billybobjovialdechicoutimi

bump

Has anyone encountered a situation where an insider is impossible to identify? As in SEDI lists that person as supposedly being a senior officer of a company, with the same seniority level as the CEO, COO or CFO, but that person is not listed anywhere in the company's annual reports, management information circulars or corporate website (not in the 15 folks out of a total of 80 employees). That person also has no Linkedin profile confirming a link to the company... is this common? Am I missing something?

thanks for the ref @MungerWunger

BACKGROUND In about ten days, I have to be in Superior Court to explain to the judge why the BTB REIT trustees' psychological security is either (i) not affected by my words and actions or (ii) of a fragility disqualifying immediately all the trustees from the demanding job of a trustee of a publicly-listed trust and that they should therefore focus on running a lemonade stand for their grandkids (or assist them in doing so). The case is 500-11-066106-259 and the catalyst for that case seems to be my questions surrounding the role of National Bank's brokerage division in the sale of BTB REIT's St-Jean-sur-Richelieu buildings (a sale which now has vanished from the face of the Earth it seems). On November 4, 2025 at 8:31am, pennydredful posted the following on Stockhouse's relevant bullboard for BTB REIT: "Who would want to buy a property in Quebec?" at the end of a post I don't agree or disagree with that statement, and I don't mean to scare @pennydredful, but I believe it would be helpful for the Quebec Superior Court judge hearing the case to have your comments regarding your view on the security of any assets you may hold in Quebec: MY REQUEST FOR HELP (YOUR HONEST CANDID OPINION): So to be clear, please give me your candid views on any: 1- property you own or may buy in Quebec 2- stocks, bonds, units or any security of a company or trust under the jurisdiction of Quebec courts, you own or intend to buy 3- lending money informally to anyone based in Quebec I can guarantee your anonymity, and if you worry about that, please note that my name is Behrak Shahriari and that in August 2023, a photo of my residence was submitted for the whole public to see in file no 500-17-125976-236... so you know where to find me Please be as candid as possible and please don't limit your comments to negative ones, I seek the truth, so by all means, if you have good things to say, please make sure you mention those things as well. If you must insult me, the messenger, in the process, don't worry about that, my psychological security can handle it.

Does anyone have any insights on the fragility of the psychological security of Darcy Morris and his team at Ewing Morris? Feel free to post insights on this topic on my linkedin page here:https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7391877128406990848/ Or right here on COBF if you prefer. I would like to assess how often they intend to sue me directly or indirectly via BTB REIT for opening my mouth.

anyway... re. the press release... moot point, PR Newswire refuses to distribute it... "prohibit content that includes personal opinions about judges or institutions, allegations of misconduct, or commentary on ongoing legal matters." so the legal matter in case 500-17-132265-243 is over so nothing is "ongoing" there is no allegation of misconduct on my part on the judge, I am saying what he ruled there is no personal opinion on the judge, again I am stating the precedents stated by the judge.... anyway there you have it... freedom of speech in Canada Other important tidbits considering today's court developments in case 500-11-066106-259 at the Quebec Superior Court where BTB REIT (the trust itself) is suing me for defamation 1- My posts from 3 weeks ago begging Stockhouse to delete my account have also been submitted to the Court to show how defamatory I am 2- Any newbie coming in to this bullboard should note that posting anything remotely negative here could get you a lawsuit from BTB REIT's lawyers (Stikeman Elliott) and their threshold for what is defamatory is now famously low (and it will be much more famous soon) 3- Your capital, dear BTB REIT unitholder, can be used at will to defend the trustees' personal interests and it will be notably used to ensure the "psychological security" of the BTB REIT Trustees on the following upcoming days of hearings at the Quebec Superior Court: A- November 17th, 2025 - all day to remove and stop unspecified defamatory content on my part, including everything on Linkedin and YouTube B- November 24th, 2025 - to argue that the BTB REIT trustees can use your money for whatever purpose suits them and that my countersuit asking for punitive damages for this shameless abuse of unitholders' funds should be dismissed without a hearing from the get go You probably noted the implicit arrogance of the BTB REIT trustees (even by their standards) convinced that nothing between today and November 17th, 2025 could possibly happen to substantially changed their frivolous position. Finally, please note that this post itself and the one before it (and basically anything that comes out of me) will likely be used in Court by Stikeman Elliott against me, so please note the elevated "risks to my psychological security" I am willing to take in order to convey the above useful information to you... ... You're welcome!

