SUPREME COURT | OF BRITISH COLUMBIA | VANCOUVER REGISTRY JAN 19 2016 | Pye No_S~ 160 489 1G ‘Vancouver Registry IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA. BETWEEN: BRITISH COLUMBIA HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY PLAINTIFF AND: KEN BOON, ARLENE BOON, VERENA HOFMANN, ESTHER PEDERSEN also known as Rachel Blatt, HELEN KNOTT, YVONNE TUPPER, JANE DOE, JOHN DOE and all other persons unknown to the Plaintiff occupying, obstructing, blocking, physically impeding or delaying access, at or in the vicinity of the area in and around the south bank of the Peace River upstream (west) of the Moberly River, including the area in and around the heritage site known as Rocky Mountain Fort DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF CIVIL CLAIM This action has been started by the plaintiff for the relief set out in Part 2 below. If you intend to respond to this action, you or your lawyer must (@) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim on the plaintiff. If you intend to make a counterclaim, you or your lawyer must (a) file a response to civil claim in Form 2 and a counterclaim in Form 3 in the above-named registry of this court within the time for response to civil claim described below, and (b) serve a copy of the filed response to civil claim and counterclaim on the plaintiff and on any new parties named in the counterclaim. 240150,00163/90632269.1JUDGMENT MAY BE PRONOUNCED AGAINST YOU IF YOU FAIL to file the response to civil claim within the time for response to civil claim described below. Time for response to civil claim A response to civil claim must be filed and served on the plaintiff, (@) __ if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in Canada, within 21 days after that service, (6) if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere in the United States of America, within 35 days after that service, (© if you were served with the notice of civil claim anywhere else, within 49 days after that service, or (@) if the time for response to civil claim has been set by order of the court, within that time. CLAIM OF THE PLAINTIFF. Part 1: STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The Plaintiff, British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority (“BC Hydro”) is a provincial Crown corporation. It has been continued under the Hydro and Power Authority Act, RSBC 1996, ¢ 212, s. 12(1.1). 2, BC Hydro operates an integrated electrical system that serves 95% of British Columbia's, population, delivering electricity to approximately 1.9 million customers. BC Hydro’s system includes 31 hydroelectric generating facilities and 3 thermal generating facilities, which total approximately 12,000 megawatts of installed generating capacity. BC Hydro delivers electricity to its customers through a network of over 75,000 km of transmission and distribution lines. 3. The Defendant Ken Boon is president of the Peace Valley Landowner Association (*PVLA”) and has a residential address of 14818 Highway 29 North, Fort St. John, BC., VII 4H6. 4, The Defendant Arlene Boon is married to Ken Boon, is a member of the PVLA and has a residential address of 14818 Highway 29 North, Fort St. John, BC., VIJ 4H6. 5. The Defendant Verena Hofmann, whose address is unknown to the Plaintiff, is a former staff member of the Treaty 8 Tribal Association. 6. The Defendant Esther Pedersen, also known as Rachel Blatt, is an owner of Peace Equestrian Park and has a residential address of 21 Site Comp 9 SS 2 Stn Main, Fort St. John, B.C. V1J 4M7. 24010,00163/90632269.11. 8. ‘The Defendant Helen Knott, whose address is unknown to the Plaintiff, is a member of Prophet River First Nation (“Prophet River”). ‘The Defendant Yvonne Tupper’s address and profession are unknown to the Plaintiff. The Site C Clean Energy Project 9. 10. a. 12, 13. 4. 15. 16. BC Hydro is currently constructing the Site C Clean Energy Project (the “Project"), a dam and hydroelectric generating station on the Peace River in northeast British Columbia. ‘The Project will be the third dam on the Peace River, downstream from the existing W.A.C. Bennett Dam and Peace Canyon Dam. The dam site will be about 7 km southwest of Fort St. John. The reservoir for the Project will extend upstream from the dam site for 83 km to the Peace Canyon Dam. It will be on average two or three times the width of the existing river - or two or three kilometres wide. ‘The Project will generate reliable and cost effective electricity for BC Hydro customers for more than 100 years. The in-service date for the Project is scheduled to be BC Hydro’s fiscal year 2024 (April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024), The capital-cost estimate for the Project is $8.335 billion, not including reserves. BC Hydro has been consulting Aboriginal groups including all Treaty 8 First Nations in British Columbia, as well as local landowners, and members