership can be completed only when there is a meeting held by the Board of Directors and there is a majority decision to terminate the membership, with an appeal process available to the member. The Credit Union CEO and management involved in the June 2, 2016 email provided as evidence to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, did not have the legal authority with respect to the termination of membership, which could only occur where the statutory requirements were satisfied.
- March 24, 2017 the Credit Union CEO with counsel present told the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission that he ultimately decided to end the business relationship with McDonald.
- Going back to June 21st, 2016 the member retained legal counsel in order to request a mortgage renewal at a posted rate available to all members and in exchange the member would NO LONGER voice her opinion of the Credit Union and would move the mortgage to another financial institution July 23, 2017. (31 year amortization remaining on mortgage)
- June 22, 2016 the Credit Union's Manager of Risk determined to proceed with foreclosure against the member if her mortgage was not paid out on July 23, 2016.
- However, the Credit Union representatives failed to execute the required demand documentation and improperly commenced foreclosure against the member that prompted the member to initiate her second complaint on July 5, 2016 File #16-17-122 to the Human Rights Commission against the Credit Union for breach of section 53 of the Code which is intended to protect those who participate in the Commission's process as a complainant ( original complaint 2011 to 2014). It is a breach for any person to intimidate, retaliate against, coerce or impose any kind of penalty, loss or disadvantage on any person who has participated in the Commission's process, including as a complainant.
- On July 30, the Credit Union's Manager of Risk noted on the member's relationship profile, "Have sent the mortgage renewal to Jeff Kerr." The Manager of Risk willingly and knowingly executing a legal "Mortgage Renewal and Disclosure Statement" with an effective date of July 23, 2016, in contravention of c.c-41.01 Cost of Credit Disclosure Act, 2002 28 (1) If the amortization period for a mortgage loan under a scheduled-payments credit agreement is longer than the term of the loan, the credit grantor shall notify the borrower in writing, at least 21 days before the end of the term, which would have been July 2, 2016.
- The Manager of Risk's, note on the Credit Union System stating, "Have sent Mortgage Renewal to Jeff Kerr" was not disclosed but wrongfully withheld from the Credit Union's August 23, 2016, Respondent Questionnaire to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. And wrongfully omitted/withheld from the Mortgage Affidavit the Manager of Risk sworn in December 22, 2016 and submitted to the courts on March 2017.
- Pursuant to the Cost of Credit Disclosure Act 2002; Remedies for contravening this Act - s.48 (1) A contravention of this Act by a credit grantor is an excusable error if (c) on discovering the contravention, the credit grantor promptly took steps to "Minimize" its effect on the borrower.
- The Credit Union upon discovery of their error and minimizing the effect on the member by offering her the one year rate at 3.14% (as advertised and posted as an available rate for ALL members of the Credit Union). Instead, wrongfully executed a letter dated August 5, 2016, representing the the Credit Union's Manager of Risks executed July 30, 2016, Mortgage Renewal and Disclosure Documents with an effective date of July 23, 2016, WERE BEING MADE AVAILABLE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CREDIT UNION'S GOVERNING LEGISLATION, the Cost of Credit Act, 2002.
The Credit Unions actions contravened the Cost of Credit Act, 2002 by:
(1) not providing ANY mortgage documentation prior to June 23, or July 2, 2016
(2) offering ONLY one renewal term of 6.3%, a bi-weekly increase of $167.06
(3) Stating that the member MUST make a decision accepting the 6.3% mortgage interest rate within 10 days (August 15, 2016), or FACE A "FORECLOSURE ACTION"
THE CREDIT UNION PROCEEDS TO TAKE POSSESSION OF MEMBER'S MORTGAGE BY INITIATING FORECLOSURE WITH NOTICE OF INTENTION DATED OCTOBER 6, 2016 - COURT FILE QBG 290/16.
2015.08.05 Manager of Risk places Restriction on Members July 23, 2016 Renewal (pdf)
Download2016.06.02 Credit Union CEO and Management email to end membership and not renew 2016 MTG (pdf)
DownloadCredit Union Act, 1998, C-45.2 Section (69) Termination of Membership (pdf)
Download2016.06.22 Manager of Risk states if MTG not pad out by July 23, 2016 they will Foreclose on MTG (pdf)
Download2016.06.25 17-D- CU Employee on FB Defames Members Character Still an employee with Credit Union (pdf)
Download2016.07.30 Credit Union Manager of Risk Willingly & Knowingly Contravenes Cost of Credit act, 2002 (pdf)
DownloadCost of Credit Disclosure Act, 2002, C-41.01 - 28 & 29 & 48-Remedies for contravening this Act (pdf)
Download2016.08.03 CU MTG Renewal and Disclosure Docs dated July 23, 2016 @ 6.3% or will Foreclose (pdf)
DownloadForeclosure QBG 290.16 - Pg 8 Notice of Intention - Shows Sept 30 MTG Payment was failed to be made (pdf)
Download2016.09.30 Credit Union Statement with PROOF Sept 30, 2016 MTG payment was Made by the Member (pdf)
DownloadFirst Human Rights Complaint Nov 10, 2011 to May 2, 2014
CREDIT UNION OMITS TO COURT QBG 15/22 SASKATCHEWAN HUMAN RIGHTS SETTLEMENT #11-151
- A complaint was made to the Saskatchewan Human Rights office November I 0, 2011
- The complaint was formalized on April 23, 2012
- The complaint stated in summary that the member had reasonable grounds to believe and does believe that the Credit Union actions amount to discrimination in employment on the basis of sex and disability contrary to Section 16 of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code.
- The complaint was served to the Credit Union by letter dated April 27. 2012. That letter provided further information concerning the complaint.
- The Credit Union retained and so advised the Commission. May 7, 2012.
- The Credit Union was asked to provide a response to the complaint. Counsel for the Credit Union provided a response to the complaint May 29, 2012.
- The Credit Union was invited to attend early mediation. A process without fee and conducted on a without prejudice basis.
- The Credit Union declined early mediation on Sept 18, 2012, and asked the matter proceed to investigation.
- The investigation of the complaint had begun November 2012.
- Documents were gathered and statements were taken. Counsel for the Credit Union was kept apprised of the status of the ongoing investigation.
- At the time of the member's 2011 human rights complaint, Glenn Stang (the member's previous management supervisor while employed at the Credit Union) was the Chief Operating Officer. It was in January 2013, that Glenn Stang appointed CEO of the Credit Union (and is still the current CEO).
- All parties were granted disclosure of the investigation results April 2013. Counsel for the Credit Union was sent the disclosure report by letter dated April 18, 2013, and was asked to provide a response, if any, by May 2, 2013.
- The Credit Union provided its response through its counsel by letter dated May I, 20 I 3.
- The Chief Commissioner reviewed the evidence gathered and determined that s29.5 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code should apply.
- Throughout our process, we attempt to provide parties with opportunity to reach resolution.
- The investigation seeks to gather all evidence that is critical in deciding whether the complaint should be dismissed pursuant to s27.1(2). In cases where there are no grounds to dismiss the complaint pursuant to s27.1(2), the Chief Commissioner has the discretion to direct the parties enter in mediation in an effort to resolve the outstanding complaint before a hearing takes place. Directed mediation occurred in SK 11 151.
- Meditation took place in Saskatoon Human Rights office Feb 2014, the Credit Union's Counsel and Human Resources Manager attended (Not the CU CEO), the member attended Self-Represented.
- Instead of going to trial, the Credit Union forwarded a settlement offer, the member believing this ended her complaint signed the agreement March 24, 2014. The Credit Union CEO signed March 31st, 2014.
- The Credit Union had not fulfilled its obligations under the settlement until May 2, 2014.
