anonymous - October 06th, 2005
Whistler study paints disappointing economic picture

February 12, 2005
Source: CBC Vancouver
Original story — link verified on February 12, 2005


A new report says Whistler’s economy is in trouble – with no growth in the number of visitors over the past four years, leading to an economic slowdown in the resort community. Whistler councillor Nick Davies says the municipal study shows it's time for the community to wake-up and stop believing its own glowing press coverage. "

Related stories: tourism

anonymous - October 30th, 2005
so Nick has changed his mind on a couple of things. Councillors are supposed to have an open mind. Any Councillor who gets new information and does not rethink their position is not doing their job properly. Nick is by far the smartest candidate for Mayor and we need him the next three years.

anonymous - November 15th, 2005
Perhaps Whistler visitor numbers are down for reasons not being fully explored, ie who is in charge??

anonymous - November 15th, 2005
Nick seems to be the only one running that has at least half a brain and knows how to use it!!!
You may not like what he says, but at least he is honest and doesn’t tell you what you want to hear. All these “wanna be” Mayors just say anything to get a vote. I feel Nick recognises issues that are important and is the only one suited to get the job done.

anonymous - November 15th, 2005
I agree that Nick seems to be one of the few candidates in either race that has ideas and can see them through to some sort of conclusion. He does not try to cater to everyone, and he does not mince words. He tough but fair, and is committed to Whistler. He has spent a couple days a week for years in an essentially unpaid position trying to better this community.

Look at Ted's record: bullies his way around the Hall, illegally shuts down a legitimate business in a publicity stunt gone wrong, cuts out of his term as mayor months early in a failed attempt at provincial politics...I could continue.

Then he comes back here "surprised" at the recession, and with nothing else to do rides a wave of misplaced nostalgia in his bid for re-election.

We can do better with just about any candidate other than Ted.

anonymous - November 16th, 2005
Thanks for ALL the newsletters!!!! They were very informative (all 30 of them)

anonymous - November 16th, 2005
I was told by Nick's office that the multiple mailings was a mistake on the part of the web company Nick hired to send the email newsletters. It's an unfortunate thing to have happen in the last few days of a campaign.

anonymous - November 16th, 2005
The letter was great and great ideas.
I hope everyone has a chance to read it.

anonymous - November 16th, 2005
According to Nick’s website he’s a “Really Capable Guy”. He says he’s an experienced and successful trial lawyer. Do a search and you’ll find 2 Reasons For Judgment that come back with his name (see below). From what I can read, he’s far from being a successful trial lawyer, and in fact you’ll see from the first link that he may well have botched a deal which is probably why he was asked to leave Race & Co. And besides, who boasts about a "solid B" average. Is that a euphemism for "I got 1 B"?

Give your head a shake Nick, maybe that Maple Leaf will fall off!

Nick is a Really Capable Guy
• Voted WHISTLER'S BEST LAWYER by Pique Newsmagazine reader survey
• Nick’s undergraduate studies at Simon Fraser University were in Business and Economics. Nick was at the top of his class with an “A” average and won both the British Columbia Hydro Award for Business and the Simon Fraser Open Scholarship.
• Nick then studied law at the University of Western Ontario. The competition was tougher at Western, but Nick still accomplished a solid “B” average and was in the top third of his class
• Nick is an experienced and successful trial lawyer. He has conducted large, complex cases and resolved small but important disputes. Nick has negotiated and executed small local deals and large, international, complex multi-party deals
• Nick advises numerous businesses operating locally, in the back country and internationally
• Nick has been a regular guest instructor for bar admission courses in real estate law, civil litigation and family law
• Nick has acted as counsel for First Nations and understands First Nations aspirations and issues
• Nick has a proven track record as a tough negotiator and as a strategic and analytical thinker
• Nick is the Vice President, Corporate Affairs and General Counsel to a technology company
Please check this out:
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/1995/1995bcsc10716.html
http://www.canlii.org/bc/cas/bcsc/1999/1999bcsc11692.html

anonymous - November 17th, 2005
Hey anonymous blogger - do you think you could graduate in the top third of a law school class?

Are you an experienced reader of judgments? Any ideas of the evidentiary and procedural aspects of trials and judgments? If you read the judgment in OJ Simpson's criminal trial, he was innocent.

Do you think every case in which a lawyer is involved gets published online?

Finally, at least Nick is out doing something for his community. Do you think he'd be better off making $300 an hour as a lawyer, or raking in the minimal stipend paid to councillors and putting up with anonymous, ill-informed comments from people such as yourself?

anonymous - November 17th, 2005
To answer your questions: Yes. But more importantly I wouldn’t boast about mediocrity. 2nd question: Yes. If you have read the judgement you’ll have noted that what the decision was – essentially Nick did not act in a capable manner for his client (whom he was suing for money). Re: OJ – red herring and not worth commenting about. 3rd question: All Reasons for Judgement in the BC Supreme and Appellate Courts are online. 4th question: I think that if Nick could earn $300/hour he’d be better off than running for Mayor.