of the public about the Project since about 2007. Consultation is ongoing. On October 14, 2014, following a process that lasted over three years, the provincial Minister of Environment and Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations issued the Project an Environmental Assessment Certificate (the “Certificate”) pursuant to s. 17 of the Environmental Assessment Act, S.B.C. 2002, c. 43. Schedule A to the Certificate describes the Project, including the ongoing construction activities. Schedule B to the Certificate lists 77 conditions with which BC Hydro must comply in order to proceed with the Project. Also on October 14, 2014, the federal Governor-in-Council issued Order-in-Council 2014-1105 (“Order-in-Council”) setting out its decision under s. 52(4) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act 2012, 8.C. 2012, ¢. 19, s. 52 (“CEAA 2012") that the ignificant adverse environmental effects the Project is likely to cause are justified in the sumstances, The federal Minister of Environment also released a Decision Statement for the Project under s, 54(1) of CEAA 2012 that sets out conditions binding on BC Hydro in order to proceed with the Project. In accordance with the conditions included in the Certificate and the Decision Statement, BC Hydro has developed a number of management, mitigation and monitoring plans, including a construction environmental monitoring plan, a vegetation clearing and debris management plan, and a heritage resources management plan. 240150,00163/90552269.1Previous and existing litigation in relation to the Project. 17. 18. 19, 20. 2. 22. 23, 24, In October 2014, PVLA initiated proceedings in B.C. Supreme Court seeking to quash the Certificate, In November 2014, PVLA similarly initiated proceedings in Federal Court seeking to quash the Order in Council. On July 2, 2015, the B.C. Supreme Court dismissed PVLA’s challenge concluding the Ministers’ decision to issue the Certificate was reasonable (2015 BCSC 1129). The PYLA have appealed that decision and the appeal is set to be heard April 4 and 5, 2016. ‘On August 28, 2015, the Federal Court dismissed PVLA’s challenge to the Order in Council, concluding the Govemor in Council’s decision that the significant adverse environmental effects the Project is likely to cause are justified in the circumstances was a reasonable decision (2015 FC 1027). PVLA did not appeal this decision. West Moberly First Nations (“West Moberly”) and Prophet River also brought challenges to the Certificate and Order in Council in B,C. Supreme Court and Federal Court respectively, claiming, inter alia, that the decisions were unreasonable and Crown consultation in relation to the decisions was inadequate. Both of these challenges were also dismissed. The BC Supreme Court (2015 BCSC 1682) found, inter alia, that the Crown and BC Hydro had made good faith efforts to consult and accommodate West Moberly and Prophet River with respect to the Project. Similarly, the Federal Court (2015 FC 1030) found that BC Hydro’s consultation was in good faith and was extensive. West Moberly and Prophet River have appealed these decisions. On August 5, 2015, after construction for the Project commenced, West Moberly and Prophet River filed an application for judicial review (BCSC Victoria Registry, 152987) challenging 36 authorizations issued to BC Hydro in July 2015 required for various construction activities (the “Permit JR”), including some of the ongoing construction activities. In the Permit JR proceedings, West Moberly and Prophet River sought an interlocutory injunction to prevent BC Hydro from conducting work pursuant to those 36 authorizations. On August 28, 2015, the B.C. Supreme Court dismissed the application for an injunction concluding that the applicants had not established irreparable harm without the injunction, and BC Hydro would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was granted. As part of the injunction proceedings, BC Hydro undertook to postpone clearing of part of the lower Moberly River until after the Permit JR was resolved or October 31, 2016. ‘The hearing of the Permit JR began on November 17, 2016 for four days, and is not yet complete. Required Site Preparation Clearing Work 25. Construction of the Project began on July 27, 2015 and is ongoing. 240150,00165/90632269.128. 29. 