- As per section 42 of the member's defence to the Credit Union's second court action towards the member since settling her first Human Rights Complaint; "While being self represented, on March 24, 2014, the member entered a settlement agreement of a valid 2014 complaint against the Credit Union with the assistance and oversight of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission with the Current CEO Glenn Stang (signed and executed March 31, 2014 with counsel) denies knowledge of. Subsequent to this the Credit Union has pursued two frivolous and vexatious court actions against the member. As a result, the Credit Union has breached Section 53 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code which is intended to protect those who participate in the Commission's process as a complainant.
- Section 53 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code which is intended to protect those who participate in the Commission's process as a complainant. It is a breach for any person to intimidate, retaliate against, coerce, or impose any kind of penalty, loss or disadvantage on any person who has participated in the Commission's process, including as a complainant.
- Current CEO of the Credit Union has taken intentional steps and decisions linked to the member's participation in the Commission's process by terminating the member's employment while returning from sick leave in 2011 and as evidence by his management(s) actions including but not limited to his April 7, 2014 letter to Tim McMilion MLA on Credit Union Letter head with a complaint about the Saskatchewan Human Rights commission, and the June 2, 2016 decision to revoke the member's membership with the Credit Union, and not renew her mortgage, without just cause.
- Evidence provided by Glenn Stang (Witness A) with Counsel present to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for the Member's Second Complaint made August 5, 2016 for File# 16-17-122; March 24, 2017 interview that can be utilized in court:
- Has worked at Synergy since August, 1997. He is currently the CEO and oversees the complete operations at Synergy and reports to the Board.
- At the time of the member's 2011 human rights complaint, He was the Chief Operating Officer. In January 2013, He was appointed CEO. The human rights complaint was not yet concluded. He said he did not, and still does not, know the full nature of the member's original complaint. The details were not disclosed to him.
- He approved the settlement agreement that ended that complaint.
- He said that he supported and approved the decision to not renew the member's mortgage in 2016, and to end the business relationship. The decision to take this step was made at the operational level and brought to him for confirmation. He said, such recommendations come to him are already vetted, usually through the Chief Operating Officer, and are well thought out. None of the employees involved with member's mortgage or the decision to end the business relationship had any involvement with teh member's original human rights complaint.
- He said that there were several different staff members saying that they did not want to deal with member. Which he stated had been alleged to have been abusive towards Synergy staff.
- That the member also made critical Facebook postings, which merely confirmed her negative perspective on the Credit Union.
- He said that the matter was brought to him and he offered to meet with her, but she refused. He said he has, in the past, coached people and given them an opportunity to change their behavior and this was the same approach he took with this member.
- Said that he ultimately decided to end the business relationship with the member.
- He said that Synergy provided several options to McDonald to give her extra time to move her mortgage.
The member was not interviewed by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Investigator until April 9, 2017
To be Continued...
2015.08.05 Manager of Risk places Restriction on Members July 23, 2016 Renewal (pdf)
Download2016.06.02 Credit Union CEO and Management email to end membership and not renew 2016 MTG (pdf)
DownloadCredit Union Act, 1998, C-45.2 Section (69) Termination of Membership (pdf)
Download2016.06.25 17-D- CU Employee on FB Defames Members Character Still an employee with Credit Union (pdf)
DownloadCost of Credit Disclosure Act, 2002, C-41.01 - 28 & 29 & 48-Remedies for contravening this Act (pdf)
DownloadForeclosure QBG 290.16 - Pg 8 Notice of Intention - Shows Sept 30 MTG Payment was failed to be made (pdf)
DownloadA Member's Nightmare: Trust is Broken by A False Foreclosure
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM ON BEHALF OF CREDIT UNION DECEMBER 2022
- Point 3: The Plaintiff, (Defendant by Counterclaim), states that it did not wrongfully or maliciously commence any legal action including any such foreclosure against the Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim).
- October 5, 2016 the Credit Union Executed a "Notice of Intention" demand documents, which misrepresented the member's finances, her mortgage and omitted material information in the Credit Unions sworn evidence.
- The Credit Union stated in their Notice of Intention to the Ministry of Justice that the last payment made by the member on her mortgage was made on September 16, 2016 in the amount of $324.58; which was incorrect and incomplete. The September 16, 2016, the payment was $324.58 plus a Principal Only Payment of $75.42 and the last payment made was September 30, 2016. The Notice of Intention was signed by the Credit Union's counsel on October 6, 2016.
- The Credit Unions September 21, 2021 states under Credit Union Accuracy Report: Response - Request #3: There was a principal only payment of $75.42 bi-weekly on Loan 800201447614 that started on Nov 13, 2015. Ms. McDonald’s statements would reflect the principal only payments.
- The Credit Union did not serve their Notice of Intention on the member's counsel but had it delivered to the Member at her home address on October 18th, 2016 (who is not a lawyer) in Lloydminster, Saskatchewan. The Credit Union falsely stated to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission November 12, 2020 that "We are satisfied that NO incorrect information was filed with the court or any misrepresentation or omission in the sworn evidence". July 23 and September 21st, 2021 Credit Union's Accuracy Report under PIPEDA and added to the member's file: Credit Union Response - Request #1 states the same, "We would further note that all applications were served on your counsel at the time".
- Following the member's communication with the office of the Ministry of Justice and subsequent to the Credit Union's representation in it's correspondence of August 2016, to the effect that the Credit Union complaint handling process governed under the Saskatchewan Law Market Code was available to the member. The member filed an official complaint dated October 19, 2016, with proof the September 30, 2016, mortgage payment had been made to the Credit Union.
- The member had her October 19, 2016 complaint hand delivered to the Credit Union's Manager of the Lloydminster Branch and to the Credit Union's counsel on October 21, 2016. In addition, 12 individual copies of the complaint were sent under separate cover to the Credit Union's (then and some now) board members.
- The Credit Union's August 12, 2016 letter shows that the credit union's complaint handling process is a formalized and sequential process conducted in accordance with our Market Code, which is applicable to all Saskatchewan Credit Unions. It is the board's policy for the Credit Union to strictly adhere and comply with it. Market Code standards with respect to timing requirements for complaints require that: (1) Complains will be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt (2) Investigation results are to be communicated along with any appropriate off of redress within 8 weeks of receipt of a complaint (3) An overall time limit of 8 weeks from receipt of the complain to the issue of a final response is required. and; (4) Free of charge – a fee will not be charged to cover the costs incurred in dealing with a complaint.
- The Credit Union board members did not receive their copies of the member's October 19th, 2016, complaint prior to their October 31, 2016, board meeting, nor did the Credit Union acknowledge the member's complaint within 5 working days of receipt as per the Credit Union's Market Code obligations under Saskatchewan Law.
- As a result of the Credit Union's execution of its October 6, 2016, "Notice of Intention" and their November 1, 2016 "Application Without Notice" stating the member is not represented by a lawyer thereby contravening "Market Code" and PIPEDA #6 Accuracy; despite proof the Member's September 30, 2016, mortgage payment was duly made;
This demonstrates that the Credit Union Willingly and knowingly contravenes c.L-16 The Limitation of Civil Rights Act for Saskatchewan, and in particular contravened: The secured party SHALL NOT, by reason ONLY of failure by the debtor to make a PAYMENT under an agreement, take "ANY PROCEEDINGS to take POSSESSION" of an article that is, in whole or in part, the security under the agreement.
2013 Sask Central Market Code Handbook Market (pdf)
Download2020.08.25 Credit Union letter to Member - No Wrong Doing - No Corrections to be made (pdf)
DownloadLimitation of Civil Rights Act, L-16 PG 10 Right to possession restricted #20 (pdf)
Download2016.10.23 CU Statement Proof Sept 30, 2016 MTG payment was made - CU Auto WDs Payments (pdf)
Download2020.10.09 email to SCU Privacy Officer Request Date Oct 19/16 Complaint was sent to CU Lawyer (pdf)
Download10.05.07 CMHC Fees CU added to Original Mortgage - Lost Coverage when MTG was transferred (pdf)
DownloadA CU & the Silent Battle: Addressing Complaint Mishandling
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM ON BEHALF OF CREDIT UNION DECEMBER 2022
- Point 3: The Plaintiff, (Defendant by Counterclaim), states that it did not wrongfully or maliciously commence any legal action including any such foreclosure against the Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim).
