Capable people first make decisions, then sign agreements, not other way around. It’s common sense, and this common sense is reflected in Canadian and international contract law. But Honorable Justice Mulligan is not a big fan of common sense.
[27] I am satisfied that this email was an inducement to Mr. and Mrs. Nikityuk to immigrate to Canada and give effect to the Sponsorship Agreement. As previously noted, they liquidated their assets, transferred the funds to Svetlana and arrived in Canada in June 2008. The Nikityuks accepted this offer and I am satisfied that a contract was formed by these family members.
Well, sponsorship agreement was signed in 2004 and signing it brings a big commitment and a lot of expenses from both sides, sponsor and sponsored. Immigration to another country across the ocean is a big step, and no one signs such agreements without clear understanding and fair match of interests from both sides.
Assuming that Nikityuks are capable and were capable back in 2004, it must be accepted that decision to immigrate was made by Nikityuks when they signed the agreement, i.e. in 2004. Pavel’s email was sent in January 2008, when immigration process already finished and Nikityuks received the permission of Ministry of Immigration to permanently come to Canada.
Your Honor, how a 2008 email could induce Nikityuks to sign Sponsorship Agreement back in 2004?
We must accept that denying common sense, Justice Mulligan has a bias against plaintiffs, maybe just don’t like them, and only in this situation he could roll over all this absurd about “inducement letter” in his epic “decision”.
Now let that email be an “offer”, as a flipped-personality “lawyer” Erik Bornmann positions it, despite it clearly states in the title that it’s just a calculation which is valid only at the time when written (which means that if any condition changes, it’s not valid any more, and it does not have any more significance than any other email of hundreds sent and received by Nikityuks before, during and after immigration).
If it’s an offer with subsequent “contract”, then test on contract should be applied. What is in this “contract” for plaintiffs, specifically for Pavel? Let’s see.
According to Nikityuks,
- 200K+ they got from sold family property should be invested with 10% interest risk free and it’s all their money and their interest so they should have access to it at any time
- At the same time Pavel must provide them with all living expenses during 10 years of sponsorship commitment
- At the same time the same money apparently was spent on the house which is purchased, as a surprise, on Valentin’s name (why? He is just a step-father of Pavel’s wife and says that he never had good relationship with son-in-law!), and Valentin apparently OK with that because in 3 years after immigration never ask any question about it.
- Russian pension goes exclusively on Nikityuks’ entertainment and Danilovs should not touch it
What kind of “contract” is that? Can you actually believe that this was the agreement in the family when in 2004 Pavel, having annual salary $40,000, not working wife and daughter in UofT, was about to decide does he want his wife’s manipulative mother and narcissistic stepfather sitting on his neck in Canada or not? Well, apparently Justice Mulligan can.
Now according to Danilovs,
- In 2004 Pavel co-signs Immigration Canada’s Sponsorship Agreement with the purpose of bringing his wife’s parents to Canada and give them access to Canadian health care system.
- Pavel agrees to finance the immigration procedure, to support Nikityuks in Russia in the meantime because immigration process requires a lot of extra expenses, and most importantly, to 10 years commitment of the Sponsorship agreement.
- In exchange for lifetime support in Canada Alla promises him, when time comes, to sell all family assets in Russia and transfer proceedings to Svetlana. No one cares about actual shares of family members in that proceedings because all of it eventually supposed to be transferred to Svetlana as a gift, and the entire family supposed to reunite in Canada to happily live together.
This is a crystal clear contract, where all parties understand what is in it for them. If Justice Mulligan satisfied that “there was a contract formed”, he must accept Danilov’s version of the contract because it meets the contract law test. Nikityuks’ version of the contract is just absurd, cannot be a contract of any kind so why Justice Mulligan buys it? Does he, really?