Globe24h logo

Please read our
Frequent Q&A
before contacting us.

British Columbia Investment Management Corporation accused
John Douglas English is accusing BCIMC of being a criminal organization that terrorizes law abiding citizens in order to take over their property. BCIMC is alleged to have conspired to take over the property of Pacific Rim Resort owned by the English family. The terror campaign included firebombing, vandalism, death threats, abuse of government power, obstruction of justice, and attempted murder. The main beneficiaries were BCIMC, its subsidiary Parkbridge Lifestyle Communities Inc. and the Government of British Columbia. Mr. English has filed Notices of Civil Claim against BCIMC and BC Hydro and Power Authority at British Columbia Supreme Court.
Gregory Harney, suspected of filing fraudulent documents
On January 26, 2015 John English filed a complaint against lawyer Gregory Neil Harney at the Law Society of British Columbia. Mr. English is seeking Gregory Harney's permanent disbarment due to many allegations: falsifying documents filed in court, circumventing the rules of court, fraud upon client, using threats against the client. Mr. English says he is willing to lay criminal charges against Gregory Harney, whom he calls "sociopathic criminal", in order to force him return all funds and pay all costs incurred as a result of his lies, extortion and breach of professional duty.

Submit your document
for free publishing

Requirements:

It must be related to law and judicial decisions or to the law system generally (courts, prosecutors, police, lawyers, bailiffs, public notaries, etc).

The subject can be any type (record, release, personal statement, complaint, evidence, etc).

It must be obtained legally and must not be protected by any copyright.


Personal Data Removal - Request Form



    

Ofremchuk v. Bortnak, 1974 ALTASCAD 92

1974-11-25

In the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Alberta

Citation: Ofremchuk v. Bortnak, 1974 AltaSCAD 92

Between:

Agnes Ofremchuk

Plaintiff

(Appellant)

- and -

Kim John Bortnak and
John Shirley Bortnak

Defendants

(Respondents)

 

The Court:

The Honorable Mr. Justice McDermid

The Honorable Mr. Justice Sinclair

The Honourable Mr. Justice Moir

 

 

Judgment of the Court delivered by

The Honorable Mr. Justice Sinclair

 

 

COUNSEL:

R. D. Kerr, Esq., Counsel for the Appellant

J. W. Rose, Esq., Counsel for the Respondent

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT DELIVERED BY
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SINCLAIR

[1]                           In this action, the appellant was injured on Halloween evening, 1969. She had chased a girl who was playing a prank outside her house, and who had been riding in a car driven by the respondent, Kim Bortnak. With the appellant close at her heels, the girl got into the car which was moving slowly ahead. The appellant tried to get into the car, and indeed was part way in when the girl pushed her out with her foot. The driver was aware of what was happening. The appellant was injured by the wheels of the vehicle.

[2]                           The learned trial judge held that the driver was not negligent. With respect, we are of the opinion that he was negligent. He was aware of the situation as it developed, yet he continued to let the car move ahead.

[3]                           On the other hand, we believe that the appellant was contributorily negligent. She was careless for her own safety in attempting to enter the moving vehicle. We fix the degrees of blame at one-third for the appellant and two-thirds for the respondent.

[4]                           The learned trial judge held that a settlement for $40. was made between the two young people and the appellant shortly after the accident. With respect, we are of the opinion that the evidence falls far short of establishing a release.

[5]                           We turn now to the question of damages. The learned trial judge said that had he found the defendants liable he would have fixed the appellant’s damages at $500. With respect, we believe that this figure amounts to a wholly erroneous estimate of the seriousness of the appellant’s injuries. We recognize that the learned trial judge saw and heard the appellant as she gave her evidence. But it seems to us that he overlooked the effect of the evidence given by the appellant’s doctor, and, indeed, that given by the specialist called for the defence. In our view, a realistic appraisal of the general damages would be $2,500.

[6]                           The appeal is accordingly allowed, with costs here and below, the limiting rules not to apply.

DATED at Calgary, Alberta,
the 25th day of November, 1974.


<<<      |      >>>




Alberta | British Columbia | Federal | Manitoba | New Brunswick | Newfoundland and Labrador | Northwest Territories | Nova Scotia | Nunavut | Ontario | Prince Edward Island | Quebec | Saskatchewan | Yukon

Globe24h | Gesetzblatt - Österreich | Boletin Oficial - España | Canadian Caselaw | Jurisprudence de Canada | Clinical Trials | Diario Oficial - México | European Court of Human Rights | Cour Européenne des Droits de l'Homme | Federal Register | UK Gazettes |

Privacy Policy