- The Credit Union's July 23, 2021 Response to member's PIPEDA Accuracy report includes Credit Union's November 29, 2016 letter and states; "November 29, 2016, Synergy CU sent Member’s solicitor a letter offering the same 2 mortgage options that were below Synergy CU’s posted rates and 12 months to transfer her mortgage to another FI. If not accepted, Synergy CU advised of foreclosure action. And; Ms. McDonald has a copy of this letter from her original Access to Information Request to Synergy Credit
- The letter of November 29th, 2016 was not received by the member's counsel and the Credit Union has not provided a read receipt of such letter being received by the member's counsel. The member has an email dated August 12, 2020 from lawyer stating that the November 29th, 2016 letter was not in the members counsel's file from 2016.
- Sept 10, 2020 the Credit Union still had outstanding the item from the member's file which was a copy of her complaint from October 2016. The Credit Union's Privacy Officer's email states, "There is one more outstanding item from your file which is a copy of your complaint from October 2016. The CU did not have a copy of this complaint on hand as it was with our solicitor. Attached is a copy from our solicitor of your complaint along with the Credit Union's response to this complaint that was sent to your solicitor on November 29, 2016."
- Note from above under "Credit Union Member Allegations Surface of Unfair Mortgage Foreclosure Tactics"; #6 The member had her October 19th, 2016 complaint hand delivered to the Credit Union's Manager of the Lloydminster Branch and to the Credit Union's counsel on October 21, 2016. In addition, 12 individual copies of the complaint were sent under separate cover to the Credit Union's (then and some now) board members.
- The letter dated November 29, 2016, which the Credit Union's Privacy Officer states was sent in reply to the member's complaint on October 19, 2016, did not include any proof of the member making the mortgage payment on September 30, 2016. However, it did mention in paragraph 6 from the Credit Union's Counsel, "My client has also provided me with the complaint that Ms. McDonald submitted to the Credit Union and its Board. Regarding the complaint submitted to the Credit Union, my client has informed me that Management initially viewed the complaint as a direct appeal to the Board rather than to management and therefore DID NOT PROVIDE A DIRECT RESPONSE." The member interprets this communication as evidence that the Credit Union violated their complaint handling process by failing to acknowledge the member's October 19th, 2016 complaint with evidence of making the September 30th, 2016 mortgage payment within five days as required by Market Code under Saskatchewan Law.
- The letter dated November 29, 2016 from the Credit Union's Counsel, "In response to the request for an outline of Synergy's actions to date, we must note that we indicated to Ms. McDonald and to your office during June of 2016 that my client would not be renewing the mortgage and this was acknowledged by yourself as counsel for Ms. McDonald. I further note that we exchanged correspondence had not received any offers that it was determined we MUST commence our foreclosure application. It was on October 6 that we served the Provincial Mediation Board and our notice was "delivered" on October 7th, 2016. ONLY ON NOVEMBER 1ST, 2016 did we obtain an "Appointment" for the present date.
- On November 1st, 2016 one day after the Credit Union's Board meeting and less than 30 clear days of their October 6, 2016 Notice of Intention stating the Credit Union intends to apply Ex Parte. The Credit Union files Form 6-4; "Application Without Notice" requesting the following relief: (a) Foreclosure of the mortgage (b) Judicial sale of or acquisition of title to the mortgage premises (c) POSSESSION (or IMMEDIATE POSESSION) of the mortgage premises (d) Appointment of Receiver of the rents, issues, and profits of the mortgaged premises (e) Costs; and (f) Related relief.
- The Credit Union's Form 6-4; "Application Without Notice" states under "Respecting opposite parties": The Credit Union's Counsel Marked "None of the other parties is represented by a lawyer".
- The Credit Union's counsel told the Law Society that they simply checked the wrong box, despite the fact that their August 5, 2016 Mortgage Disclosure and Renewal Documentation, Notice of Intention, and the Application Without Notice that the member believes provides a clear and concise effort to conspire and foreclose on the member's mortgage which was premeditated. The Credit Union stated in their Notice of Intention that falsely stated (1) the member failed to make the September 30th, Mortgage payment and signed the document on October 6, 2016; then (2) Stated the Credit intended to apply ex-parte and stating all court applications were served on the member's lawyer when they were not (3) In the notice of Intention requesting the following relief: (a) A declaration as to the amount owing under the mortgage with interest according to the terms thereof; (b) IMMEDIATE SALE TO THE PLAINTIFF OR OTHERWISE (c) In the alternative, IMMEDIATE FORECLOSURE (d) An order of POSESSION (e) An Order for appointment of a Receiver and/or Interim Receiver (f) An Order GRANTING a period of REDEMPTION OF ONE DAY, or such other period as the Court may direct. g) ALL legal costs and expenses incurred by or allowed to the Plaintiff, including those as between solicitor and client; and (h) Such other relief as the nature of this case may require and to this "Honorable Court May Seem Just"
- The last paragraph of the Credit Union's November 29th, 2016 letter stated, "Again, we would hope that this matter could simply be resolved by your client obtaining alternate lending and the parties simply part ways." The Credit Union refused to provide the member's counsel with payout information on her mortgage as early as Feb 2017, it was only until the alternate financial institution approximately on March 8th, 2017 that the Credit Provided the alternative Financial Institution payout information, not the member's counsel.
- Paragraph 4 of the November 29th, 2016 letter that mirrors Jason Bazinet's December 12th, 2016 Sworn Court affidavit stating, If neither of these renewal options is acceptable to Ms McDonald, she may transfer her mortgage to an alternative lender and my client would waive its $250.00 mortgage transfer fee and REIMBERSE HER FOR ANY MORTGAGE TRANFER COSTS CHARGED BY THE NEW LENDER IN AN AMOUNT UP TO $750.00. After exhaustive efforts for the Credit Union to pay the $750 transfer costs, the Credit Union has failed and/or refused to reimburse ANY mortgage transfer costs that the member incurred.
- It is important to note as a financial loss, the member lost their CMHC mortgage status in which the Credit Union added to the member's mortgage in 2007 in the amount of $6,301.35 that the member is still paying on their mortgage to date.
- The Credit Union did not provide this November 29th, 2016 letter with this information to the member or her counsel, but did finally provide the letter to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission on October 9, 2018, following the conclusion of the investigation and report of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission was already completed. The member contends and believes the Credit Union conspired to delay this investigation and withheld the November 29, 2016 letter as information for the purpose of causing the applicable limitation period for suit by the member against the plaintiff to expire.
2013 Sask Central Market Code Handbook Market (pdf)
Download2020.08.25 Credit Union letter to Member - No Wrong Doing - No Corrections to be made (pdf)
DownloadLimitation of Civil Rights Act, L-16 PG 10 Right to possession restricted #20 (pdf)
Download2016.10.23 CU Statement Proof Sept 30, 2016 MTG payment was made - CU Auto WDs Payments (pdf)
Download2020.10.09 email to SCU Privacy Officer Request Date Oct 19/16 Complaint was sent to CU Lawyer (pdf)
Download2016.11.29 CU Response to Oct 19 Complaint ignores MTG Payment was Made Admits Foreclosure Action (pdf)
DownloadExposing Unethical Practices in CU's Foreclosure Process
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM ON BEHALF OF CREDIT UNION DECEMBER 2022
- Point 3: The Plaintiff, (Defendant by Counterclaim), states that it did not wrongfully or maliciously commence any legal action including any such foreclosure against the Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim).
