The final showdown between lawyers representing The Lighthouse Supported Living Inc., and lawyers representing two former co-managers along with Affinity Credit Union has been set by Court of King’s Bench Justice Allisen Rothery.
During a hearing Tuesday afternoon, Rothery gave the two sides time to try and come up with an agreement regarding receivership that was also amenable to Affinity Credit Union — the bank that holds the Lighthouse’s nearly $2.4-million mortgage and a $350,000 line of credit.
An agreement wasn’t reached during the brief recess.
Affidavits filed Feb. 8 by Twila Reddekopp and Jerome Hepfner allege that the board of five members is split into two factions, that the province is withholding more than $100,000 in financial support, and that the board of directors can’t make decisions — including financial ones — in the best interests of the corporation.
An application was also made the same day calling for Lighthouse Supported Living to be put into temporary receivership, while accounting and tax firm MNP LLP examined the charity’s finances in detail.
Lighthouse lawyers Paul Fedoroff and Greg Frith agreed an interim receiver would be helpful, but not on the same terms as the initial receivership application. The two argued that there should be meaningful restructuring to keep the charity afloat, and that the current board was prepared to step down.
Control would go back to the board members to hold an annual general meeting, to choose a new board of directors, and to gradually see a “rehabilitation” of the organization.
However, lawyer Travis Kusch — who represented Reddekopp and Hepfner — told the court that the Lighthouse plan was “a bad band-aid,” adding MNP LLP would bring much-needed stability, and that Affinity Credit Union would agree to continue to pay employees. He added that the board had “14 months to right the ship and it’s still sinking.”
A request made by Frith for him and Fedoroff to come up with their own receivership agreement was granted.
Rothery said she wasn’t optimistic another delay would result in an agreement satisfactory to the bank, but she deferred the matter to Friday for an opportunity to “pull something out of their hat.”