To get YMCA off-hook, Honorable Justice Mulligan has to come up with his own definition of witness credibility:
[59] Because of the immediate stock market loss, an improvident investment, and the lack of candor about the financial circumstances that were created, I find the Danilovs not to be credible witnesses. When there is a dispute about evidence between the Danilovs and the Nikityuks, I prefer to accept the evidence of the Nikityuks. Pavel prepared the inducement e-mail. Svetlana received the money wired from Russia and allowed her husband to access it. She witnessed the loan agreement, and she controlled the Nikityuks’ finances. She became a registered owner of the Innisfil property bought with a down payment from the Nikityuks’ funds.
First of all, your Honor, please don’t twist the facts. That’s what Erik Bornmann is really good at, but you don’t want to be associated with him because Briber flipped his personality many times and probably he is not a very good person.
1) Email sent by Pavel in 2008 cannot induce Nikityuks to make a decision in 2004. If you disagree with that you need to see a doctor.
2) Svetlana received a gift from her mother and was free to do with her money whatever she wanted, including investment into family business, specifically designed, by the way, to support Nikityuks, – Danilovs did not need it.
3) Loan agreement was designed to protect Nikityuk’s interests and was created by recommendation of CRA hot line. Svetlana witnessed it because she was the only witness available at the moment when Nikityuks signed it.
4) Svetlana became a registered owner of her property because it was her property, purchased in 2007. Nikityuks were allowed to immigrate to Canada in 2008 and no one could possibly count on their money until that permission was finally obtained.
5) Down payment was made with Svetlana’s share in family property sold in Russia, and not Nikityuks’ funds. Nikityuks were totally on-board with the transaction, because it was convenient at the moment; until the same Erik Bornmann came up with the marazmatic idea of “they told me that the house was purchased on my name but 3 years later it turned out to be not true”.
Basically, Danilovs are not credible because they traded stocks on a stock market and lost. I.e. in Justice Mulligan’s Supreme Court of Ontario view , millions of people who trade on a stock market, cannot be trusted. Especially, if they had some stocks on their RRSP or 401K and lost in 2008-2009 market crash, all of them are just frauds or at least incapable idiots.
For your information, your Honor, this is legal definition of a credible witness:
CREDIBLE WITNESS. A credible witness is one who is competent to give evidence, and is worthy of belief. 5 Mass. 219 17 Pick. 134; 2 Curt. Ecc. R. 336. In deciding upon the credibility of a witness, it is always pertinent to consider whether he is capable of knowing the thing thoroughly about which he testifies. 2. Whether he was actually present at the transaction. 3. Whether he paid, sufficient attention to qualify himself to be a reporter of it; and 4. Whether he honestly relates the affair fully as he knows it, without any purpose or desire to deceive, or suppress or add to the truth.
Your Honor, what in this definition made you think that Danilovs cannot be trusted and Nikityuks can? Pavel honestly testified that he lost a lot of money in that August 2008 market crash and explained in details what kind of damage control he and Svetlana did in subsequent months, so Nikityuks did not even notice any problem and kept happily enjoying their new life in Canada for at least 3 years, till 2011, when Yana Skybin got special interest in family finances and decided to put her hand on them. Honesty does not go in your Court and does not add up to your private definition of credibility, does it, your Honor?
Maybe in your opinion Danilovs are incompetent and therefore not credible? Well, Nikityuks could not write a check, memorize an ATM pin and after 3 years of YMCA “English classes” still could not read, write, speak or understand English. Can they be more credible than Danilovs because of this reason?
So what was that, your Honor? You just hate those geeks, don’t you?