QBG 290/16 Synergy Credit Union Vs Tricia McDonald
- June 2, 2016, the Credit Union had internal discussions to reach an agreed upon approach regarding the member's mortgage renewal. The Credit Union's CEO and management (as mentioned in their November 29, 2016 letter) made a decision of freeing the member up from her "relationship" with the Credit Union by having her mover her "business from the Credit Union INCLUDING HER MORTGAGE."
- The CEO of the Credit Union with counsel present as "Witness A" was interviewed by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Investigator on March 24, 2017 states: (c) At the time of McDonald's 2011 human rights complaint, Witness A was the Chief Operating Officer. In January 2013, Witness A said he did not, and still does not, know the full nature of McDonald's original complaint. The details were not disclosed to him. Witness A knew that McDonald was uncomfortable returning to work because she felt unsafe. In 2014, Witness A approved the settlement agreement that ended that complaint. The settlement agreement was brought to him by the HR officer for his agreement. (j) Witness A ultimately decided to end the business relationship with McDonald.
- The member says that the Credit Union's attempt to terminate her membership was wrongfully taken by management as opposed to the majority of the board of directors as mandated by the Credit Union Act 1998 for Saskatchewan and as such was improper and/ or unlawful.
- The Credit Union's Manager of Risk, on July 30, 2016 willingly and knowingly executed Mortgage Renewal and their Disclosure Statement with the effective date of July 23, 2016, in contravention of c.c-41.01 Cost of Credit Disclosure Act, 2002 28 (1)
- The July 30, 2016, note on the Credit Union's system stating, "Have sent Mortgage Renewal to Jeff Kerr" was not disclosed but wrongfully withheld from the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission and the Court of Queen's Bench.
- The Credit Union wrongfully executed a letter dated August 5, 2016, representing that the Manager of Risks July 30, 2016, Mortgage renewal and Disclosure Documents with an effective date of July 23, 2016, were being made available in accordance with the Credit Union's governing legislation, The Cost of Credit Act, 2002,whe the Credit Unions actions contravened the Act.
- Jason Bazinet, the Credit Union's Chief and Financial Risk Officer at that time on December 12, 2016 sworn affidavit included Page one of the two page August 5th, 2016 letter as Exhibit A to the Court of Queen's Bench. Aware that contravention of the Act by a credit grantor is an excusable error if (c) on discovering the contravention, the credit grantor promptly took steps to minimize its effect on the borrower.
- The Credit Union provided false information to the court in their "Notice of Intention" dated October 6, 2016 with intentions of applying to the court ex-parte requesting immediate foreclosure and an order for Possession granting a period of redemption of ONE DAY; showing that the member failed to make the September 30th, 2016 Mortgage Payment. Willingly and knowingly in contravention of c.L-16 The Limitation of Civil Rights Act for Saskatchewan, and in particular contravened: the secured party shall not, by reason ONLY of failure by the debtor to MAKE A PAYMENT under an agreement, take ANY PROCEEDINGS to take POSESSION of an article that is, in whole or in part, the security under the agreement.
- On November 29, 2016, the Credit Union's letter solidifies the fact that they failed to uphold justice by neglecting to acknowledge the member's complaint within the mandated five days, as stipulated by Saskatchewan Law. This oversight clearly contravenes their complaint handling process and demonstrates a lack of accountability and fairness towards the member who had provided evidence to support their grievance on October 19, 2016 that her September 30th, 2016 was indeed made.
- On October 19th, 2016, a dedicated member of the Credit Union provided irrefutable evidence from their own monthly credit union statements, confirming the full payment of their September 30th, 2016 mortgage. Despite this compelling proof, the Credit Union unjustly neglected to withdraw their Notice of Intention and instead pursued the collection of employee affidavits to foreclose on the member's mortgage.
- Despite the Credit Union's November 29th, 2016 letter admitting their counsel and "management" including the Credit Union's manager of risk had initially interpreted the complaint as a direct appeal to the Board and not to management and accordingly, did not provide a direct response. But instead on October 26th, 2016 the manager of Risk completed a sworn affidavit commissioned by the Credit Union's counsel with several errors and omissions by referring to herself as a "collection officer" and confirming that the September 30th, 2016 mortgage payment was failed to be made.
- The November 29th, 2016 letter states it was only on November 1 did we obtain an Appointment to leave. November 1st, 2016, less than 30 days clear of their Notice of Intention the Credit Union's Counsel signs the documentation for an application "Without Notice" stating the member was not represented by a lawyer and included the affidavit of the Manager of Risk referring to her as a "collection officer" and commissioned the Manager of Risk's affidavit on October 26, 2016.
- The sworn credit union court documents allowed the Honorable Madam Justice Duvall to make a decision based on false factual information, whereby, upon application of Counsel for the Proposed Plaintiff and upon reading the Affidavit of Patty Wang, (collection Officer/Manager of Risk) HEREBY APPOINT Thursday, the 8th day of December, 2016, at the hour of 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon at the Court House, in the Town of Battleford, in the Province of Saskatchewan, as the date, time and place for the hearing of an application by the Proposed Plaintiff, SYNERGY CREDIT UNION LTD., for leave to commence an action against the Proposed Defendant, TRICIA DARLENE MCDONALD, for foreclosure and related relief respecting the mortgage. For the following relief: (a)foreclosure of the said mortgage; (b) judicial sale of or acquisition of title to the mortgaged premises; (c) possession (or immediate possession) of the mortgaged premises; (d) appointment of a Receiver of the rents, issues, and profits of the mortgaged premises; (e) costs; and (f) related relief
- The Credit Union Contravened the 10 Principles of the Credit Union Code for the Protection of Personal Information, including but not limited to #6 Accuracy; by not minimizing the possibility that inappropriate information was sworn and submitted to the Court of Queen's Bench for the Honorable Madam Justice M.L Dovell to make a decision about the member's individual finances, assets, liabilities, financial history and credit worthiness. The member states that the Credit Union launching of foreclosure proceedings on the CMHC Mortgage was based on factual inaccuracies causing the member significant expenses, financial damages and defamation to her character.
2013 Sask Central Market Code Handbook Market (pdf)
Download2020.08.25 Credit Union letter to Member - No Wrong Doing - No Corrections to be made (pdf)
DownloadLimitation of Civil Rights Act, L-16 PG 10 Right to possession restricted #20 (pdf)
Download2016.10.23 CU Statement Proof Sept 30, 2016 MTG payment was made - CU Auto WDs Payments (pdf)
Download2020.10.09 email to SCU Privacy Officer Request Date Oct 19/16 Complaint was sent to CU Lawyer (pdf)
Download2016.11.29 CU Response to Oct 19 Complaint ignores MTG Payment was Made Admits Foreclosure Action (pdf)
DownloadLocal MLA Helps Member from CU Ex Parte Foreclosure Action!
STATEMENT OF DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM ON BEHALF OF CREDIT UNION DECEMBER 2022
- Point 3: The Plaintiff, (Defendant by Counterclaim), states that it did not wrongfully or maliciously commence any legal action including any such foreclosure against the Defendant (Plaintiff by Counterclaim).
QBG 290/16 Synergy Credit Union Vs Tricia McDonald
- QBG 290/16 Synergy Credit Union Vs Tricia McDonald
- The member being distraught about the Credit Union's actions; met with Colleen Young, MLA on November 18, 2016 requesting assistance with the Credit Unions ongoing threat of foreclosure on their mortgage. After the meeting the member wrote a letter dated November 21, 2016 summarizing the meeting and cc'd the letter/complaint to the Credit Union, their Lawyer and every single board member. The Credit Union received the letter on November 22, 2016 at 3:15 pm according to Canada Post's signed signature card, it was only then on November 22, 2016 at 4:25pm that the Credit Union's lawyer finally provided the members lawyer ALL of the Credit Union's Court Application(s) via fax date and time. Despite the Credit Union stating to this day that ALL were served to her counsel at the time.