and then there is also the small matter of Tobias' compensation choices (which as a CSU investor, makes me want to vomit)

Yeah, can you not say the same about the number of hours it took to develop all the VMS software owned by CSU? and it's much more granular over there and difficult to reproduce, I would think, no? Keep in mind, I am not saying that Shopify does not have a strong moat, I am discussing the matter on a relative basis, vs. CSU... as in the person panicking about CSU's business should also be panicking about SHOP... now conceivably the names are held by completely different people, but I dont think that's the case

(that last line was sarcastic... FYI)

It's less about making changes than just leaving a mark for some younger stronger (crazier) person to take over... I have a limited number of days to appeal that ruling and in Quebec at least, it seems that if you don't appeal - because say you're an imbecile like me, who's doing all of this on his own dime for the good of the entire Province - lawyers use that after to argue that you totally agree with whatever asinine ruling the judge put out... (and not that you are so terrified by the judges' incompetence that you simply don't dare ask another judge to make everything even worse... after paying yet another $5k) So that press release is just saying: "ok, Quebec, that's what you think is fair, well that's what that actually implies for all investors: keep your money in your pocket or invest it anywhere you want except in Quebec" And then you have local superstar investors like Rochon from Giverny highlighting that Quebec is the poor child of the OECD or the world in terms of investment destination... Well... duh!... Go figure... you cannot have it both ways: we either decide as a province that it's not ok to let some shady dude hire his entire family and have others pay for it, or that it's totally ok (and anyone denouncing it commits a "low blow")... but then no money..." There's a French saying from an old show (very funny actually).... "Pas de bras, pas de chocolat"... Well Quebec sorry, but "Pas de gouvernance adequate, pas d'investissements" ... and we can have tourists from all around the world come here every Summer because we are a "cheap" destination:.... Yay!!!

Any views? Should I disseminate this (assuming a press release outlet even agrees to distribute it)? Some friends say that the judges will make my life miserable (I tell them, how can it be worse than it is?) MONTREAL, QUEBEC, October 10th, 2025 - On September 18th, 2025, Quebec Superior Court justice Luc Morin issued a ruling in files 500-17-132265-243 and 500-17-125976-236 containing important jurisprudence for Quebec investors: Employment by a publicly-listed Quebec company or trust ("PublicCo") of board-member relatives: requires no disclosure to beneficiaries even if the PublicCo is widely held; can be actively hidden by interested parties with no repercussion; is not a conflict of interest but a possible conflict of interest; a beneficiary denouncing this commits a "low blow"; Administrators of other people's property on the board of a PublicCo ("Trustees") can ignore their beneficiaries' questions; Trustees can proceed without diligence, prudence, honesty and loyalty towards their mission and beneficiaries if they can demonstrate that: the beneficiary denouncing failures ('Whistleblower") has "personal grievances" the Whistleblower's efforts personally harm them, regardless of the mediocrity of the Trustees' stewardship or their past failures In convincing Courts that a beneficiary has "personal grievances": Trustees can post for no reason whatsoever a picture of the residence of the Whistleblower; owning forty (40) times the threshold set by relevant Quebec securities laws in the PublicCo is insufficient to demonstrate good faith; beneficiaries' efforts to replace Trustees and ensure proper stewardship of their capital cannot be a good faith motivation; filing complaints with Quebec securities regulators ("AMF") demonstrates bad faith even if the resulting investigation continues unimpeded for more than a year; Before the AMF issues results of a PublicCo investigation, Courts can declare the Whistleblower a vexatious complainant and thereby prohibit it from denouncing financial irregularities at any PublicCo to the AMF for the rest of its life; Even when proven to influence Court rulings, perjury can be ignored; Bar perjury investigations can be cancelled by Courts before their completions; Good faith efforts to avoid suffering by pet owners worried of a possible illegitimate separation is not a worthy cause: that suffering is trivial and does not even deserve being mentioned. Exhausted and lacking trust in Quebec's justice system, Behrak Shahriari will not appeal this ruling, despite its sad consequences on the investment community's trust in Quebec. For more information, please contact: Behrak Shahriari [email protected]

