Yana Skybin orchestrated separation of Nikityuks from the family. “Elder Abuse” brochure she gave Nikityuks, in fact was just a step by step instruction for them how to imitate family abuse and to obtain social housing on high priority basis, i.e. avoiding long waiting lists. Knowing Svetlana for years and pretending to be a friend of the family, off course Skybin knew that Nikityuks were not telling the truth (she actually taught them what to tell and personally guided through every step), and off course knew what she was doing.
[144] In determining that there was a genuine issue for trial with respect to the conspiracy, Corkery J. framed the discussion as follows:
[68] In my view, where a sponsor abuses a sponsored person, the sponsor has breached the agreement. Where the sponsored person falsely alleges abuse and claims social assistance, the sponsored person has breached the agreement. If a third party knowingly or recklessly assists the sponsored person in falsely claiming abuse and obtaining social assistance, then that person may be found to have intended to induce breach of the agreement. Turning a blind eye to whether a false allegation of abuse would breach a Sponsorship Agreement will be no excuse. The genuine issue for trial that remains is whether Ms. Skybin knew the allegations of abuse to be false, or was reckless in this regard, and, if false, that she assisted the Nikityuks applying for social assistance without regard to whether it would cause a breach of their sponsorship agreement.
It was well proven both at the Motion for Summary Judgement with Justice Corkery, and in the 1st Trial session with Justice Mulligan that there were no any bruises, and this simple fact destroys YMCA defense position about Yana’s “didn’t know” honesty in this matter. Yana could not see the bruises which did not exist, and she definitely knew that she did not see them, therefore the entire story with bruises was fabricated to support the abuse imitation scheme.
Transcript oral examination of Skybin:
Q626: Minor bruises?
A: There were multiple bruises on both arms.
Q627-629: How bad they were, they were just very minor bruises, slightly visible?
A: I wouldn’t call them minor. They were visible. She was wearing a shirt and they were under the sleeves. They were obvious and visible.
Q630: How did they look like?
A: A few bruises in may be 5 centimeters range on both arms, they were grey, yellow, green color
Q631-634: There were multiple bruises, 5 centimeters apart?
A: 5 centimeters in size. They were visible like if you would not mistaken them for anything else.
Q635: Mistaken them from what?
A: From an occasional bruise a person can get
Skybin’s testimony at Trial:
Q. And so let me stop you there. Are you absolutely certain that Mrs. Nikityuk showed you bruises?
A. Yes, she showed them to me. I saw them with my own eyes.
Q. And where were the bruises?
A. They were on her upper shoulders, both – like – okay, shoulders. I don’t know how to say that. Arm…
Q. Well, maybe if you could…
A. …upper arm.
Q. …direct His Honour to where….
A. Yeah, like they were upper arms, like here. And they were multiple, like from fingerprints. Like fingerprints.
Q. So, above the tricep?
A. Yeah, but – like yeah. So the arms.
Q. On both arms?
A. Both arms, yeah.
Q. And…
A. And multiple.
Q. …so you said multiple. Can you describe the bruises as best as you can?
A. Like finger – from fingerprints. From….
Q. And just another question about the bruises. You said there were multiple bruises. What did they look like to you?
A. Like fingerprints.
Knowing that there were no any bruises, she guided Nikityuks through the entire process of obtaining social assistance and social housing on high priority basis. This is conspiracy in it’s classic and shiny form. She lied about bruises on multiple occasions including writing letters to all kinds of organizations from banks to Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration, and she definitely knew that she was lying. Then between spring and fall trial sessions she prepared “witnesses”, all her close friends, with testimonies written by her, to testify the same lies in her favor at the 2nd session of the Trial. After the 1st session of the Trial, where plaintiffs gave all their testimonies, she already figured out the importance of her “honest mistake” and made a big effort to get at least some confirmation of her lies. This is conspiracy to commit perjury, which is a felony offense.