BC Housing vs. DERA

The judge refused to accept my notes. I spent a few days going over BC Housing documents and I wanted the court to see them. I thought the notes were relevant. However, I will never know as the judge did not read them. I was rather disappointed. But it wasn't his fault as BC Housing and DERA said I had no standing I argued that I was a director of DERA but it went nowhere. So I decided if the courts are not interested maybe a few readers would appreciate my research.

NOTES : BC Housing v. DERAHS (S-102159)

I am a director of DERAHS and as such have an interest in these proceedings. I was elected as a director of DERAHS on 17 April 2009.

That the Plaintiffs know of my legal interest in the proceedings yet it has refused to consent to add me as a defendant and will contest my application that is scheduled to be heard on Friday May 22, 2010.

I only had access to the multiple volumes of evidence of BC Housing in the court file for one-half hour on Thursday and on Friday. From the affidavit evidence I can only conclude that the Plaintiffs are more to blame for the mismanagement of DERAHS than DERAHS. BC Housing is in a superior position and it is using its superior position to destroy the Defendants societies.

The Plaintiffs knowing full well that by paying the property taxes in February 2009 and lease payments in 2008 and holding back DERAHS subsidies to repay these debts that it would have a domino effect which would result in the demise of DERAHS and eventually DERA.

In one of the BC Housing Affidavits it said that BC Housing is to provide guidance and direction to the Board of directors of non-profit societies ...... in resolving ongoing issues with respect to the management of their properties. This demonstrates that BC Housing looked upon society governance differently than for for-profits. BC Housing recognized that it had to oversee and educate societies to protect the public interest but it failed to do so. The Plaintiffs were irresponsible and negligent. BC Housing was not doing its job.

Last August 2009 I had occasion to ask Lydia, the auditor, to forward a copy of the 2008 DERAHS financial statements to me. She said that she was currently in negotiations to cook the books with BC Housing. This was not her exact words but close. I remember emailing this woman back saying that I was under the understanding that an auditor does an audit on a specific date and cannot change it one year later on the instructions of BC Housing.

From the files late on Friday afternoon I located a draft 2008 financial statement as an exhibit. I read the notes referred to under "related party transactions" and it showed that Kim Kerr’s company did $211,182 of work for fiscal period ending 20 September 2008. Later I saw a copy of the final 2008 financial statements in an exhibit and next to related party transactions next to Kim Kerr company was $0. I am sure Lydia, the auditor, would look forward to giving evidence as to why the draft was different than the final version of the 2009 financial statements of DERAHS.

Unauthorized related party transactions in which DERAHS executive-directors were involved have been done since the time of Jim Green. In the evidence of BC Housing it referred to the previous executive director, Teri Hanley, and her own company during business with DERAHS. Terri left DERAHS in 2004 in the midst of a scandel. So why would BC Housing think a new executive-director, Kim Kerr, would do things differently.

The executive-director, Kim Kerr, has made it public knowledge and personally told me that during his management of the Marie Gomez building, a 76 unit building subsidized by BC Housing, that he never paid the mortgage or property taxes. Nothing was mentioned in the pleadings about the $mismanagement of the Marie Gomez residences which prior behavior I think should be material to these proceedings.

From the time of my election to the DERAHS Board on April 17 2009, the Plaintiffs have refused to allow me to be part of any information between it and DERAHS. At no time did any director, except the president nun, know of any serious breach of the operating agreement or lease and I suspect she really did not understand anything.

The Plaintiffs only dealt with the executive director, the president of the Board, and the auditor for anything they wanted clarified and only then their involvement was very infrequent and random. At no time did the Plaintiffs contact or even email individual directors of the Board although the Plaintiffs knew each director is singularly and jointly responsible for any financial misdeeds or contractual deficiencies of DERAHS. To the best of my knowledge the president of the Board did not forwards copies of the writ and statement of claim to the other directors.

The Plaintiffs knew of the dysfunctional history of Kim Kerr, the belief of the president that wrong is right if it is for the greater good, and the culture of corruption and secrecy in the DTES. All this is common knowledge in the DTES.

At no time did the Plaintiffs to my knowledge contact any other board member except the president and the auditor, past or present, as to the missing monies, the fact that the City was going to sell the properties for failure to pay property taxes, the many $100,000s conflicts of related parties, and the other claims as set out in the Statement of Claim. This is evidenced in the DERAHS minutes that the Plaintiffs have which do not refer to any of these items.

The BC Housing review of DERAHS in 2007 did not alarm anyone to serious mismanagement of DERAHS including BC Housing. In fact Kim Kerr let it be known that this report card showed that DERAHS buildings were among the best run buildings in the purview of BC Housing. It was believed at that time and it was common knowledge that this review constituted a “forensic audit” and I verily believe that the directors including the president believed this to be the case.

At no time did the Plaintiffs inform me of any mismanagement. In fact although I was a director, my comments to BC Housing were never explained, but then that is the habit of BC Housing, not to reply to anyone including tenants.

The Plaintiffs will submit that the appointment of a receiver-manager by this short leave application would better serve the ends of justice. I disagree, it will only serve to quickly cover-up the mismanagement of BC Housing and its failure to protect the public interest and deprive me of my legal rights.

The Plaintiffs threatening the court that if a receiver manager is not appointed via short leave then it will have no option but to terminate the leases and operating agreements and obtain vacant possession of the buildings shows contempt and is insulting.

The Plaintiffs have known for years of serious mismanagement and now they want the courts to quickly help them (the government) from a potentially embarrassing situation. The property taxes were not paid since 2006. The Plaintiffs agreed to terms of repayment of the missing monies in 2009 by cutting DERAHS subsidies and then one year later they commence an action to dissolve DERAHS.

The Plaintiffs as well as the Defendants have done everything possible to prevent me from doing my job as a director as legislated in the Society Act.

The Plaintiffs are further guilty of lack of foresight, condoning mismanagement that has resulted in this action, and conspiracy to deny me of my legal rights. This short leave to appoint a receiver manager should be refused.



Audrey Jane Laferriere
Director DERAHS
17 May 2010