Maybe it's been discussed before... pardon me if so and thanks in advance for a link to the relevant thread... but How is it that the market is terrified that CSU's business will be crushed by AI, but nobody has such fears for Shopify... (or at least, its stock only gets an erotic caress) Can AI not reproduce in one second Shopify's entire infrastructure? Thanks for any insights, I am not smart enough to get it myself

ok but.. see in all of my examples... There is a high likelihood of net economic harm and the folks who benefit from the conflict of interest obviously are trying to hide it and stonewall access to see what the economic harm is... This likelihood is made worse by the fact that the folks IN the conflict of interest do their best to hide it and/or litigate against any folks denouncing it and/or stonewall access to the relevant data (if only to confirm that everyone is more kosher than the pope). I argue that MOM would not be ok with any of this and worse the folks who benefit from the conflicts of interest would never be ok if the roles were reversed (if their money was being handled by someone who behaved like them) anyway.... am sorry, even if you can convince me that the judge was within his rights to deny all the smoke around the burning house and claim that there is no burning house, until I take a picture or a video (not sure how he can figure that its not AI) of the actual burning wood INSIDE the house... then at least he was off by insulting me, all my suspicions, etc. and banning me from EVER denouncing anything anywhere within Quebec... oh... and I forgot to add that these conflicted folks have one of the worst track records in Canadian business right now and are in the last decile of annual trustee/director election results: Everyone wants them gone, everyone has a problem with them... but the judge sees them as poor little ducklings attacked by an evil dude asking tough questions Sorry for venting... but really, wanting to know how many relatives of the CEO are employed by him in a company where he only owns 1.5% of shares is a "low-blow"? OMG... I didn't want to invest in Quebec before, but now... how can anyone invest here?

I am not sure I fully follow your examples... sorry, they are quite complex for my small brain, but I think what you are saying is that a "possible" conflict of interest implies that there could be an innocent explanation, or an innocent development, or an innocent reverse development... Is that what you mean? If so, then I guess I disagree with the judge's assessment that what I highlighted were "possible" conflicts of interest, as in there are no innocent explanations or countermeasures that could make the conflict actually shift to the other side. At best, they are just APPARENT conflicts of interest that hover like a black cloud, never to be fully repudiated. Examples of the conflicts of interest I highlighted that the judge deems NOT to be (actual or whatever the adjective is) conflicts of interest but POSSIBLE conflicts of interest: 1- Employment of related-parties of the Board members / CEO CEO owns 1.5% of a public co, but employs his daughter, sets her salary, and not only refuses to disclose the family relationship to public unitholders but actively hides whatever proof of it exists. How can this not be a real conflict of interest as opposed to a POSSIBLE conflict of interest? Is it not fair to say that there is severe risk of inappropriate fund flows, outside of the review of the Board (which refuses to even discuss the matter in any regulated documents or publicly). The judge actually scolded me for this "low blow"... Is it a crime to ask for disclosures of related-party employment at a publicly listed company where 98.5% is held by the public? In Quebec, apparently it is... 2- Direct oversight role of "independent" appraisers of real estate valuation BTB is a REIT. It claims to regularly get "independent" appraisals of its properties (most of which are in Quebec), but the CEO of BTB was for years up until very recently (by his own admission based on his own Linkedin page) the Chairman of the board of the OACIQ, the body that regulates real estate brokerages (many of which have appraisal arms). Is that not a conflict of interest, especially when one notes the belligerent attitude of that CEO? He dragged me at the Quebec Superior Court for 2.5 years because he didn't like ONE email I wrote in June 2023. What if an "independent" appraisor dares issue a valuation the CEO doesn't like? Why would he accept such a senior role at the OACIQ anyway? Is it not fair to say that he could direct some "surprise" investigation/audit of that offending brokerage? Why would you even put yourself in such a position? 3- Hiring of brokerage completely tied to investment bankers that have received huge fees over the years based on the CEO's decisions BTB hired as early as May 2025 the brokerage arm of National Bank ("SERVICES IMMOBILIERS FBN INC") to sell 3 of its buildings in Quebec (transactions therefore regulated by the OACIQ). That brokerage arm of National Bank has no website, no listing, nothing whatsoever and 5 of its 6 board members are prominent National Bank Investment bankers and National Bank has received over the past 20 years a huge chunk of more than $20mn in underwriting fees for 13 different unit issuances and 7 different debenture issuances. The CEO of BTB was there throughout the entire period. Do we really believe there is no Conflict of Interest here?... and keep in mind, I get sued again at the Quebec Superior Court simply for highlighting the problematic optics of that entire situation... really, that's indicative of lamb innocence? Now keep in mind, that this is all coming from folks who have no problem with one of their own (that famous CEO) having 5,184 versions of his cv based on the different versions of the truth given to regulators, journalists, etc. over the years. So if you don't mind changing your cv to suit the immediate purpose of the day, what else are you totally comfortable doing (besides suing a brown dude for writing an email you didn't like)?