30. Currently, construction activities consist of site preparation and other work in order to prepare the site for the main civil works contractor. ‘The site preparation work includes clearing in a number of areas, including a portion of land on the south bank of the Peace River, upstream (west) of the Moberly River (the “Lower Reservoir Area”). This area is within the lands that will be inundated when the reservoir is created. BC Hydro is also constructing temporary access roads to facilitate the clearing and other construction activities in the Lower Reservoir Area. BC Hydro has been granted permits and authorizations to construct the Project including clearing and creating access roads in and to the Lower Reservoir Area, including: (2) Temporary licence of occupation no. 815649 issued under Land Act, s. 39, dated July 7, 2015; (b) Temporary licence of occupation no. 815646 issued under Land Act, s. 39, dated July 7, 2015 (©) Temporary licence of occupation no, 815641 issued under Land Act, s. 39, dated July 7, 2015 (d) Occupant licence to cut and remove timber L50183, referred to as “OLTC #1”, issued under Forest Act, s. 47.4, dated July 7, 2015; (©) Heritage Inspection Permit No. 2014-0274, issued under the Heritage Conservation Act, s. 14 on September 29, 2014 and amended July 15, 2015; (Alteration Permit No. 2015-0193 issued under Heritage Conservation Act, s. 12 on July 15, 2015; (g) Eagles nest removal Permit FJ14-154018 issued under the Wildlife Act and s. 3(1)(A)(ii) and s. 2(&)(i) of the Permit Regulation, B.C. Reg. 253/2000, dated July 6, 2015; and (h) Beaver lodge removal Permit FJ14-154005 issued under the Wildlife Act and s. 3(1)(@) and s. 2(c)(iii) of the Permit Regulation, B.C. Reg. 253/2000, dated July 6, 2015. ‘The validity of each of these authorizations is part of the challenge brought by West Moberly and Prophet River in the Permit JR, and enjoining work pursuant to these authorizations was part of the relief sought in their application for an injunction, which ‘was denied. The conduct of the Defendants, set out below, is preventing work pursuant to some of these authorizations from taking place. BC Hydro has entered into a contract to conduct clearing and other site preparation activities in the Lower Reservoir Area (the “Clearing Contract”). This work is authorized under the authorizations listed above. 240150 9016390632269.131. 32. The Clearing Contractor attempted to begin clearing of the Lower Reservoir Area pursuant to the Clearing Contract on or about January 4, 2016 but was prevented by the Defendants from doing this work. The Clearing Contractor must complete this work by March 31, 2016. BC Hydro has entered into a contract with Peace River Hydro Partners for constructing the main civil works for the Project (the “Main Civil Works contract”). Its work depends in part on the work being done by the Clearing Contractor on schedule. The Protest Camp and Blockade 33. 34, 35. 36. 37. 38. In or about November 2015, the Defendants and persons unknown to BC Hydro constructed and, from time to time thereafter, occupied a camp (the “Protest Camp”) at or near the site known as “Rocky Mountain Fort” (heritage site HbRE31), without authorization of the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. The Protest Camp is located in the Lower Reservoir Area on Crown land. On or about December 31, 2015, the Defendants, including persons unknown to BC Hy4ro, through the use of a helicopter, erected a cabin with a wood stove and bunkhouse at the Protest Camp without authorization of the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. On or about January 12, 2016, a second cabin, also through the use of a helicopter, was erected at the Protest Camp without authorization of the Minister of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Since on or about December 31, 2015, the Protest Camp has been continuously occupied by the Defendants and persons unknown to BC Hydro in rotating shifts as a base from which the Defendants have interfered with, and prevented, BC Hydro employees and contractors from conducting work on the Project in the Lower Reservoir Area. Since on or about January 4, 2016, BC Hydro and its contractors have been attempting to clear the Lower Reservoir Area, but have made minimal progress, having been impeded by the Defendants. Since on or about January 7, 2016, BC Hydro and its contractors have been completely prevented by the Defendants from conducting any clearing or other construction work in the Lower Reservoir Area. Since on or about January 7, 2016, the Defendants constructed campfires in or near the path of the Clearing Contractor’s felling and excavation machines in the Lower Reservoir Area, obstructing the machines and preventing the Clearing Contractor from conducting work. Particulars of the conduct of the Defendants include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Beginning on or about December 31, 2015, and ongoing, the Defendant Ken Boon and others have been continuously occupying the Protest Camp for the purposes of preventing clearing in the Lower Reservoir Area. (b) On or about December 31, 2015, the Defendant Esther Pedersen, who uses the alias Rachel Blatt on Facebook, and others, through the use of a helicopter, moved 240150, 00165/90682269.1() @ © 0) @ @ (&) a cabin from her farm to the Protest Camp, and has been organizing the delivery of supplies and food to the Protest Camp. On or about December 31, 2015, the Defendant Helen Knott and