Scurfields don't like their business being made public, can hardly imagine the choice language being used at the meetings with the lawyers. :fmicon:
Printable View
Scurfields don't like their business being made public, can hardly imagine the choice language being used at the meetings with the lawyers. :fmicon:
It was pointed out a while back that the way SSV responded to the original Statement of Claim paved the way for the personal behaviours of the Scurfields to be pulled into the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesp
I notice that the counterclaim pleads for criminal proceedings... Could get very interesting if this makes it to trial... The defence to the counterclaim will be interesting.
Having read the filings, I'm actually further surprised at the arrogance of the young man and his father. Now they (The family) are going to have to answer to alot of allegations concerning their management of a leased Canadian resource. I feel bad for anyone that crosses the Scurfield family. Sounds like they can hold a grudge and don't mind burying some of us peasants to prove a point.Quote:
Originally Posted by beaterdit
...it also seeks half a million bucks damages AND says he is representing himself. Entertaining stuff from all parties involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramsey
wait, what does Hugh Conway have to do with the legislation?
Conway's response was great. Not sure how all of the issues vis-a-vis Parcs Canada is important but it's always good to air all the dirty laundry.
Interesting that young Taylor sued Chevelier, Conway et al for defamation. Very dumb thing for the family to do. Any decent barrister will walk a kid like that into a trap he won't even see coming, and his lawyer may be unable to prevent. Especially after his Boundary Bowl posse submits testimony.
So have either of the suits (former staff vs SSV, or SSV vs former staff) ever been resolved? Google has nothing.