there is no majority shareholder that's why i suspect the incumbent board has managed to milk mom and pops unitholders for so long... the largest owner is the CEO with 1.5%, after that its just small change, a few insignificant index holders and quant dudes like dimensional, who couldn't care less how poorly or amazingly the REIT is run it's really sad to be honest and exhibit A of capitalism gone haywire... its too small to matter to insitutional owners, so it can zombie its way through the most insane corp gov with no accountability... and when a poor brown dude (your truly) starts asking questions.... well, why dont we sue him? History shows the best way to silence critics is to sue them, as if 10 new ones won't pop up (none of those will be as brown or sexy as me, by the way, but surely they can ask tough(er) questions).... anyway, i guess you may have watched my videos... I had a blast making them, now they want me to pull them down... they won't even tell me which ones, were they all that bad? thanks for the support

Yeah so that's what I thought too... Thanks for your thoughts @RichardGibbons I don't know how I can tell the judge that he is "likely confused" without going to jail though See here are a few situations which apparently do not concern that judge because they are POSSIBLE conflicts of interest and not conflicts of interest: 1- the CEO employs his daughter since 2015 in a role of increasing seniority at BTB, but her family link to him is never acknowledged in any regulatory filings, and details of her employment are never shared and the sole article available in the public domain confirming that she is indeed his daughter (and not someone with the same last name) was REMOVED from the internet shortly after I highlighted it to BTB... so the behavior of BTB begs the question: how many relatives of the CEO (or the other Trustees) are employed by BTB with no disclosure to unitholders? (keep in mind the CEO owns 1.5% of BTB, the rest is held by the public... the other trustees own mice nuts).... what I will never forget were the eyes of the judge as I tried to explain to him that this was a serious problem, he actually was accusing ME of being dishonorable for bringing the guy's daughter in the picture, as if he had never heard of the gazillion scandals over the years on that precise issue (or the fact relevant disclosures are MANDATORY in the US) 2- the CEO is no longer there, but from 2016 to a few weeks ago, he was respectively Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the OACIQ in Quebec. The OACIQ is the organization that regulates real estate brokers and brokerages. The conflict is that all the independent appraisors of BTB's buildings in Quebec know that when they are "independently" appraising the value of one of BTB's Quebec buildings, they are doing that appraisal for someone who can severely punish the brokerage side of their appraisal business (and I think we all agree that JLL, CBRE and those guys, often have appraisal businesses)... because of his senior role at the OACIQ... so in effect a BTB unitholder has to somehow believe that there is NO conflict of interest influencing these independent appraisals and for that judge, this is not a conflict of interest, it's a POSSIBLE conflict of interest.... Anyway... I can go on and on, but if the above are only POSSIBLE conflicts of interest, I don't know what to say... I am just wondering if I have been crazy all of my life, have I been living in a parallel universe, or does this ruling destroy faith in Quebec companies? I mean if the onus is on the shareholder or unitholder to show there is a problem, and none of the above is concerning to the Courts or a Conflict of Interest (of the real kind and not of the POSSIBLE Kind) then how can one EVER claim a Quebec company's trustees or directors have concerning conflicts of interest? Is this not a golden ticket for the CEO of a public Co. (sanctioned by the Quebec Superior Court) to just hire as many of your relatives as you want, and pay them whatever you want, with no oversight whatsoever from the Board, the Courts or anyone? Look, to be clear, as a Quebecer, I myself NEVER invested in Quebec companies and this is further evidence that I should NEVER invest in Quebec companies, but still, the insanity of the decision, its naked message to all foreigners (and Quebecers) to stay away from our companies is very depressing.

