Toronto lawyer disputes Wildrose Party’s decision regarding AGM

For Wildrose Party president David Yager it’s business as usual, despite attempts by a Toronto lawyer to question the party’s move

For Wildrose Party president David Yager it’s business as usual, despite attempts by a Toronto lawyer to question the party’s move to reschedule an AGM held recently in the Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre constituency.

Yager recently received a letter from Donald Bur, a lawyer who lives and works in Ontario, questioning decisions made following the decision to scrap a controversial annual general meeting held Oct. 15 and hold another one.

“We’re going to have another AGM and I have no intention of responding to the letter,” he said.

Bur has been hired by members of the board, which was elected at the meeting to provide an opinion and advice regarding the meeting held in Rocky Mountain House.

The meeting resulted in a new slate of directors being elected, but an independent review held later says neither the board nor the meeting is valid.

The review, held at the request of 10 members, states numerous reasons why there needs to be another AGM including bylaw infractions, the manner which nominees to executive positions were brought forward and unacceptable behavior that forced the chairman to adjourn the meeting early.

However, Edwin Erickson, who was elected president at the meeting has no plans to step down.

In fact, Erickson said it is becoming increasingly clear that the newly elected board is valid and the meeting was legal.

“The evidence just keeps piling up,” he said, adding that according to their lawyer the independent review committee is not authorized to make a decision that the meeting is not valid.

“In his letter to Yager, Bur referred to articles in the Wildrose Constitution to back up his allegations.

Article 14.3.2 states the executive committee shall appoint one or more members to investigate the merits of the dispute, which members shall be authorized to intervene to attempt to resolve the dispute.

Article 14.3.3 states if members appointed pursuant to Article 14.3.2 decide not to intervene or are unsuccessful in resolving the dispute, the executive committee shall, in writing, refer the matter to the party arbitration committee.

“This interpretation is consistent with the view that the party should be run on democratic principles, which allows the members of the party to decide how meetings should be run and allow members to decide whether rules have been breached,” said Bur in his letter.