- Now that the member's lawyer is advised of the December 8th, 2016 Court date, the Credit Union is no longer prepared for court. The Credit Union requests an adjournment from December 8, 2016 to December 15, 2016. The member assumes the adjournment request was made, knowing that their court appointment date of December 8, 2016 would no longer be an "Ex Parte" action.
- Prior to the Dec 15th court date on Dec 12, 2016, the Credit Union's Chief Financial and Risk Officer (Responsible for handling member complaints mandated under Market Code) executes an Affidavit to the court of Queen's Bench; with no appropriate opportunity for the member or their lawyer to file any notice of objection. The Affidavit misleads the court and states, the Credit Union does not agree that it has refused to renew the mortgage on reasonable terms. While it had originally been determined by the Credit Union to obtain lending at an alternative financial institution primarily because how she conducted herself with employees and staff of the Credit Union and made multiple disparaging public comments about the Credit Union on social media. The affidavit offered to reimburse the member up to $750 if they transfer their mortgage to an alternate financial institution.
- The December 12, 2016 affidavit of the Credit Union's Chief Financial and Risk Officer, supports the October 6, 2016 Notice of Intention representing the member failed to make their September 30, 2016 Mortgage Payment, which is false.
- December 15, 2016, the court date was adjourned until Feb 23, 2017 in hopes the parties would find a resolution, the Court of Queen's Bench requested an Affidavit of Mortgage from the Credit Union, the affidavit of Mortgage was executed by the Credit Union's Manager of Risk on December 22, 2016 that omitted the executed July 30, 2016 Mortgage Renewal and Disclosure Documents and omitted the Credit Unions revised Mortgage documents executed December 17, 2007 to replace the original October 29, 2007 Mortgage documents. The Mortgage Affidavit was executed on December 22, 2016 but was withheld from the court until March 23, 2017; AFTER the member was bullied out of their CMHC Mortgage, losing the CMHC fees paid in 2007 that was added to the mortgage $6,301.35 (a financial loss), transferring the mortgage to another financial institution. The Credit Union never reimbursing the member the $750 as sworn to the court and in the Credit Union's November 29, 2016 letter.
- December 28, 2016 the members lawyer requested once again for a one year term at the Credit Union's posted rate 3.14% to not have to endure the additional expenses to attend the Feb 23, 2017 court date, the Credit Union's response: "To be very candid, our concern with this is that the member may not have ANY incentive to move their financial needs to another financial institution. The open Mortgage provides a higher rate of interest which would provide encouragement to the member to relocate their mortgage and also would not have any prepayment penalty should she find mortgage financing elsewhere. (Proof of intent to cause financial harm to the member, in contravention of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code #53)
2013 Sask Central Market Code Handbook Market (pdf)
Download2020.08.25 Credit Union letter to Member - No Wrong Doing - No Corrections to be made (pdf)
DownloadLimitation of Civil Rights Act, L-16 PG 10 Right to possession restricted #20 (pdf)
Download2016.10.23 CU Statement Proof Sept 30, 2016 MTG payment was made - CU Auto WDs Payments (pdf)
Download2020.10.09 email to SCU Privacy Officer Request Date Oct 19/16 Complaint was sent to CU Lawyer (pdf)
Download2016.11.29 CU Response to Oct 19 Complaint ignores MTG Payment was Made Admits Foreclosure Action (pdf)
DownloadIncomplete Info: Exposing the Untold Story QBG 15/22
QBG 15/22 CREDIT UNION COUNSEL SIGNED JAN 11, 2022
STATEMENT OF CLAIM:
1) This is a claim for defamation both in libel and slander and relief against frivolous and vexatious litigation
THE PARTIES: CREDIT UNION REFERS TO DEFENDENT:
3) The Defendant, Tricia Darlene Noble, also known as Tricia Darlene McDonald, (hereinafter the “Defendant”) is an individual who resides at or near the City of Lloydminster, in the Province of Saskatchewan.
Failing or Refusing their Accuracy of information about the member. PIPEDA #6 which this Credit Union and their counsel are governed under, states information is to be as complete and up-to -date for the purposes it is being used; Yet, perplexingly and with seeming disregard for the spirit of justice, they choose to circumvent this obligation and exclude that:
- She was a previous employee with the Credit Union from 2007 to 2011.
- The Credit Union does not refer to her "AS" a member of the Credit Union, which as of April 24, 2023 agree that she is a member.
- The Credit Union failed/refused to admit that she had participated as a complainant to the Credit Union under file #SK 11 151 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission from 2011 to 2014; which Section 53 of the Code is intended to protect those who participated in the Commission's process as a complaint.
SECTION TWO OF THE CREDIT UNION'S COURT ACTION:
BACKGROUND
5) By way of a mortgage dated October 29, 2007 that was registered at Information Services Corporation on October 31, 2007, the Plaintiff provided mortgage lending to the Defendant for the purchase price of a residential property
Failing or Refusing to provide the Court the up-to-date information that:
The Credit Union executed incorrect Mortgage Documents in October 29, 2007 for the Member's Mortgage; including (1) Changes that were made that were not initialed by the member (2) The Member's name was not correct (3) The member's signature was not witnessed (4) Had the member incorrectly sign a "Profit Share Withdraw/Reinstatement" Form for the withdrawal of profit share on the full amount of the simplicity mortgage of $194, 401.35 (5) Did not properly execute documentation for Staff Loan Program which $127,800 of the Mortgage qualified for Profit Shares.
6) Following the original mortgage term maturing, the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with a series of mortgage renewals, including a one-year renewal on July 23, 2015 that matured on July 23, 2016.
The Credit Union Failing or Refusing to the Court up-to-date information that:
BACKGROUND: The Credit Union's Manager of Risk, saw the Member's August 5th, 2015 Facebook Post in a Private and Closed group about the Credit Union's $75 fee administration fee that the Credit Union was adding to member's mortgages if they had the Credit Union collect and remit their property taxes, such that their Manager of Risk used a personal account or a fraudulent account to monitor Credit Union Member's . She entered a note about it in the "relationship profile" for the member in the Credit Union's computer system. It was a restriction on the member's ability to renew their mortgage in July 23, 2016.
PIPEDA DRAFT REPORT OF FINDINGS #039834 #23:
The Credit Union represented to our Office that their marketing manager is frequently alerted by members, staff members, relatives of staff members or personal/business acquaintances to social media posts that mention the organization. The Credit Union also explained they monitor social media comments to ensure that members have the correct information on their product or service.
In light of the Credit Union's presumption that the compilation of Social Media posts of its member's served solely for quality assurance purposes, it becomes increasingly clear that this belief is a gross misjudgment (QBG 15/22 #16 the Plaintiff has been required to expend hundreds of hours of employee and officer time) after rigorous and exhaustive investigations. The cavalier dismissal of member's information as "False" underlines their egregious oversight of their own transgressions. Their blatant disregard for legality, embodied in their imposition of a $75 fee, is unequivocally an affront to the rule of law;
The Credit Union charging their $75 Administrative Fee for collecting and remitting property taxes and adding the fee to member's mortgage "IS" in contravention of:
c. L-16 LIMITATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS #11 Only land taxes chargeable to mortgagor 11 Notwithstanding anything contained in any mortgage of land whether heretofore or hereafter given or in any agreement renewing or extending the same, no taxes, rates or assessments, other than taxes, rates or assessments levied or charged against the land and paid by the mortgagee, shall be charged by the mortgagee to the mortgagor or added to the mortgage account; and an agreement, stipulation or covenant to the contrary is null, void and of no effect.
7) Prior to the expiry of the mortgage term maturing on July 23, 2016, the Plaintiff determined not to offer renewal to the Defendant due to the Defendant’s disrespectful, abusive, discourteous dealings with its employees and agents and her misleading and false statements about the Plaintiff posted on social media.