Hello, So in a recent Quebec Superior Court ruling, judge Luc Morin argues that the conflicts of interest I highlight at BTB REIT are not to be taken seriously since many (if not all) are POSSIBLE conflicts of interests. In so doing, the judge implicitly differentiates between a Conflict of Interest and a POSSIBLE Conflict of Interest. So I stupidly assumed for the past ca. 50 years of my life that a conflict of interest is by its very nature apparent and possible to begin with and that one does not need to find the relevant party caught red-handed in the sack to be able to argue that it is disturbing to beneficiaries. Am I stupid or what's going on? Could someone kindly explain what a POSSIBLE conflict of interest is, and why it does not deserve any attention, concern or follow-through? Thanks to all

LOLOLOLOL

Feel free to come up with your own options as answers... the more insightful the merrier

I am asking this on behalf of Mr. Jocelyn Proteau, the chairman of BTB REIT, who said some pretty fantastic stuff yesterday at that company's AGM... So the options I suggest as an answer to the poll question are: A None B Between 1 and 2 C More than 2 D How old is Mr. Jocelyn Proteau? --------- SPOILER ALERT BELOW ------------------ For those who choose option 4, you can see Mr. Proteau's biography here... https://acrobat.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn:aaid:scds:US:42f2b610-f8dd-3786-926e-77602845198e The 2025 management information circular of BTB states that he is 78 years old, but... 1- Please note that on this same page, the biography of Michel Leonard - BTB REIT CEO and trustee - was changed three (3) times in the past month and a half (yes that's 45 days), so these biographies are dynamic AND... at the same time 2- Mr. Proteau's bio - on the same page - claims that he sits on the board of CO2 solutions which went bankrupt more than 5 years ago and fyi, based on his oral comments from yesterday, folks who have a problem with that ARE the problem themselves because these inaccuracies are: (i) minor and/or (ii) don't matter. Who cares about the accuracy of a chairman's bio? Especially one with 1,000,000x the gravitas of Warren Buffett? So obviously it's not clear if his age is 78 or some other number because - and I just found this out yesterday - a chairman cannot be expected to check that type of thing considering the Chairman's royal status as a Chairman... Chairmen deal with more important stuff like... ... making sure no underling dares fudge their CV?

bump... anyone?

Since I never encountered such a discrepancy, I thought I'd get input from all you smart folks who've been following Canadian capital markets. Essentially we have a situation at BTB REIT (TSX:BTB_UN), where an insider, was deemed to be a 'director of the issuer' as far as SEDI was concerned from June 15th, 2021 to March 3rd, 2023 - her code is SLONARD002. But... at the same time, despite that capacity as far as SEDI was concerned, SLONARD002's role as director, trustee or Named Executive Officer was nowhere disclosed in the company's Management Information Circulars of 2021, 2022 or 2023. Frankly the name of this insider was not mentioned at all anywhere and at anytime in any MIC or AIF, or anything, as far as I can tell. This insider is also (in)conveniently the daughter of the CEO. So my questions are: 1- Is it possible for a person to be considered an insider for SEDI but not an insider for the issuing company or any other regulators? 2- Is it possible for a person to be considered a 'director of the issuer' for SEDI but not a director/trustee for the issuing company or any other regulators? 3- Is it possible for a person to be considered an insider and/or 'director of the issuer' for SEDI (and the company and all other regulators), but not require any related disclosure to other unit/share-holders? Thanks again for all your insights, this forum has been very insightful so far

@Spekulatius thanks for that Please note that the 'independence' of the external appraisors is a question mark here too, since the board does not consider the inexistent disclosures to unitholders surrounding its employment of the CEO's daughter in a senior role as a problem. Implicitly it seems to believe the CEO's daughter is 'independent' of the CEO, the Board, etc. How many relatives of Board members are employed by the company? Who knows? I asked the Board who sets her compensation, its terms, etc. but got Nada... including in the Management Information Circular published in May of this year (3 months after writing to the Board on that topic).