others erected signs at the Protest Camp stating: “No Trespassing Treaty 8 Territory” and “Rocky Mtn. Fort Property of Treaty 8 Members”. Beginning on or about January 1, 2016 and ongoing, the Defendants Verena Hoffman, Yvonne Tupper, Helen Knott and Arlene Boon have been seeking volunteers to join the Protest Camp and “man the camp on shift schedules” through online postings. On January 2, 2016, the Defendants Yvonne Tupper and Verena Hofmann put up a yellow rope in front of a piece of machinery owned or leased by BC Hydro’s Clearing Contractor located just west of the Moberly River. They affixed signs to the rope which state: “No Trespassing Treaty 8 Territory” and “No Cutting Permitted Treaty 8 Territory”. Ms. Hofmann and Ms. Tupper told BC Hydro security guards that BC Hydro would be trespassing if they crossed the line. On or about January 4, 2016, the Defendant Ken Boon and others obstructed a felling machine which had been operating for approximately 30 minutes, and prevented the Clearing Contractor’s employees from conducting any clearing or other work. On multiple occasions, beginning on or about January 4, 2016, the Defendants Ken Boon, Helen Knott, Yvonne Tupper, Arlene Boon, Verena Hoffman and others have informed BC Hydro representatives that they plan to prevent clearing the Lower Reservoir Area by being there, and they do not intend on leaving, On or about January 6, 2016, the Defendant Arlene Boon and others obstructed a felling machine which had been operating for less than 30 minutes, and prevented the Clearing Contractor’s employees from conducting any further work, On or about January 7, 2016, the Defendant Yvonne Tupper and others obstructed a felling machine by walking into the area where the machine was operating, The ‘machine had been operating for approximately 15 minutes before Ms. Tupper and others interfered with the machine and its operators. On or about January 7, 2016, the Defendants, or some of them, built campfires in the path of the Clearing Contractor's equipment, including its felling machines and excavator. These campfires continue to be lit on a regular basis, and people regularly stand in the area near the fire and the machines. On or about January 12, 2016, the Defendants, or some of them, delivered or arranged to deliver a second cabin to the Protest Camp through the use of a helicopter. 240150,00163/90632269.1(these activities described in paragraphs 33 to 38 collectively referred to as the “Blockading Activities”) 39. The Defendants assert the reasons for the Blockading Activities is to oppose the Project and prevent the construction of the Project, including clearing the Lower Reservoir Area. 40. The Defendants have solicited others to join them in the Blockading Activities using social media, 41, ‘The Blockading Activities and the conduct of the Defendants have prevented BC Hydro’s contractors and employees from accessing the Lower Reservoir Area and proceeding with clearing and other construction activities authorized by the tenures and permits listed above. Damages 42, Asa result of the Defendant's actions, BC Hydro and others have suffered and continue to suffer damages and irreparable harm. 43, The conduct of the Defendants has caused loss, damage and expense to BC Hydro. If the clearing in the Lower Reservoir Area is not completed by March 31, 2016, then significant loss, damage and expense will be incurred by BC Hydro, 44, If the Blockading Activities are not ended, BC Hydro will be forced to delay construction and modify construction plans for the Project. Part 2: RELIEF SOUGHT ‘An interim, interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining, enjoining or requiring the Defendants and any of them, and anyone who has knowledge of this order: (@ from physically preventing, impeding, restricting or in any way physically interfering with, counselling others to prevent, impede, restrict or physically interfere with, any person or vehicle travelling to or accessing the Lower Reservoir Area; (b) from physically preventing, impeding, restricting or in any way physically interfering with, counselling others to prevent, impede, restrict or physically interfere with the Plaintiff, its employees, agents, contractors, or subcontractor carrying on its business in furtherance of the Project and in particular construction of the Project in the Lower Reservoir Area; (©) from threatening or intimidating the Plaintiff or its contractors and their respective employees, servants, agents or other persons in a contractual or economic relationship with the Plaintiff; (@ from physically interfering with or counselling others to physically interfere with the performance by the Plaintiff of its contractual relations with its employees, 240150.00163)90632269.1servants, agents or other persons in a contractual or economic relationship with the Plaintiff (©) from physically interfering with or counselling