Notice of Civil Claim #245869, New Westminster Registry, against James Joesph Donald and Sterling Rychkun.
Update: The defendant Sterling Rychkun who claimed he saw me
make and abrupt lane change and cutoff the truck then slammed on the brake,
amended his response to my claim and in effect admitted he lied to ICBC. He
changed his story and stated that he did not see me change lanes.
I filed my claim against the two
fraudsters James Joseph Donald and Sterling Rychkun in September of 2022. They
are the only two defendants in the claim and I am alleging fraud and
conspiracy, more on that below but first a little explanation of ICBC’s role in
civil claims.
Plaintiffs in civil claims relating to
motor vehicle accidents sue the driver or drivers who are alleged to have
caused damage to the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs do not usually sue the insurer
unless the insurer breached its duty of care or committed some sort of wrong
that is distinct from the responsibility for the accident. The reason an
insurer, like ICBC, gets involved is a matter of contractual agreement. The
insurer is obligated to indemnify the insured, the driver. So, the claim is
always against the driver for the damage he/she is responsible for.
I was rear ended by James Joseph Donald and because he is
insured by ICBC, it is obligated by contract to indemnify him against claims
for damage resulting from the accident. But there is nothing that I know of
that obligates ICBC to indemnify him against allegations for criminal wrong
doing or civil fraud. ICBC is not a public defender!
But for reasons that will become
clear shortly, ICBC appointed a lawyer to represent James Jospeh Donald and
another lawyer to represent Sterling Rychkun, to defend them against my claims
of fraud and conspiracy. If they could make some excuse for appointing a
lawyer to represent the driver in a fraud claim, the witness was not part of
the accident and ICBC has no relation to him whatsoever. Why are they so
determined to defend fraudsters?
This gets stranger when you know
the following legal detail: I am accusing James Joesph Donlad and Sterling
Rychkun of lying to ICBC by submitting false statements. They committed an offence against ICBC itself which caused harm to me; so ICBC was also a victim
of their fraud. The question then is, why ICBC, one of the victims, is so
interested in defending the very people who defrauded ICBC and me?
The answer has to do with how civil torts work. Civil fraud requires several elements to prove cause for action. Damage is one of the necessary elements. In simple terms, if someone lies to you about a purchase or stock of some sort and provides you with false information including documents that falsely values a product or stock, unless you rely on those false statements and suffer damage you have no cause for action. If you were aware enough that you knew not to act on those false statements and did not suffer any damage, you have no cause for action. This is very different from criminal fraud. Civil court’s role is to restore things back to the way they were, if you lost money they give it back to you, maybe with interest. If you did not lose anything, then why are you suing?
ICBC is interested in defending fraudsters because it is in ICBC’s interest that I lose my claim against the fraudsters and that is becasue I am also suing ICBC employees for fraud and negligence. If they defeat me on the responsinility matter then I would have no cause for action against their employees.
Meaning, if I can not prove that they lied about the accident, that Sterling Rychkun’s statement was untrue, then the damage I suffered, the damage to my car, injuries, loss of income, were all losses that I was responsible for, not James Joseph Donald. No loss no cause for action. If I was responsible for my damages not the other driver then I have no cause for action against ICBC or its employees either.
Put plainly: even if I can prove on the balance of probabilities that Beata Siwinski and Edward Leung are responsible for fraud that was committed against me but the damage I suffered was my responsibility not the other drivers’, they get off free. That is their way out of their predicament, they must defeat me on the responsibility decision even if that means defending fraudsters. By any means necessary and at any cost, especially if the cost is borne by British Columbians.
Comments
Post a Comment