I do agree with you that Nick’s service to the community (as with every other council member and mayor) is to be commended. I acknowledge his service to the community and thank him for it. It’s just that I’m not voting for him.

anonymous - November 17th, 2005
With respect to the two posts above this one:

I don't see how discussing one's background is boasting.

You will see in that one case that Nick's evidence was not submitted. So nobody has the whole story.

I'm told that the majority of cases don't go to trial, and many of the ones that do are settled before the end of the trial. Nick was my attorney in more than one case and each time I felt that first I received a very fair settlement and second that he acted in an exemplary fashion. None of these cases went through a full trial and were settled at some point. So you won't find my cases on that website, but Nick obtained great results for me. So I think he is a successful trial lawyer.

anonymous - November 17th, 2005
I too received 12 e-mails from Nick, I deleted all but one without much pain, it was obvious something went wrong....It happens to all of us from time to time...It does not change my vote....Nick is the only person running with a solid foundation, no other agenda's or in need of a job...He loves Whistler, and well take care to move us forward, all the candidates know from here on in, the community well help make the right decisions. Nick has leadership, intellegence, and a passion for Whistler...

anonymous - November 17th, 2005
I think my point may have been missed: he holds himself out to be a “successful trial lawyer”. That statement is misleading if he’s only been to BC Supreme Court twice – once to sue one of his clients, and once on a family law matter. A trial lawyer (successful one at that) would be someone who argued cases (more than one not counting suing your own client) before the courts.

I’m happy that he represented you well and I’m happy he did a good job for you. But he should not be representing to the voters something he’s not – “a successful trial lawyer”.

Also, in my view he’s lawyer that puts money ahead of ethics. Case in point: he represented Rod Nadeau for awhile on the Eva Lake issue. The Eva Lake owners (employee housing) are suing the RMOW et. al for sinking buildings.

At the time Nick was an RMOW Council member, WHA Chair, and acting for one
of the defendants in the case. He was conflicted because the RMOW is a defendant and Nick was an RMOW Council Member, he was conflicted because he was the Whistler Housing Authority Chair. He was asked by the RMOW’s insurers to reconsider his conflict and he responded by saying that he did not see a conflict.

In my view, money and ego got in the way. And my fear is that ego and more ego will get in the way if he were elected as Mayor.

I simply can’t vote for someone that cannot distinguish between representing his constituency versus individual gain.

anonymous - November 18th, 2005
So you're not voting for Ted either.

anonymous - November 19th, 2005
I don't think Nick was in conflict because the builders, the WHA and the Municipality were all defendents. As a member of any of these organisations he would already be on side. The insurers may well have a point, that a person who represents himself, (even remotely so to speak,) has a fool for a lawyer. Besides, they would be far more concerned for their own interest and prefer not to have a member of the insured as representative.

However I was concerned for a far more fundamental reason. Councillors are elected to represent the people of Whistler, including the Eva Lake owners. Even while they were suing the council as an entity they were entitled to representation by the councillors and how can you go to a councillor who is acting as lawyer for your opposition?

After some consideration I must say that I can see how Nick might believe that if he actually got in there, down and dirty, with the opportunity to talk to every one he could get the thing settled, he may even have been right. We all know how things can go astray once a third party takes over.

Since we do not know what is truly in anyone's mind we have to make up our minds based on our view of the evidence presented. Happy voting.

anonymous - November 19th, 2005
If you are going to attack a guy's integrity you should get your facts straight. Rod Nadeau was not the builder of Eva Lake Village. Rod Nadeau has not been sued by Eva Lake Village, the WHA or the RMOW. Is this the sound of desperation we are hearing? If you can't beat them with the truth, baffle them with "bulls***.

anonymous - November 19th, 2005
Perhaps you might read my post again. I didnt' write that Nadeau was the builder, I didn't write that Eva Lake was suing Rod Nadeau. The fact is that Rod Nadeau was Third Partied by Jon Paine - so my post is correct - Rod Nadeau is a defendant.

I think the previous posted gives too much credit to Mr. Davies. He was acting for Rod Nadeau, it would be in conflict for him to represent anyone else's interests (i.e. RMOW, Jon Paine, etc.) so it's not possible that he could put himself in the room with the hope of gathering information in which to settle.

On another point, I am not voting for Ted either. Right now I'm voting for Kristi Wells.

As I've said before, I commend Mr. Davies for running council and being elected and for running for Mayor. It's a job that I wouldn't consider. It's easy for me to hide behind my anonymity, and it's easy to carp from the sideline. So thanks to Mr. Davies for having the temerity to do what most of wouldn't/couldn't. And this being my last post I sincerely wish Mr. Davies luck as I do for all other candidates.

anonymous - November 19th, 2005
"Represnting his consituency" v. "individual gain" - so is a Councillor supposed to give up their livelihood when elected? No. Nick is not in a conflict by representing Rod Nadeau, he just had the b*alls to look after his client even though it was not politiclly correct!

anonymous - November 23rd, 2005
It wasn't the fact that there were multiple mailings of the newsletter that irked me.....it was the fact that it was unsolicited spam from ripping email addresses off of non-election distribution lists.....lawyers have a bad enough rep, but where does a spam sending lawyer fall?