others to physically interfere with the performance by the Plaintiff's contractors of their contractual relations with the Plaintiff and (to remove all physical obstructions to accessing and conducting construction activities for the Project in the Lower Reservoir Area. 2. General damages; 3. Exemplary o punitive damages; 4. Costs; 5. Interest pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79; and 6. Such further and other relief that this Honourable Court determines to be just. Part 3: LEGAL BASIS 1, The Defendants conduct constitutes the torts of: (a) _ trespass to the Licences of Occupation, (b) trespass to OLTC #1, (© public nuisance; (@ private nuisance; (©) inducing breach of contract; (intentional interference with economic relations by unlawful means; (g) intimidation; and (h) conspiracy. 2. By engaging in the Blockading Activities, the Defendants and persons unknown have: (a) interfered with BC Hydro, its contractors and employees lawful use and enjoyment of the Lower Reservoir Area; such interference is not reasonable in the circumstances; (b) interfered with the business, contractual or economic relationships between the Plaintiff and its employees, contractors, agents, customers or suppliers, or others in an economic relationship with the Plaintiff, including preventing its contractors from fulfilling their contracts with the Plaintiff 24150.0016390632269.1(©) impeded, obstructed, interrupted or interfered with persons entering the Lower Reservoir Area, including motor vehicles and machinery owned or leased by BC Hydro or its contractors; (4) damaged or interfered with access to the Lower Reservoir Area, and in particular, machinery of the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff's contactors, and their respective employees, agents, tenants, customers or suppliers; (©) obstructed the Plaintiff or its contractors, and their respective employees, agents, tenants, customers or suppliers, or others in a business, contractual, or economic relationship with the Plaintiff, (conspired to injure, or use unlawful means against, the Plaintiff or its contractors and their respective employees, agents, tenants, customers or suppliers, or others in a business, contractual, or economic relationship with the Plaintiff; () induced, supported, encouraged, condoned, and procured the commission of the above unlawful acts and breaches; (h) _trespassed on BC Hydro’s interests in the Lower Reservoir Area. 3. The Defendants have, by engaging in and continuing the Blockading Activities, including constructing and occupying the Protest Camp, without lawful excuse and for the purpose of compelling other persons to abstain from doing whet they have a lawful right to do, besetted or watched a place where persons work, carry on business or happen to be in contravention of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, s 423(1)(f). 4, The Defendants have, by engaging in and continuing the Blockading Activities, including constructing and occupying the Protest Camp, obstructed, interrupted or interfered with the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property or have obstructed, interrupted or interfered with persons in the lawful use, enjoyment or operation of property contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, ¢. C-46, ss 430(1)(c) and (4). 5. The Defendants are, by engaging in and continuing the Blockading Activities, including constructing and occupying the Protest Camp without authorization, in contravention of section 60 of the Land Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, ¢ 245. 6. The Defendants have knowledge of BC Hydro’s business, economic and contractual relations with its employees, agents, contractors, suppliers, and others in privity of contract with BC Hydro, 7. The sole or predominant purpose of the Blockading Activities is to cause damage to BC Hydro’s business operations, prevent BC Hydro from developing and constructing the Project and injure BC Hydro. 8 The Defendants knew or ought to have known that their conduct harassed BC Hydro’s employees, agents, contractors, suppliers or others in privity of contract with BC Hydro, 20150,00168/90632269.110. TI 12, 1B. 14. 15. 