IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
|
Citation: |
Bank of Montreal v. Lew, |
|
|
2022 BCSC 1320 |
Date: 20220712
Docket: H210219
Registry: Vancouver
Between:
Bank of Montreal
Petitioner
And
Karen Wai King Lew and Ming Shek Liu
Respondents
Before: The Honourable Justice Matthews
Oral Reasons for Ruling Re Appeal from an Order of a
Master
in a Foreclosure Proceeding
In Chambers
|
Counsel for the Petitioner: |
J.L. Cockbill |
|
Respondent Karen Wai King Lew |
K.W.K. Lew |
|
Counsel for Respondent Ming Shek Liu: |
A. Leung |
|
Place and Date of Hearing: |
Vancouver, B.C. July 12, 2022 |
|
Place and Date of Ruling: |
Vancouver, B.C. July 12, 2022 |
[1] Karen Wai King Lew appeals the order of Master Robertson made April 28, 2022, granting conduct of sale on Ms. Lew's residential property to the Bank of Montreal. The Bank of Montreal is the first mortgagee on the residential property. An order nisi of foreclosure was made September 21, 2021, and the redemption period expired in March 2022. Ms. Lew asserts that Master Robertson made the order in error because the mortgage had been forgiven on February 8, 2022, pursuant to the doctrine of NESARA/GESARA, acronyms that stand for National Economic Security and Reformation Act and Global Economic Security and Reformation Act. She also asserts that Master Robertson was biased and ought to have recused herself.
[2] The Bank of Montreal and the second mortgagee, Ming Shek Liu, assert that no error was made because NESARA/GESARA do not form part of Canadian or British Columbian foreclosure law, there was no evidence the mortgage was forgiven, there was no bias on the part of Master Robertson, and the appeal was commenced more than 14 days after the order was made, and so the appeal is out of time.
[3] I delivered these reasons orally. I have edited them without changing the substance.
[4] The standard of review on an appeal from a master's order depends on the nature of the order appealed. Where the order was in regard to an interlocutory matter, the standard of appellate review is whether the order was clearly wrong: Canadian Western Bank v. 353806 BC Ltd., 2017 BCSC 1072 at para. 11:
[11] On appeal from a master's order in a purely interlocutory matter the standard of appellate review is whether the order was clearly wrong. Where the master's decision raises questions which are vital to the final issue in the case, or results in a final order, the appeal is a rehearing on a standard of correctness. Absent an order for the production of fresh evidence, the rehearing proceeds on the record before the master. On the rehearing, the chambers judge may substitute his or her own assessment of the evidence for that of the master, even in cases involving the exercise of discretion: Abermin Corp. v. Granges Exploration Ltd. (1990), 1990 CanLII 1352 (BC SC), 45 BCLR (2d) 188 (SC).
[5] The order under appeal is an order that the Bank of Montreal have conduct of sale of Ms. Lew's foreclosed property. An order granting a conduct of sale in a foreclosure proceeding is interlocutory: Canadian Western Bank at paras. 11 and 15; and Urban Land Holdings Ltd. v. Babich, 2019 BCSC 1318 at para. 24.
[6] Accordingly, the standard of review is whether Master Robertson's order is clearly wrong.
[7] The rehearing proceeds on the record before the master unless there is an application to adduce fresh evidence. On the rehearing, the chambers judge may substitute his or her own assessment of the evidence for that of the master even in cases involving the exercise of discretion: Abermin Corp. v. Granges Exploration Ltd., 1990 45 B.C.L.R. (2d) 188.
[8] At the appeal before Master Robertson, Ms. Lew did not lead any evidence that her mortgage was forgiven. The transcript of the proceedings before Master Robertson demonstrates that Ms. Lew came to court to ask for more time because she did not want to lose her home. She explained that she had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain a reverse mortgage and a loan from a private lender. She also explained that her sister was arriving in Vancouver the next day and would lend her the money to redeem the mortgage. She did not assert that the mortgage had been forgiven, lead any evidence of mortgage forgiveness, or make any reference to NESARA/GESARA.
[9] By the time the Bank of Montreal's application for conduct of sale came on before Master Robertson, it had already been adjourned once because Ms. Lew's lawyer had withdrawn, and Ms. Lew asked for more time. The hearing before Master Robertson was peremptory on Ms. Lew. Master Robertson declined to adjourn it again to give Ms. Lew more time, but she made her order effective May 26, 2022, approximately four weeks after the hearing, so that if Ms. Lew arranged financing in the four weeks between the hearing and the effective date of the order, she could still redeem the mortgage, and the conduct‑of‑sale order would not take effect.
[10] In this court, Ms. Lew made submissions on the NESARA/GESARA. She described it as a pending new world order that has its roots in the United States (NESARA), but has evolved to a global movement (GESARA), to which many countries are signatories, including Canada. She asserted that it involves resignation of world leaders, new currencies that will be backed by gold, and a more harmonious and peaceful world where the enslavement qualities of debt will be abolished.
[11] Ms. Lew made submissions on the intent of NESARA/GESARA law by reference to a document entitled "GESARA.news" with a website address using the same words.
