In the legal case involving Keeley Lake Lodge (1989) Ltd., essential details have emerged, shedding insight into a dispute that spans multiple jurisdictions and raises questions about the legitimacy of actions taken by the Niessner family.
Central to the issue is the alleged fraud surrounding changes made to the corporate registry in Saskatchewan by Madelyn Niessner, an action questioned by legal representatives. George Green from McKercher LLP points out that any Saskatchewan court order did not authorize these alterations, thereby raising doubts about their legal validity. Another previous case in which the Niessners lied was when they admitted that the hare transfer agreement and numerous associated documents within the transfer of Keeley Lake were personally signed by Charlie Niessner. Still, they claim that this was fraudulent to retain majority shares of the company. This shows that they are not new to the concept of fraud and trickery.
A crucial aspect of this controversy revolves around the New Jersey Court Orders and resolutions following Mr. James Gruccio’s appointment as an interim receiver. The Niessner family, particularly Charles Niessner, aims to assert control over Keeley Lake Lodge, relying on the authority granted by the New Jersey Court. However, legal experts argue that this authority is not automatically enforceable in Saskatchewan, emphasizing the necessity of registration by a Saskatchewan court.
In a letter to RBC, Ms. Mercer & Silver point out issues in implementing the New Jersey Court’s orders in Saskatchewan. They reference two specific laws, The Enforcement of Canadian Judgments Act, 2002, and The Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act. They explained that, according to Saskatchewan law, foreign court judgments must be officially registered to have power in the province. Ms. Mercer & Silver stressed that without this registration, there’s no way that the New Jersey Court’s order can work in Saskatchewan. This situation has led to a closer look at its possible effects on the company’s accounts, particularly those at the Royal Bank of Canada in Meadow Lake. This makes any court decision made in a Canadian court using the New Jersey court’s ruling moot. Lastly, the documents used to invalidate the shares of Tim Cimmer, the buyer of Lunaman’s 60% shares of Keeley, were fraudulent and mistakenly encoded by incompetent SLGA officials.
The Niessners’ legal strategy in Saskatchewan adds another layer of complexity to the situation. They’re taking a proactive approach to prevent possible legal consequences linked to their alleged mishandling of the shareholder loan account for the past 18 years. The admission of this goal, along with their assertion of fraudulent documents, presents a unique legal challenge.
In legal terms, the Niessners’ New Jersey and Saskatchewan lawsuits have different goals. The New Jersey case focuses on who owns Keeley shares, while the latter serves as a defensive move to prevent possible legal actions. The Niessners won this case using fraudulent papers and business documents that they were trying to pass as genuine in Saskatchewan.
Tim’s email introduces a letter from Ben to Eldon Lindgren in 2015. This letter revealed plans for selling Keeley to Jason Malbeauf and Wanda Gibson, though the sale didn’t materialize. Afterward, Charlie sold campground land to Keeley. This transaction’s implications and admissions of deception in the legal process make the ongoing legal battle even more complicated.
As the Niessner family’s legal battle unfolds, all eyes are on the court proceedings in Saskatchewan and how foreign court orders are enforced. The information revealed highlights the importance of carefully analyzing legal processes with implications for crossing borders. The stakes are significant, impacting not just the Niessners but everyone involved in the ongoing dispute concerning Keeley Lake Lodge.