Failing or Refusing to provide the Court the up-to-date information that:
On June 2, 2016, the Credit Union had internal discussions to reach an agreed upon approach regarding the member's business relationship and mortgage renewal. The email included their CEO, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial and Risk Officer, Manager of Risk and several other management. The Credit Unions CEO and management decision of freeing the member up from their relationship with the Credit Union by having the member move their business from the Credit Union including their mortgage. Statement at the end of the email: "We should expect some social media BUZZ when the member learns of this." The Credit Union had named their Chief Operating Officer as a witness for the members File #16-17-122 Human Rights Complaint but the Chief Operating Officer failed or refused to be interviewed.
The member is aware that the Credit Union is unjustly tarnishing her personal and financial reputation, denying her the fundamental right to a thorough investigation by tribunals and bodies charged with the oversight of financial institutions such as the Credit Union. These action(s) imposes a harsh financial loss and positions her at a severe disadvantage, blatantly undermining the principles of fairness.
The member aware that the Credit Union is defaming her Character, submits a request under PIPEDA to the Credit Union December 22, 2019 for all audio, video, email or documentation that were factual or subjective concerning the Credit Union's characterization of the member.
The Credit Union "Failed" to provide any audio, video, email, and documentation to support the Credit Union's defamatory claims of the member's character, or of allegedly defamatory communications by the Member concerning the Credit Union.
Included in the Credit Union's January 21, 2020 PIPEDA response the last paragraph shows that The Credit Union's "executive team and board has retained counsel to deal with any matters arising from your past dealings with the Credit Union Ltd."
The member had not attended the Credit Union's Branch office in person since 2013. The member dealt with the Credit Union approximately once a year by telephone for her 2014 and 2015 mortgage renewals, all without any concern from the Credit Union to the best of the member's knowledge.
8) The Plaintiff accordingly notified the Defendant that it would not be offering mortgage renewal and made demand on the mortgage loan. The Defendant refused or neglected to provide payments of the amounts due and owing under the mortgage that had been provided by the Plaintiff.
September 27, 2017 Wang in an interview that can be used in court; with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, stated " She notified McDonald on June 14, 2016 that the Credit Union was not able to meet her needs, and that they would not offer her a mortgage renewal. McDonald mentioned a lower mortgage rate offered by Innovation Credit Union, in North Battleford. Wang told her that the Credit Union was not prepared to renew her mortgage. McDonald said: "I appreciate your bluntness, Patty, but @#$% you." Which is completely False
The member and the Investigator of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada requested a copy of Wang's June 14, 2016 audio/phone call to the member (which one would assume would have been red flagged). The Credit Union failed and/or refused to produce a recording of the phone.
After Wang's June 14th, 2016 Call to the member about the non renewal of the mortgage; the Credit Union representatives failed to execute the required demand documentation prior to July 23, 2016. It was only on July 30, that the Credit Union's Manager of Risk noted on the member's relationship profile, "Have sent the mortgage renewal to Jeff Kerr."
The Credit Union willingly and knowingly executing a legal "Mortgage Renewal and Disclosure Statement" with an effective date of July 23, 2016, in contravention of c.c-41.01 Cost of Credit Disclosure Act, 2002 28 (1) If the amortization period for a mortgage loan under a scheduled-payments credit agreement is longer than the term of the loan, the credit grantor shall notify the borrower in writing, at least 21 days before the end of the term, which would have been July 2, 2016.
The Credit Union's actions prompted the member to initiate her second complaint on July 5, 2016 File #16-17-122 to the Human Rights Commission against the Credit Union for breach of section 53 of the Code which is intended to protect those who participate in the Commission's process as a complainant ( original complaint 2011 to 2014). It is a breach for any person to intimidate, retaliate against, coerce or impose any kind of penalty, loss or disadvantage on any person who has participated in the Commission's process, including as a complainant.
It was only until October 5, 2016 the Credit Union Executed a "Notice of Intention" which are demand documents, that misrepresented the member's finances, her mortgage and omitted material information in the Credit Unions sworn evidence.
The Credit Union stated in their Notice of Intention to the Ministry of Justice that the last payment made by the member on her mortgage was made on September 16, 2016 in the amount of $324.58; which was incorrect and incomplete. The September 16, 2016, the payment was $324.58 plus a Principal Only Payment of $75.42 and the last payment made was September 30, 2016. The Notice of Intention was signed by the Credit Union's counsel on October 6, 2016.
This demonstrates that the Credit Union Willingly and knowingly contravenes c.L-16 The Limitation of Civil Rights Act for Saskatchewan, and in particular contravened: The secured party SHALL NOT, by reason ONLY of failure by the debtor to make a PAYMENT under an agreement, take "ANY PROCEEDINGS to take POSSESSION" of an article that is, in whole or in part, the security under the agreement.
The Credit Union did not serve their Notice of Intention on the Member's counsel but had it delivered to the member on October 18th, 2016 (who is not a lawyer) in Lloydminster SK. The Credit Union falsely stated to the Human Rights Commission in November 2020 and to date that all documents were served on the Member's Lawyer.
The Credit Union has sworn to the court that, "The Defendant refused or neglected to provide payments of the amounts due and owing under the mortgage" is False and misleading. The Credit Union on a by-weekly basis withdrew mortgage payments from the member's checking account. At no ONE time had the member ever failed to make ONE Mortgage payment from 2007 to 2017 when the mortgage was finally transferred to anther Financial Institution. PROOF can be found in the Credit Union's own monthly statements to the member.
9) Accordingly, by way of an Appointment originally set for December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an Application for leave to commence for foreclosure and served such Application on counsel for the Defendant. An Acknowledgment of Service was provided by counsel for the Defendant acknowledging service on November 22, 2016 of the Application for Leave to Commence and supporting materials
Failing or Refusing to provide the Court the up-to-date information that:
The Credit Union's Chief Financial and Risk Officer (who handles member's complaints under) in his correspondence of August 2016, to the effect that the Credit Union's complaint handling process governed under Saskatchewan Law was available to the member "Free of Charge". The member filed an official complaint dated October 19, 2016 with PROOF the September 30, 2016 Mortgage payment was made.
The member had the complaint hand delivered to the Credit Union's manager of the Lloydminster Branch and to the Credit Union's Counsel at his office in Lloydminster October 21, 2016. In addition, 12 individual copies of the complaint were mailed by the member via express post to each of the Credit Union Board members, which a signature was received by Canada post verifying delivery to the Credit Union.
Market Code standards with respect to timing requirements for complaints require that (1) Complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days of receipt. (2) Investigation results to be communicated along with any appropriate offer of redress within 8 weeks of receipt of a complaint; and (3) An overall time limit of 8 weeks from receipt of the complaint to the issue of a final response is required.
The Credit Union Board member's did not receive their personal copies under separate cover of the Member's October 19, 2016, complaint prior to their October 31, 2016 Board meeting, nor did the Credit Union acknowledge the member's compliant within 5 working days of receipt as per the Credit Union Market Code obligations under Saskatchewan Law.
The Credit Union Counsel's letter dated November 29, 2016 that the Credit Union Privacy Officer states in July 2020 that is in response to the member's October 19, 2016 complaint stated in paragraph 6, "First, with regard to the compliant provided to Credit Union, my client indicated that "Management had initially interpreted the compliant as a DIRECT APPEAL TO THE BOARD and not to management and, accordingly, did not provide a direct response." The member pleads that this correspondence establishes that the Credit Union was in contravention of their complaint handling process by not acknowledging the Member's October 19th, 2016 Compliant within 5 days, as required. The Credit Union Counsel and Management knowing that the member provided proof that her September 30th, 2016 Mortgage payment was made, did not withdraw the Credit Union's Notice of Intention, Demand Documentation but proceeded, by way of an Appointment originally set for December 8, 2016, the Credit Union had filed "An Application Without Notice".
