Alberta NDP - may not exist legally

[2 Tollers]

Interesting article.

So if the party does not exist legally does that mean the liability becomes the individual MLA's ?

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the...-naheed-nenshi

[elkhunter11]

So if they don't legally exist, was it legal for them to run in elections as a party? Was it legal for them to be sworn in as the government of Alberta? What legal implications would that have on any legislation they passed, or on any legal actions that their government was involved in?

[densa44]

The partys are not sworn in as government or anything else. The elected members are sworn in and they can cross the floor, start a new party, all kinds of things that the voters may not like.

The only Liberal Cabinet minister from Alberta that I ever saw was Jack Horner from Crowfoot, he was a member of the PCs when he got elected.

[2 Tollers]

From the article it looks like they can operate as political party but the judges questions dig deeper. From the quote below from the article the set up for the NDP looks pretty fishy.

It could be very well thoughtout from being able to walk away from legal actions -- like Caylan Ford or the fellow that was gone after for false threats.

From the article

“The evidence before me is that the Alberta NDP is the beneficiary of a trust established in 1977 pursuant to a Trust Deed,” wrote Judge Corina Dario in an interlocutory decision published last week.

“The difficulty with this, however, is that the Alberta New Democratic Party Foundation (the trustee named in the deed) appears to itself be an unincorporated association and therefore, like the Alberta NDP, does not have the legal capacity to sue or be sued.”

This suggests that the Alberta NDP is real enough to hold government for a four-year term and assassinate the character of a promising young UCP candidate — acting independently from the federal NDP — but not quite real enough to be held legally accountable for its actions.

Dario, who noted in her judgment that neither the Alberta NDP nor the federal NDP refutes Ford’s assertions about the party’s legal standing, called the current state of affairs “both curious and potentially troubling.”

The judgment quotes an authoritative source on trusts, which notes that, “Because unincorporated associations have no separate legal personality, they are incapable of holding title to property and thus are incapable of acting as trustees.”

What this means is that, as a non-entity, legally speaking, the Alberta NDP could hypothetically commit fraud, defame its enemies and breach contracts willy-nilly, leaving behind a trail of victims with no recourse in the courts. Dario has accordingly given the party 30 days to provide Ford’s team with the name of a person or entity to act as a defendant on its behalf."

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by 2 Tollers

From the article it looks like they can operate as political party but the judges questions dig deeper. From the quote below from the article the set up for the NDP looks pretty fishy.

It could be very well thoughtout from being able to walk away from legal actions -- like Caylan Ford or the fellow that was gone after for false threats.

From the article

“The evidence before me is that the Alberta NDP is the beneficiary of a trust established in 1977 pursuant to a Trust Deed,” wrote Judge Corina Dario in an interlocutory decision published last week.

“The difficulty with this, however, is that the Alberta New Democratic Party Foundation (the trustee named in the deed) appears to itself be an unincorporated association and therefore, like the Alberta NDP, does not have the legal capacity to sue or be sued.”

This suggests that the Alberta NDP is real enough to hold government for a four-year term and assassinate the character of a promising young UCP candidate — acting independently from the federal NDP — but not quite real enough to be held legally accountable for its actions.

Dario, who noted in her judgment that neither the Alberta NDP nor the federal NDP refutes Ford’s assertions about the party’s legal standing, called the current state of affairs “both curious and potentially troubling.”

The judgment quotes an authoritative source on trusts, which notes that, “Because unincorporated associations have no separate legal personality, they are incapable of holding title to property and thus are incapable of acting as trustees.”

What this means is that, as a non-entity, legally speaking, the Alberta NDP could hypothetically commit fraud, defame its enemies and breach contracts willy-nilly, leaving behind a trail of victims with no recourse in the courts. Dario has accordingly given the party 30 days to provide Ford’s team with the name of a person or entity to act as a defendant on its behalf."

Here is the important part

Dario has accordingly given the party 30 days to provide Ford’s team with the name of a person or entity to act as a defendant on its behalf."

[CBintheNorth]

Will be interesting to watch it unfold.
Dissension from within to follow...

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by CBintheNorth

Will be interesting to watch it unfold.
Dissension from within to follow...

Hopefully it causes dissension, when they have to provide the judge with a defendent.

[2 Tollers]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Here is the important part --- "Dario has accordingly given the party 30 days to provide Ford’s team with the name of a person or entity to act as a defendant on its behalf."

The other interesting thing on this will be the press coverage or lack thereof.

If this was the other way around the NDP would be screaming for a police inquiry and CBC / Global (your least trusted news source) would be all over it.

Bet the response from MSM on this will be crickets

[sjr]

Once a NDPer always a NDPer

[Grizzly Adams1]

Originally Posted by sjr

Once a NDPer always a NDPer

For those of you joining just to vote for the candidate of your dreams, membership in the provincial association automatically makes you a follower of Jagmeet Singh as well.

[6.5 shooter]

There will be much gnashing of teeth and tearing of cloth, as the NDP drown in their own swill.... Could not have happened to a nicer bunch

[amosfella]

Well, Rachel Notley might not be entitled to have the premier's salary or pensions then. No wonder she jumped ship.

Makes the idea of voiding the entirety of the actions done by the NDP actually quite doable. There's precedent for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescissory_Act_1661

[elkhunter11]

Originally Posted by amosfella

Well, Rachel Notley might not be entitled to have the premier's salary or pensions then. No wonder she jumped ship.

Makes the idea of voiding the entirety of the actions done by the NDP actually quite doable. There's precedent for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rescissory_Act_1661

And that is where I was headed, if the party didn't legally exist, when it ran in elections and was elected government, what legal implications would result? If they ran as a party that didn't legally exist, would that constitute fraud of some sort? Would their actions as government be illegal because if this? The judge seemed somewhat confused as to the legal status of the party.

[roper1]

Originally Posted by elkhunter11

Hopefully it causes dissension, when they have to provide the judge with a defendent.

It is quite a conundrum for the NDP, and Caylan Ford deserves to have her say in court