Kootenay woman upset by deer cull sues realtor for ‘misleading’ her about neighbourhood

An Invermere woman who attempted to sue her real estate agent because she didn’t like her neighbours or the fact that the town was culling deer has been ordered to pay special costs because of her behaviour over the seven years of litigation.

BC Supreme Court Justice Neena Sharma said it was “difficult to conceive” how a reasonable person would consider it the realtors’s responsibility who moved into the neighbourhood in the future.

In a June 27 BC Supreme Court decision, Justice Sharma said that while Monie Rahman was dismayed by a deer cull carried out by the District of Invermere, the cull was not the realtor’s responsibility.

“It is not entirely clear from the pleadings, the voluminous material relied upon by Ms. Rahman or her written material, what precise loss and damage that she allegedly suffered,” Justice Sharma said.

An earlier court ruling described her court affidavits as “rambling, disorganized and difficult to read,” while noting they missed relevant and important facts.

The case dates back to 2010 when Rahman and her husband, Shane Suman, bought a property in a brand new development on Westside Park View in Invermere.

A year later, neighbours who were retired seniors moved out, and a noisy family who smoked cigarettes on their porch moved in. At about that time the District of Invermere began its discussions about a deer cull.

Rahman and her husband became leading voices of opposition to the deer cull and were members of the Invermere Deer Protection Society. The deer cull became controversial but ultimately passed at referendum in 2013. 

Five years later, Rahman filed a suit against numerous people, including Windermere Valley Property Management, who do business as First Choice Realty.

The decision said the other parties resolved the case, but Rahman continued her suit against First Choice Realty.

Rahman said she was told the people purchasing homes in the development wanted to get away from the “noise and flurry of city life to find a rural, peaceful, and calm living environment.”

She also claimed she was also told Invermere was a “deer-friendly environment.”

“(Rahman) slowly started to find out that (she was) misled and told misleading information about the house, the neighbourhood and the environment as a whole (in the) town,” she claimed.

Rahman accused the realtor of negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation.

However, Justice Sharma wasn’t swayed.

“Given the characteristics of the neighbourhood, it is unreasonable for any person to believe no children would live there or that there would be no traffic noise. In my view, those noises were inevitable given the composition and features of the development. Ms. Rahman’s claim to be unaware of those features of the neighbourhood is not only unsupportable, it is unreasonable to the point of defying belief,” the Justice said.

Rahman also claimed the realtor knowingly sold and leased homes near her property to people they knew she would have an issue with.

“Not only is that proposition devoid of evidence, it amounts to nothing more than speculation,” the Justice said.

The Justice said the homes were 15 feet apart and other families with children were living there prior to Rahman moving in. Rahman had also read in a local newspaper about the proposed deer cull before she moved.

Justice Sharma dismissed Rahman’s case because it was filed late.

“Even if I had not dismissed the claim on the basis of it being filed out of time, I find Ms. Rahman’s pleadings, the evidence on the record… and her written material and oral submissions all fall far short of raising a genuine issue for trial,” the Justice said.

In 2012, Rahman and her husband were ordered to pay $1.5 million for their roles in an insider trading scheme.

According to the Ontario Securities Commission, Suman worked in IT and tipped his wife off about a proposed acquisition of a US company. They made $954,938 profit from the tip and were ordered to pay that back and were fined $500,000. The US Securities and Exchange Commission also ordered the couple to pay $3-million penalty.

In the Invermere case, Rahman represented herself in court and much of the decision is about to her conduct throughout the legal proceedings.

In an earlier court proceeding, a Justice said that “reprehensible” wasn’t a strong enough word for her conduct after she “improperly” filed a “deceptive” order with the court.

The Justice said what she filed was “tantamount to a fraud.”

In 2021, Rahman had the case dismissed for being out of time, but appealed the decision and won.

The appeal court found errors the judge made because Rahman was a self-represented litigant.

More court time followed, but she missed deadlines, filed more affidavits, and at one point got an adjournment the day of a hearing.

In May 2024, the court ordered her to pay special costs of $3,500 which she hasn’t yet done.

“I have reached the unfortunate conclusion that Ms. Rahman proffers her status as a self-represented litigant and her health issues to avoid the consequences of her own conduct. I do not make that comment lightly, but it is supported on the record,” the Justice said.

The Justice said it was a “rare” case when a self-represented litigant should be rebuked for their conduct and ordered special costs. The decision didn’t say how much the special costs would be.