You live by the judgment

You live by the judgment Re Fighting With Faro, Yukon News, May 25: After supposedly spending all of their money fighting Faro in the legal courts, Angelika Knapp and Eric Dufresne are trying to prosecute the town in the court of public opinion. As with

Re Fighting With Faro, Yukon News, May 25:

After supposedly spending all of their money fighting Faro in the legal courts, Angelika Knapp and Eric Dufresne are trying to prosecute the town in the court of public opinion. As with past articles concerning this issue, the information being fed to you is intended to show them as the poor underdogs while the town comes off as the bad guy.

The article says, “Knapp and her partner filed suit” and “Faro came back with an offer to settle, but the couple refused, and took the town to court.” After three court decisions in the town’s favour, why are they are still refusing to accept a legal process that they initiated?

Has your staff spent as much time reviewing the court documents as they seem to have spent listening to the Knapp/Dufresne version of events?

Your article quotes Yukon’s chief legislative counsel Steven Horn’s comments in a Community Services memorandum from 2006. Where are the quotes from the Yukon Supreme Court judgement dated April 28, 2009, and the subsequent Court of Appeals judgement of August 19, 2010?

As a Faro taxpayer, I’m frustrated with the amount of money that the town has had to spend on this matter. The last time someone asked about the costs in an open council meeting it was over $150,000. This money could have gone a long way towards making improvements that would benefit all of the residents of Faro. It’s likely that Knapp and Dufresne have spent close to the same amount, since they had lawyers for two of the three court actions they initiated. Maybe if they had spent as much time and money building a visibly viable business in co-operation with town bylaws both parties wouldn’t be out thousands of dollars.

Knapp laments, “I don’t know what we’re going to do now.” The court made it clear that Knapp and Dufresne should apply for “discretionary residential use.”

They have chosen not to do that, and so the court has ruled that they need to vacate the property immediately.

When you initiate a legal action, you should be prepared for any eventual outcome.

Dave Rogerson

Faro, Yukon