PyroGenesis Inc T.PYR

Conclusion Findings on initial proceedings of the AMF Trial

[BCONTVentures]

For those who do not have the time to read long legal documents, and as “team bash” never posts anything positive, but have no problem twisting things and omitting key items such as cancellation of quash summons to appear and produce documents. This is a huge blow to the AMF, who are off to very bad start.

This is pulled directly from the findings on the initial proceedings of the AMF trial. Here is the conclusion ruling:

FOR THESE REASONS, the Administrative Tribunal for Financial Markets, under Articles 93, 97 al. 1.97 al. 2 (2° and 7°) and 115.6 of the Financial Sector Regulation Act [39] and article 11 of the Administrative Justice Act [40] :

GRANTS the request for annulment of the Summons to appear in respect of the respondent Photis Peter Pascali;

CANCELS the Summons addressed to Photis Peter Pascali and dated December 5, 2023.

The cancellation of quash a summons to appear and produce documents is a huge blow to the AMF.  The AMF is off to a very bad start.

Some great posts from ceo:

@helloween So it's a win for PPP, the subpoena duces tecum was cancelled. The AMF tried to trick PPP. First the AMF asked that PPP and PYR don't be represented by the same attorney because of a conflict of interest, so PPP asked another attorney to represent him. Since PYR are still represented by PPP's old attorney, the AMF asked PYR to change its attorney because of his duty of loyalty for his old client PPP that could lead or a conflict of interest, so PPP waived the duty of loyalty of his old attorney by an affidavit. Then they tried to use the waiver to force PPP to produce documents protected by the client lawyer attorney privilege and it didn't work.

@Sabbath Alleged . If tribunal finds no fault/ no wrong, you best cease & desist calling the CEO a fraudster, fast. The only fraudsters around are you and your sad fantasy island clan.

[dalesio_98]

BCONTVentures,   May I ask where this document eminated from and who shared the document for shareholders to review? Why weren't shareholders aware of this finding earlier, decision was rendered on Feb. 7, 2024. I added emphasis below.   For those who do not have the time to read long legal documents, and as “team bash” never posts anything positive, but have no problem

[wasitreallyok]

Dalesio you have been following these hearings closely wouldn't you have aalready have known about this.

[dalesio_98]

Wasitreallyok, Unfortunately No.  Yes, I do follow via Zoom and attend in person hearings, except for May 8th hearing my being under the weather. Missed Mr. Pascali and Me Elizabeth Guilbeault (AMF investigator) testimony. It was mentioned to me by Osler legal counsel at the May 9th TMF hearing. I then requested the TMF decision and provided it to shareholders through SH and CEO dot ca. I

[wasitreallyok]

Dalesio thank you for your reply. Are the hearings finished except for a decision? Or are there more to come. Timing of a decision will largely depend on the number of disputed facts, and how witnesses did under cross. Did they give contridicting answers under cross, compared to answers given under direct. This goes for both sides. If the investigator's testimony under cross went against what

[dalesio_98]

Wasitreallyok, As for my reply you are welcome. I just saw this comment as I was composing my last message. More details were provided. As I indicated in my previous response, I unfortunately missed Mr. Pascali and Me Elizabeth Guilbeault (AMF investigator) testimony. The current decision under deliberation will either maintain Osler representation or Pyro seeks new counsel. The next and most

[tamaracktop]

"As I indicated in my previous response, I unfortunately missed Mr. Pascali and Me Elizabeth Guilbeault (AMF investigator) testimony." Dalesio, you missed the best part.  

[dalesio_98]

Yes, indeed. One of the lawyers asked me prior to the May 9th hearing commencing if I was informed of the previous days testimony,  there were 2 men in the audience. Which I replied, No, definitely intended to be there but was under the weather. Found the question odd, as if I would know their identity. I have not heard of any shareholder wanting to attend in person. Curious? Good luck to

[tamaracktop]

Yes, indeed.   One of the lawyers asked me prior to the May 9th hearing commencing if I was informed of the previous days testimony, there were 2 men in the audience. Which I replied, No, definitely intended to be there but was under the weather. Found the question odd, as if I would know their identity. I have not heard of any shareholder wanting to attend in person. Curious?"

[tamaracktop]

"....the May 9th hearing commencing if I was informed of the previous days testimony, there were 2 men in the audience. Which I replied, No, definitely intended to be there but was under the weather. Found the question odd, as if I would know their identity." I don't have any idea what you're getting at. And I'm having a good day. What is all that supposed to mean?

[Kongratulation]

Aren't you deliberating missing something? Wasn't there also a Motion by Olser to have the actions of the AMF (regarding the change of lawyers and the subsequent amendments to their original allegations) declared illegal (not the right legal term I agree) ?

[dalesio_98]

Kongratulation, If you mean deliberately instead of deliberating missing something - no I am not. View the shared folder content: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/kzit2uih38v1rgrku49p8/h?rlkey=2xh0xv7zu3langs3drvsehte3&st=5kpioao1&dl=0 Good luck to All!

[Kongratulation]

Interesting disclaimer... Sort of like the very very very small prints used by cars salesman on their adds. You know, the ones used to cover their A***  

[dalesio_98]

Kongratulation, If you do not have interest viewing the TMF documents and learning from the content, ignore my post (s). You comment is asinine. Good luck to All!

[Kongratulation]

Actually I did read them quickly and must say  that all I see is stalling tactic's by the AMF,... My guess is that is because they don't really have a case, and they know that Osler know that...  Look like they were stuck in crossroads last year... Either they start proceedings or abandon the case because they were running out of time... They know their case is weak at

[dalesio_98]

Kongratulation, Spare me you read through or thumbed through the many documents at my Dropbox shared folder. Your mind is made up without consulting the same. Who are you kidding. Good luck to All!

[Kongratulation]

Dear Dalesio_98, Thank you for sharing your opinion on what I have read or not read on this case. While, I may not have read all the finite documents on your Dropbox, I have read enough of those that I found important to see if own opinion of the case was still accurate.  it is. Furthermore, many of the older  documents on the folder I had already read... including the judgment

[Thinkbigsti69]

Huge blow to the AMF.

[BCONTVentures]

Worth a repost, this was from earlier in May 2024:

[tamaracktop]

So what? P3 was too chicken-s**t to appear, and pulled out all the stops to avoid it. Just like the quarterly Q&A's. Pre-recorded speeches from him are worth Jack all.