It was on November 1st, 2016, one day after the Credit Union Board meeting and less than 30 days clear of their October 6, 2016 Notice of Intention that the Credit Union filed Form 6-4 "An Application without Notice" stating the member was NOT represented by a lawyer, requesting a redemption period of ONE day, immediate Possession of the Mortgage premises and the document includes the Manager of Risk's sworn Affidavit agreeing that the member failed to make her September 30, 2016 Mortgage payment sworn and commissioned by the Credit Union's Counsel October 26, 2016.
Half Truth Exposed: The member being distraught about the Credit Union's actions; met with Colleen Young, MLA on November 18, 2016 requesting assistance with the Credit Unions ongoing threat of foreclosure on their mortgage. After the meeting the member wrote a letter dated November 21, 2016 summarizing the meeting and cc'd the letter/complaint to the Credit Union, their Lawyer and every single board member. The Credit Union received the letter on November 22, 2016 at 3:15 pm according to Canada Post's signed signature card, it was only then on November 22, 2016 at 4:25pm that the Credit Union's lawyer finally provided the members lawyer ALL of the Credit Union's Court Application(s) via fax date and time. Despite the Credit Union stating to this day that ALL were served to her counsel at the time.
SECTION THREE OF THE CREDIT UNION'S COURT ACTION:
Complaints to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, Ombudsman and Privacy Commissioner
12) Following demand made on the Defendant by the Plaintiff, on or about August 5, 2016 the Defendant brought a complaint under the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission claiming that the decision to not renew her mortgage represented a violation of the Human Rights Code, which the Plaintiff denied.
Failing or Refusing to provide the Court the up-to-date information about her Credit Union Membership; Mortgage Renewal, and Foreclosure attempt which:
- It was the member's second Human Rights compliant against the Credit Union; The first complaint the CEO of the Credit Union signed March 31, 2014, which was to end the compliant and denies knowledge of.
- On June 2, 2016, the Credit Union had internal discussions to reach an agreed upon approach regarding the member's business relationship and mortgage renewal. The email included their CEO, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial and Risk Officer, Manager of Risk and several other management. The Credit Unions CEO and management decision of freeing the member up from their relationship with the Credit Union by having the member move their business from the Credit Union including their mortgage. Statement at the end of the email: "We should expect some social media BUZZ when the member learns of this." The Credit Union had named their Chief Operating Officer as a witness for the members File #16-17-122 Human Rights Complaint but the Chief Operating Officer failed or refused to be interviewed.
- June 27, 2016 the member's counsel received an email from the Credit Union's counsel: Please take this email as 30 days notice that the mortgage will not be renewed (July 23, 2016) and we would ask Ms. McDonald begin making arrangements to find alternate financing... The Credit Union is unprepared to have Ms. McDonald continue as a member.
- This email was intended to have the member believe that the Credit Union Board voted for the termination of her termination, which was not true. Pursuant to section 69 of The Credit Union Act, 1998, termination of membership can be completed only when there is a meeting held by the Board of Directors and there is a majority decision to terminate the membership, with an appeal process available to the member. The Credit Union CEO and management involved in the June 2, 2016 email provided as evidence to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission, did not have the legal authority with respect to the termination of membership, which could only occur where the statutory requirements were satisfied.
- March 24, 2017 the Credit Union CEO with counsel present told the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission that he ultimately decided to end the business relationship with McDonald.
- The Saskatchewan Human Rights Investigator stopped his investigation at the Credit Union's decision not to renew the mortgage and did not account for their unlawful termination of membership or the Credit Union's governing policies and regulations for the renewal of a mortgage, nor the Credit Union initiating a Court Action for possession of the member's mortgage premises on October 5, 2016 Notice of intention by lying to the court that the member failed to make her Sept 30, 2016 Mortgage payment and that she was not represented by counsel.
13) The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission undertook an extensive investigation involving multiple interviews with Plaintiff’s officers and employees, extensive production of materials, and written submissions requiring nearly two years to complete.
Failing or Refusing to provide the Court the up-to-date information that:
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission initiated July 5, 2016, assigned an investigator November 1, 2016 but stated they could not start an investigation until AFTER the Credit Union's Court Proceeding QBG 290/16 was completed. It was not until April, 2017 that the Credit Union Withdrew their QBGT 290/16 Court Action for Foreclosure on a member's home, only once the member was bullied into transferring her mortgage to another financial instituting. The Credit Union employees multiple interviews excluded the Chief Operating Officer from their June 2, 2016 email but included:
Witness A (CEO) who was interviewed with Counsel present on March 24, 2017
The Complaint who was interviewed AFTER the Credit Union's CEO on April 11, 2017
Witness B (Manager of Risk); September 27, 2017
Witness C; (Not the Member's Account Manager) October 6, 2017
Witness D; (Chief Operating Officer) June 11, 2018
Investigation Disclosure Released September 20, 2018
Under PIPEDA The Credit Union provided Documentation to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission on only two occasions (1) August 23, 2016 their Respondent Questionnaire and then (2) October 9, 2018 their response to the Investigator's September 20th, 2018 Disclosure Report after the completion of his investigation.
The October 9, 2018 letter states, "I have reviewed with my client the disclosure report and my client has no substantive objections to any of the findings of facts set out therein. We would provide the enclosed three items of correspondence as part of the documentary evidence. We would note the November 29, 2016 correspondence should be included in the chain of letters that has been submitted. We have also included correspondence that the complainant had provided to members of Synergy Credit Union's Board and our response on behalf of the Board following review of those materials." The member provided to members of Synergy Credit Union's board correspondence dated December 2017.
The Credit Union Failed to correct their inaccuracies within the Saskatchewan Human Rights Disclosure report and withheld germane information relevant to the investigation such as but not limited to; the Credit Union CEO's letter dated April 7, 2014 to his MLA Tim McMillan on Credit Union letter head a complaint about the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.
15) Since the conclusion of the investigation of the Human Rights Commission, the Defendant has engaged in multiple applications to the Saskatchewan Ombudsman, the Federal Privacy Commissioner and to the Plaintiff’s Board of Directors claiming damages and making insinuations of wrongdoing but at no point has the Defendant been able to identify any actual damages or losses suffered or identify any acts of wrongdoing.
Failing or Refusing to provide the Court the up-to-date information that:
With the Credit CEO April 7, 2014 letter being withheld from the investigation and being interviewed prior to the complainant for
File# 16-17-122 ; The Saskatchewan Human Rights Investigator stopped his investigation at the Credit Union's decision not to renew the mortgage and did not account for the alleged unlawful termination of membership or the contravention of the Credit Union's governing policies and regulations for the renewal of a mortgage, nor the Credit Union initiating a Court Action for possession of the member's mortgage premises on October 5, 2016 Notice of intention by lying to the court that the member failed to make her Sept 30, 2016 Mortgage payment and that she was not represented by counsel.
The Credit Union failed/refused to admit to the court in QBG 15/22 that she had participated as a complainant under file #SK 11 151 of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission from 2011 to 2014; which Section 53 of the Code is intended to protect those who participated in the Commission's process as a complaint. The Credit Union signed a settlement agreement on March 31, 2014 in which the Credit Union CEO still denies knowledge of. The Credit Union Counsel under the member's PIPEDA request had the original settlement agreement for #SK 11 151 files, but still omitted this information to the courts.
16) None of the applications or complaints brought by the Defendant have been successful in establishing any claim for wrongdoing or poor practice on the part of the Plaintiff; however, the Plaintiff has been required to expend hundreds of hours of employee and officer time in responding to such claims. The Plaintiff states that these multiple complaints and applications to various regulatory bodies represent a frivolous and vexatious campaign of bad faith against the Plaintiff
Failing or Refusing to provide the Court the up-to-date information that:
The Credit Union signed a settlement agreement on March 31, 2014 in which the Credit Union CEO still denies knowledge of. The Credit Union Counsel under the member's PIPEDA request had the original settlement agreement for the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission file #SK 11 151, but still omitted this information to the courts.
