Perhaps we can also claim this provision to strengthen our claim further;

(ii) a breach of duty attaching to the ownership, occupation, possession or control of property.

The breach of duty by government protective agencies, such as the BRITISH COLUMBIA SECURITIES COMMISSION (BCSC), ALBERTA SECURITIES COMMISSION (ASC), RCMP, etc has caused this liability against the Crown by employees of these agencies not taking appropriate and lawful action of enforcement of law, that they are legally endorsed to execute. The Crown is liable for its employees.

An "abuse of power" is also recognized in the Justice Steeves ruling as well as the initial ruling by the Justice that recognized the "Advance Notice Policy" as being an instrument in force. These unjust acts by representatives of the Crowns Judicial system are also quite blatant and ignorance by them is no accepted excuse. The claims in regards to this action, could be put forward by the Hastmans, SLI shareholders, or both as a whole. The tangible amounts suffered by the Hastmans, as well as our contributions to the unjust battle, are compensatory claims and reimbursement of funds paid to the Crown. Again, this would not require going to court, the Crown is at uncontestable fault, by 1) the justice ignoring the fact that the Advance Notice Policy had to be ratified by shareholders to be an enforceable policy, which voided any ruling made in favour of the unratified instrument, in the first court appearance; 2) by Justice Steeves making decisive rulings that oppressed and supressed shareholders further, and NOT recognizing multiple other remedies available to him, to assure the public interest. In one of Justice Steeves quotes, he stated no other remedies were available to him to base his decision upon. This is not correct, he had many and any Judge knows the law and applicable remedies to each decision, of which one remedy included arbitration, where he could have ordered a panel to produce specific areas of law to be entertained and a reconciliation direction that would have considered the concerns of both parties involved, rather than his favortism of the corporate side, which in this case, is totally undemocratic.

Anyone considering this route of claims should only claim direct expenses incurred as a result of the non enforcement to date, meaning not the worth of your shares, but the interest accrued on any loans, placement of jeopardy, court costs, filing of any documents, any new loans that were taken out because of the uncertainty with your investment, time spent researching and writing letters/emails (at least $50 per hour is suggested), why there was no enforcement, telephone calls, anything you can think of that advertently connects to the amount of initial compensation owed to you by the Crown, any travelling done to meet with Crown representatives, loss of time at work ,etc.