What do I like about this one? Good question @Morgan The CEO of this company sits on the board of the OACIQ - the real estate broker regulatory body in Quebec. Annoyed by my activist efforts and questions at BTB REIT (and at the OACIQ), this gentleman threatened to resign from the board of the OACIQ if the latter did not sue to shut me up at the Quebec Superior Court. Why answer questions when you can sue the guy asking questions to shut him up? Why spend your own money suing to get that guy to shut up, when you can spend the money of others to do so? That legal effort, which has cost unknown thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of dollars to the OACIQ (and the real estate brokers of Quebec) has led to interim Quebec Superior Court rulings forbidding me to share my opinions on the OACIQ (or even OACIQ facts) with BTB unitholders. Comically, the last interim order would remain inforce for at least a year past the BTB CEO having to leave his seat on the OACIQ's board in September 2025 by law anyway and regardless of my annoying questions, since the hearings in our case are slated to be held in Summer 2026 at the earliest. My view is that all of this coming from the CEO of a publicly-listed company is a brazen attempt to silence critics and/or obstruct their analysis. Quarterly earnings calls are reserved for sell-side analysts, who - in case you are wondering - are also ignoring me (trying to stay on the good side of the CEO for lucrative IB work? who knows?). The point is there is no way to get answers from these guys. The good (or bad) news is that there are so many strange things happenings at BTB itself, that there is no need to discuss the OACIQ with BTB unitholders, in order to ask tough questions from BTB's management. Now maybe there are no squeletons in BTB's closet, but obviously if the boy runs to hide when you ask him why there are no cookies left in the jar, you wonder what the boy is hiding, and in this case, they boy has run to hide in the closet, he has put on a fake moustache, and a whig, and is trying to speak in a foreign accent... Since all of this is happening in my backyard of Montreal, if there is indeed fraud, etc. I would prefer for it to be stopped asap, if only to protect the reputation of our local companies/markets. Sino-Forest was not great, Poseidon was not great, let's keep the list as short as possible.

Why I believe the CFA is a scam 1- Ethics The curriculum won't make anyone who is un-ethical, suddenly ethical, but that's what it naively proposes. Many of the 'cures' for discovery of unethical behavior at your employers are blind to reality: it recommends resigning, well here is the thing, in most of the world's job markets, and I believe even in large liquid ones like NYC or London, etc. , you simply cannot find a job fast enough to 'resign' your current one, furthermore, your ex-employer will not care that you were CFA or not, they will make it their life mission to destroy your chances of getting any other employment in the field, since it's essentially your word of them being 'unethical' against theirs, and the CFA will not intervene at all to adjudicate, etc. 2- Employment, Salary, etc. When I got the CFA charter, after passing the 3rd test, I got a handshake from my employer, and a few smiles, but that's it, no raise or anything like that, not even a change in title, just the three letters next to my name for them to brag to current/future clients. What the CFA stats on salary will not show you, is the many ex-charterholders who decided to stop paying their dues, because they are insanely high and can only be defended if one remains in the industry. The stat is massaged therefore higher therefore simply by cutting the denominator to the lowest possible. 3- Curriculum itself I was a Buffett devotee before 'learning' the material for the different tests. I cannot say exactly how much, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least half of the CFA material simply goes against all the teachings of the value school, of Buffett, Munger, et al. In my view, Benjamin Graham who pushed for the designation in the first place, himself would be shocked by what is taught as CFA gospel, and fyi, I 'un-learned' everything the curriculum advised, and thank god I did because if I hadn't, I'd be living under a bridge somewhere panhandling. BOTTOM LINE: Its a waste of time and money, and worse, to those who feel somehow comforted by the fact that their financial advisor is a CFA charterholder, well, I guess if you are naive enough to believe that ethics and honesty can be taught via a test, then you probably deserve whatever Hell you may eventually endure, at least in terms of underperformance.