[12] This document set out 20 points pertaining to GESARA that include that all credit card, mortgage, and other bank debt due to illegal banking and government activities will be cancelled. This is referred to as a "jubilee" or complete forgiveness of debt. NESARA/GESARA principles establish new presidential and congressional elections within 120 days of GESARA's announcement (presumably this is a reference to United States elections). There will be an interim government that will cancel all national emergencies and return some unspecified political entity back to constitutional law. I assume that the unspecified political entity is the United States but perhaps the intention is a global constitutional regime. GESARA creates a new U.S. treasury rainbow currency backed by gold, silver, and platinum precious metals, ending the bankruptcy the U.S. initiated by Franklin Roosevelt in 1933. GESARA establishes peace throughout the world. GESARA releases unprecedented prosperity with enormous sums of money for humanitarian purposes. GESARA will establish the quantum financial system called QFS, and the quantum voting system called QVS, as well as a global currency reset and a revaluation of currencies.
[13] Ms. Lew did not provide the Court with any Canadian or British Columbian legislation implementing NESARA or GESARA. Nor did she provide any legal authority incorporating the principles of NESARA and GESARA into creditor/debtor law or the law of foreclosure in British Columbia. With regard to evidence that her mortgage was cancelled pursuant to NESARA/GESARA, Ms. Lew explained that for the hearing before Master Robertson, she had tried to upload her bank statements, which she asserts shows that the mortgage balance was zero at one point in time and that a legal fee that the bank charged her had been reversed on February 8, 2022.
[14] She explained that she was unable to upload the bank statements, and she did not know that she should have an application binder into which she inserted her evidence. She advised that she first learned that when she saw, over Microsoft Teams, Master Robertson being provided with binders on the matters as they were called. She realized she did not have a binder that she was required to have. She advised this Court that at that time before Master Robertson, she froze and did not know what to say.
[15] The transcript of the proceedings shows that Ms. Lew made submissions as I have described. She did not tell Master Robertson that she had evidence showing that her mortgage had been forgiven that she was unable to get before the court. Ms. Lew described this evidence to me but did not seek to have fresh evidence introduced on the appeal. Accordingly, there was no evidence before Master Robertson, and there is no evidence on this appeal, that the mortgage was forgiven.
[16] It is also difficult to understand how that evidence could displace the order nisi requiring Ms. Lew to pay the Bank of Montreal $209,721.51 to redeem the mortgage and the evidence before Master Robertson that the Bank of Montreal had not received any payments towards the mortgage between the date of the order nisi and the appearance before Master Robertson.
[17] On the record before Master Robertson it was clearly open to her to grant exclusive conduct of sale to the first mortgagee, the Bank of Montreal: Law and Equity Act R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 253, Rules 13‑5, 21‑7(5)(1) and 21‑7(7). It is the usual order that is made after the expiry of a redemption period: Reliable Mortgages Investment Corp. v. Longiye, 2015 BCSC 903; Allan McEachern, C.J.B.C., “On Foreclosure Practice” (1983), The Advocate, Volume 41, Part 6, pages 583 to 596.
[18] There is no basis on which to conclude that Master Robertson was clearly wrong in the order she made. Ms. Lew did not lead before Master Robertson and has not led before me evidence that the mortgage had been forgiven. She did not attempt to persuade Master Robertson, and she has not persuaded me, that NESARA/GESARA principles are part of the law governing creditor, debtor or foreclosure proceedings in British Columbia.
[19] Ms. Lew also asserts that Master Robertson was biased and ought to have recused herself. She asserts two reasons for the bias. First, she asserts that the NESARA/GESARA pending world order is well known to the banks and would have been well known to Master Robertson before she became a master. She submitted that Master Robertson became a master because she knew that her law firm's foreclosure practice would be ending when all mortgages and other debts were forgiven.
[20] I have not accepted that NESARA/GESARA is part of the Canadian legal landscape. I do not accept that Ms. Lew has proven there is a new world order pending that will end foreclosure proceedings, let alone that Master Robertson knew of this and made a career change to avoid its consequences on her law practice.
[21] Second, Ms. Lew asserts that Master Robertson was biased because she is friends with counsel for the Bank of Montreal. Counsel for the Bank of Montreal advised me that she knew Master Robertson when Master Robertson was in practice because they practised in the same area, but they were not friends. She advised that since Master Robertson's appointment, she has appeared before her.
[22] I accept the statements of counsel for the Bank of Montreal. There is no merit to Ms. Lew's assertion of bias or an apprehension of bias.
[23] The appeal fails because Ms. Lew has not established that Master Robertson was clearly wrong or biased or that there could be an apprehension of bias. It is not necessary to determine whether the appeal was brought in time. The appeal is dismissed.
[24] I order costs at Scale A payable by Ms. Lew to both respondents on this application, Bank of Montreal and Ming Shek Liu.
(SUBMISSIONS)
[25] THE COURT: All right. Ms. Lew has advised me that I misstated some of the facts. I am not going to revise my reasons on that basis. I have made my decision on the submissions as I understood them.
“Matthews J.”