The member is aware that the Credit Union and their counsel is unjustly withholding information and tarnishing her personal and financial reputation, denying her the fundamental right to a thorough investigation by tribunals and bodies charged with the oversight of financial institutions such as the Credit Union. These action(s) imposes a harsh financial loss and positions her at a severe disadvantage, blatantly undermining the principles of fairness during an investigation process.
SECTION OF THE CREDIT UNION'S COURT ACTION:
Defamation, Libel, Slander and Injurious Falsehood
Failing or Refusing to provide the Court the up-to-date information that:
The Credit Union confirmed to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada during their investigation that the Credit Union deleted ALL of the indiscriminately collected personal information of the complainant.
The Credit Union omits that on July 8, 2020 the member completed and submitted to the Credit Union's withdrawal of consent from, which included any "implied consent." At not time did the Credit Union receive consent from ANY member to have their Social media Posts including Facebook from a private group used, collected or shared.
Court file QBG 15/22 shares the social media posts that the Credit Union had told the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada had been deleted from 2015 to 2020.
After the member received Two Accuracy Reports from the Credit Union Privacy Officer (1) July 23, 2021 and September 21, 2021. Prompting the member on October 6, 2021, to submit an official complaint to the Credit Union Board and Management as to address inaccuracies in the report(s), provided by the Credit Union Privacy Officer wherein the member identified several inaccuracies including but not limited to a fraudulent letter dated May 7, 2014, which the Credit Union attached to the member's file which was never received by the member.
Despite the October 6, 2021 Complaint being hand delivered to the Credit Union and mailed to three seperate Credit Union Managers by Express post with signatures and dates of delivery. The Credit Union once again failed to acknowledge the member's complaint dated October 6, 2021 within 5 days and refused to provide its own board and management the opportunity to review the information. There was no final response provided by the Credit Union in the following 8 weeks, nor under the law any avenue of redress offered to the member.
QGB 15/22 #17 (d) describes a June 25, 2016 Facebook post that the Credit Union is monitoring but omits that one of their own employees was active in the same Facebook post and defamed the member's character by stating her complaint was false in a public forum and replies to a FB member, that she was just doing her civic duty with a happy crying emoji.
The member created @McMortgageGate on October 21, 2021, when she knew and aware that the Credit Union was willingly and knowingly in Contravention of their complaint handling process governed under Saskatchewan Law by not acknowledging or investigating their October 6, 2022 Complaint with inaccuracies placed in her member file.
QBG 15/22 #17 (r) On or about December 15, 2021 the Defendant posted along with copies of some Court documents, “71 days since there was a submission to a SKCU; a complaint about a fraudulent document related to @ SKCourts #QBG 290/16. To date, No response. Breach of SKCU Market Code. Why have Zero Tolerance Policy for Fraud when the CU Board ignores the facts and does nothing about it?”
#17 (r) December 15, 2021; The member is referencing her October 6, 2022 complaint submitted under Market Code in which the Credit Union has not acknowledged of investigated.
The Credit Union who is under investigation by the Office of the Privacy Commission of Canada that was found to have We find that the Credit Union indiscriminately collected a Facebook post that the complainant made to a private Facebook group, for unidentified purposes and without authority in contravention of PIPEDA:
Principle 4.4 of the Act states that the collection of personal information shall be
limited to that which is necessary for the purposes identified by the organization.
Furthermore, Principe 4.4.1 of Schedule 1 of the Act states that an organization
shall not collect personal information indiscriminately.
The Credit Union, with full awareness and intentional defiance of PIPEDA's regulations under Principle 4 of the Act, unabashedly continues to amass the member's personal details without any form of granted consent or legal authority from 2021 to current date. Their actions exude an alarming disregard for privacy rights and exhibit blatant contravention of the Laws governing PIPEDA. This will be addressed in Federal Court in 2024 by the complainant.
The Credit Union hired a third party to service the court documents QBG 15/22 on January 25, 2022; in which the person trespassed on the member's posted property for approximately 1.6km; despite the Jan 1, 2022 New Law in Saskatchewan for Trespassing; and did not see or serve the member the court documentation.
Credit Union's Counsel email dated Feb 1, 2022 to member's Counsel
I confirm receipt of your correspondence and our undertaking to not note your client for default with reasonable written notice to be provided to you. On a housekeeping item, our process server had attended at the residency of Ms. Noble last week but had not actually effected service. I had emailed a copy to Ms. Noble last week and your client had some exchange of correspondence with me but no acknowledgement of service has been provided to her. I had prepared an application for substitutional service that it would seem would be preferable to forego. If I provide you with an acknowledgment of service, will you be able to execute this on behalf of your client?
QBG 15/22 To Be Continued...Just waiting for the Credit Union to provide their documented evidence; waiting since October 13, 2023
Limitation of Civil Rights Act, L-16 (1) (pdf)
DownloadCredit Union Act, 1998, C-45.2 (pdf)
DownloadCost of Credit Disclosure Act, 2002, C-41.01 (pdf)
DownloadOctober 3, 2007 Documented Proof of Member and Profit Share Accounts (pdf)
Download10.05.07 CMHC Fees CU added to Original Mortgage (pdf)
DownloadOctober 29, 2007 Credit Union Incorrectly Withdrew the eligibility of Profit Shares on MTG (pdf)
DownloadNov 23, 2007 CU Statement Proof of Membership, Profit Share, CMHC & Staff MTG Amount (PDF)
DownloadDecember 17, 2007 Documented Proof $127,800 of Staff MTG Qualified for Profit Shares (pdf)
Download2015.12.23 CU Statement shows Profit Share Account with Zero Balance; Terminated without notice (pdf)
DownloadCopyright © 2023 McMortgageGate.com All Rights Reserved
- The member has maintained their checking account and "membership" at the Credit Union, which was initially established with a profit share account for her staff mortgage in 2007.
- It is maintained to have a voice to the board, but the board refuses to hold a meeting to terminate the membership which would allow a member an appeal process in front of the Credit Union board of directors. Instead, they use the court system as a bullying tactic insisting the withdrawal of membership which the Credit Union cannot prove still exists and denies any wrong doing to date.
- The Credit Union needs to be transparent and open with our Membership about the findings of the three-year investigation into their compliance with PIPEDA-039834 conducted by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, as detailed in the draft report released on March 17, 2023 in which the Credit Union has to the end of 2023 to comply.
- Ensure that the Credit Union's Board, CEO, Officers, and relevant employees are held accountable for their actions as they agreed to when they signed under oath; an annual basis on their internal form "Declaration of Office", knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath, and by virtue of the CANADIAN EVIDENCE ACT:
"That I will not knowingly violate or permit to be violated ANY of the provisions of the Credit Union Act or the provisions of the Regulations governing ALL credit unions in the province of Saskatchewan."
Credit Union Act 1998; Duty of care of directors and officers, 112 (1) Every director and officer of a credit union
in exercising his or her powers and fulfilling his or her duties shall:
- (a) Act honestly and in good faith with a view to the best interests of the Credit Union
- (b) Exercise the care, diligence and skill that a reasonably prudent person would exercise in comparable circumstances
- (c) Comply with this Act, the regulations, the articles and the bylaws; and (d) Cause the credit union to comply with this Act, the regulations, the articles, the bylaws, the orders of the registrar and to CUDGC and with the standards of sound business practice.
Copyright © 2023 A Credit Union Member's Epic Battle with a Behemoth Saskatchewan 2.2 Billion Dollar Credit Union - All Rights Reserved.
Powered by GoDaddy