The following case brings to light a matter for public concern with significant implications. Picture a scenario where the crucial time limit for filing a lawsuit, known as the Statute of Limitations, is disregarded, setting off a chain reaction of consequences that is proving how broken Canada’s justice system is.
The ongoing Keeley Lake Lodge Case, which is currently awaiting decisions from the newest Judge involved in Saskatchewan, Judge Bardai. The case demonstrates that more than six years have passed since the alleged incident or wrongdoing took place. As a result, the Statute of Limitations should be applied, indicating that no further legal action can be pursued due to the considerable passage of time.
For over 20 years, Keeley Lake Lodge has been officially registered as 60/40 ownership with the ISC and the Canadian Government. The CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) and Service Canada both indicate that the Niessners have consistently reported only 40% of their income when filing their taxes over the past 20 years. However, the Niessners are now contradicting their previous filings and claiming to own 60% of the shares, despite consistently reporting as 40% owners for the past two decades. No report in Canada has shown the Niessner’s to own more than 40% of the shares.
In Saskatchewan there is a time limit, called the statute of limitations, for starting legal actions in both civil and criminal cases. This time limit usually ranges from 2 to 6 years. There are two important issues in this situation.
First, the Niessners have brought up the ownership dispute more than 20 years after the initial registration with the ISC. This raises questions about why they waited so long to make their claim and whether their claim is still valid according to the time limit set by the statute of limitations.
Second, after their first lawsuit in Saskatchewan did not rule in their favor, the Niessners filed a completely new claim in New Jersey, where the court does not have the legal authority to make decisions about this case. This raises concerns about the legitimacy and appropriateness of their legal actions because they sought a resolution in a jurisdiction that is not related to the matter at hand.
It is important to address these issues from a legal standpoint to determine whether the Niessners’ claims are valid and if they followed the proper laws and time limits for ownership disputes and the statute of limitations.
In conclusion, Niessner’s opportunity to file any claims related to the legal ownership of the shares expired over 15 years ago.
