CPAC is proudly owned by these leading companies
  • Rogers Logo
  • Shaw
  • Videotron Logo
  • Cogeco Logo
  • Eastlink Logo
  • Access Logo

Edward Sumio Nishi v. Rascal Trucking Ltd.

   
       Loading CPAC video...    
         
   
   

| video language:    

   
   
Supreme Court Hearings

Edward Sumio Nishi v. Rascal Trucking Ltd.n (January 16, 2013)
Case # 34510

Hans Heringa was the owner of Rascal Trucking Ltd.
Heringa developed property with Cidalia Plavetic, a realtor and a principal of Kismet Enterprises Ltd.
In 1996, Rascal entered into a five year lease of the Property to use part of it for a topsoil processing facility.
After some complaints, the City of Nanaimo ordered the topsoil be removed.
The order was not complied with so the city removed the topsoil at a cost of $110,679, which was lodged against the property as tax arrears.
As a result Plavetic stopped making mortgage payments.
The CIBC foreclosed on the property in 1997 and paid the money to redeem the property from a tax sale.
In 2001, a vesting order was granted with title being transferred to Edward Nishi for $237,500.
Heringa helped him with the financing by advancing $110,679 and signing as covenantor.
Nishi refused Heringa’s request for an ownership interest in the property.
Nishi and Plavetic have lived on the property as a common law couple since 1997.
Years later, Rascal Trucking sued Nishi to acquire a 50-per-cent interest in the property and a caveat was filed against the property.

Add new comment

Rockburn Presents
The CPAC Digital Archive

Daily Programming Highlights


 

Latest Comments

Mak:
All this case and the police actions in this case prove is that the combined Canadian police forces are nothing more than and have no more a
oto:
The Supreme Court of Canada made the correct moral decision, regardless of case law. IBM Canada is paying Dick Waterman approximately $80K
Fredrick Owen Blacklaws:
Was the hearing simply a formality? Had the court made an, irrvocable, decision on the matter prior to the hearing?
Don Dash:
The main issue is that the threatening remarks were made in a place where it is assumed that confidentiality exist? Wasn't he in jail?