16. ‘The conduct of the Defendants, or some of them, is interfering with and is intended to interfere with, BC Hydro’s existing and prospective contractual, economic and business relations, As a result of such intentional interference, BC Hydro has suffered, and will suffer, loss, damage and expense. ‘The Defendants, with knowledge of the contract between BC Hydro and the Clearing Contractor and intent to prevent performance of the contract, and with the sole or predominant purpose of causing damage to BC Hydro, wrongfully and without the lawful Tight to do so caused the Clearing Contractor to fail to perform its contract with BC Hydro and wrongfully prevented the Clearing Contractor from performing his obligations under the contract, By reason of the conduct of the Defendants, the Clearing Contractor is unable to meet its obligations under the contract, causing BC Hydro loss, damage or expense and is itself incurring loss, damage and expense. Each of the Defendants, or some of them, agreed or acted in concert to commit and promote the unlawful acts described herein, ‘The Defendants knew, or ought to have ‘known, that loss, damage and expense would be suffered by BC Hydro and the Clearing Contractor as a result of their conduct and BC Hydro and the Clearing Contractor have suffered loss, damage and expense. The Defendants, with knowledge of the contract between BC Hydro and Peace River Hydro Partners and intent to prevent performance of the contract, and with the sole or predominant purpose of causing damage to BC Hydro, wrongfully and without the lawful right to do so will cause Peace River Hydro Partners to fail to perform the work under its contract with BC Hydro and will wrongfully prevent Peace River Hydro Partners from performing its obligations under the contract. By reason of the conduct of the Defendants, Peace River Hydro Partners will be unable to meet its obligations under the contract, causing BC Hydro loss, damage or expense and is itself incurring loss, damage and expense. Each of the Defendants, or some of them, agreed or acted in concert to commit and promote the unlawful acts described herein. The Defendants knew, or ought to have known, that loss, damage and expense would be suffered by BC Hydro and may be suffered by Peace River Hydro Partners as a result of their conduet and BC Hydro and Peace River Hydro Partners have suffered, or will suffer, loss, damage and expense. In the altemative, each of the Defendants, or some of them, conspired to use unlawful means to damage BC Hydro’s business with the sole or predominant purpose of injuring BC Hydro by preventing BC Hydro from developing and constructing the Project and causing BC Hydro loss, damage or expense. By engaging in the Blockading Activities, the Defendants intended to, and in fact did and continue to, interfere with BC Hydro’s rights and obligations as described above. The conduct of the Defendants has caused safety problems for the Defendants, BC Hydro’s employees, management staff, agents, suppliers or others in privity of contract with BC Hydro. 24010.00163/90632269.117. The Blockading Activities and the conduct of the Defendants has caused, and continues to cause, and threatens to cause BC Hydro loss, damage, expense and irreparable harm, 18. The damage suffered by BC Hydro by the interference with the lawful use and enjoyment of the Lower Reservoir Area is unique to BC Hydro. 19, The Defendants knew or ought to have known that BC Hydro would suffer loss, damage, expense or harm as a result of their conduct. Plaintiffs address for service: Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 2900 - $30 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 0A3 Fax number address for service (if any): w/a E-mail address for service (if any): wa Place of trial: ‘Vancouver ‘The address of the registry is: 800 Smithe Si “TN Dated: January 19, 2016 Lawyer for Plaintiff Charles F, Willms Rule 7-1(1) of the Supreme Court Civil Rules states: q) Unless all parties of record consent or the court otherwise orders, each party of record to an action must, within 35 days after the end of the pleading period, (2) prepare a list of documents in Form 22 that lists (all documents that are or have been in the party’s possession or contro! and that could, if available, be used by any party at trial to prove or disprove a material fact, and Gi) all other documents to which the party intends to refer at trial, and (b) serve the list on all parties of record. 240150 00163)90532269.1APPENDIX. Part 1: CONCISE SUMMARY OF NATURE OF CLAIM: ‘An action for injunctive relief and damages for nuisance, inducing breach of contract, interference with economic relations by unlawful means, intimidation, and conspiracy. Part 2: THIS CLAIM ARISES FROM THE FOLLOWING: A personal injury arising out of C1 —amotor vehicle accident O medical malpractice C another cause A dispute conceming: contaminated sites construction defects real property (real estate) personal property the provision of goods or services or other general commercial matters investment losses the lending of money an employment relationship a will or other issues concerning the probate of an estate a matter not listed here Sooo0o000000 Part 3: THIS CLAIM INVOLVES: a.class action maritime law aboriginal law constitutional law conflict of laws none of the above do not know oo000000 Part 4: ‘The Solicitors for the Plaintiff are Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP, whose office address and address for delivery is 2900-550 Burrard Street, Vancouver, BC V6C 0A3 (Reference: Chuck Willms/240150.00163) 240150.00163/90632269.1