Category: Comments on Decision

How Justice Mulligan twists the facts

Look how easy it is to put a bad spin on good things, if you already made up your mind and just need to bend a few things which don’t fit in it, just a touch:

[13]      The following key dates will provide context for the discussion that follows:

2003 The Danilovs immigrate to Canada
2005 Alla Nikityuk visits the Danilovs in Canada
2007 Alla and Valentin Nikityuk visit the Danilovs in Canada
January 2008 Pavel Danilov e-mails the Nikityuks with financial projections to assist with their immigration decision
June 2008 The Nikityuks immigrate to Canada
August 2008 The Nikityuks move to a newly constructed residence in Innisfil owned by the Danilovs
June 2009 The Danilovs move into the residence in Innisfil occupying it jointly with the Nikityuks
October 17, 2011 The Nikityuks move out of the Innisfil residence into social housing

This is how the same table should look like, if Honorable Justice Mulligan would not omit the most important events, presented in details and proven at the Trial verbally and with documents:

2003 The Danilovs immigrate to Canada.
2004 Nikityuks make decision to immigrate to Canada and Alla Nikityuk signs the Sponsorship Agreement. Pavel co-signs the Agreement because Alla promises him personally, in case if they permitted to immigrate, to sell all family property in Russia and transfer monies to Svetlana.
2005 Alla Nikityuk visits the Danilovs in Canada and confirms her intention to immigrate.
July 2007 Danilovs purchase the house in Innisfil; mortgage pre-approved by TD bank. Will Nikityuks be permitted to immigrate or not is not known yet: the procedure takes about 3 years and costs a lot of money.
November 2007 Alla and Valentin Nikityuk visit the Danilovs in Canada, and both confirm their intention to immigrate.
January 2008 Long waited permission to immigrate finally obtained and Pavel e-mails the Nikityuks with financial projections to assist with their immigration decision plans. Svetlana rents apartment for Nikityuks in the same building in Etobicoke.
February 2008 Builder calls Danilovs and says that Innisfil house will be ready in August. Nikityuks saw the site in 2007, beg not to sell it and let them live in it because they want fresh air by the lake and don’t want to live in a city. Danilovs lose deposit for the apartment.
June 2008 The Nikityuks immigrate to Canada.
August 2008 The house is ready ahead of expectations, and Danilovs, instead of selling it as planned, allow the Nikityuks to move to a newly constructed residence in Innisfil owned by the Danilovs, rent free.
August 2008-2009 Worldwide financial crisis and recession. Danilovs lose a lot of money in the August 2008 market crash. So do millions of other people, organizations and even pension funds. Danilovs are not responsible for the market crash.
June 2009 Danilovs’ daughter finds her own place and moves out from apartment in Etobicoke, and the Danilovs finally are able to move into their new residence in Innisfil occupying it jointly with the Nikityuks.
Summer 2009 Danilovs purchase a condo in Barrie for Nikityuks which should be built in a year or two. Overwhelmed with full time YMCA English classes and having multiple health issues, Nikityuks say that they cannot live separately. Danilovs cancel the purchase agreement.
2009-2011 Multiple major surgeries and free Canadian health care dramatically improve Nikityuks’ quality of life and in 2011 they out of blue want to live separately again, but remembering the lost deposit and condo stories hesitate to ask because every time they change their mind Pavel ends up with multi-years commitments.
Spring 2011 The Nikityuks visited their YMCA friends in Toronto and got obsessed with the idea of social housing. Yana Skybin explains them how to avoid long waiting lists by imitation of abuse in the family. It’s her know-how, her friends call her “professor”.
Summer 2011 Both Nikityuks and Yana Skybin are trying to engage Danilovs into their scheme to obtain social housing on a high priority basis. Danilovs reject to participate because it’s disgusting. Svetlana calls Yana Skybin and requests to stop to populate her parents’ minds with stupid ideas.
August 20, 2011 The Nikityuks attend Yana Skybin’s birthday party and make an expensive gift. On the same evening Yana writes them in email how generous they are and how grateful she is.
August 23, 2011 Three days later, after the weekend, the Nikityuks come to Yana’s office in YMCA and start the process of obtaining social housing on a high priority basis, instructed and guided by Skybin at every step, all in accordance to Yana’s plan developed in April 2011.
October 17, 2011 The Nikityuks move out of the Innisfil residence into social housing.

When you twist it back, it’s amazing, right?

[68] The Nikityuks were supplied with credit cards for their use, but their finances were controlled, managed and overseen by Svetlana Danilova. She took them to a Russian- speaking lawyer where they executed general Powers of Attorney in her favor. She opened an account at the CIBC in the name of the Nikityuks with her as power of attorney. This account received their Russian pensions and she controlled all withdrawals of these funds. The Nikityuks were required to give her two days’ notice in the event that they required cash. The Russian pensions were as a result of their years of work in Russia.

1) Yes Nikityuks were supplied with credit cards and had immediate access to approximately $30,000, even after they left the house and started to apply for all kinds of social assistance. This covers at least 6 years of their Russian pension, so what is the issue with this Russian pension and “2 days notice” is not clear. Even Alla doesn’t take any issue with her pension and testifies that they always had access to it (Bornmann was not happy when she said that because the entire Nikityuks’ counterclaim is his baby). Also not clear why supplying Nikityuks with credit cards (paid by Danilovs) constitutes as a financial abuse. They liked them, and it also was convenient for Danilovs. Win-win, what is the “abuse”?

2) Family finances were indeed managed by Danilovs, but someone had to manage them. For the entire family, which was still a family back then. Only later, in September-October 2011 YMCA destroys the family and Skybin takes Nikityuk’s finances under her control. And on the other hand, only Trudeau’s budget “balances itself”, for ordinary people it doesn’t work. Nikityuks aggressively admitted on many occasions that they “did not come to Canada to manage finances” and “never were interested in family financial affairs“. They are “engineers, not financiers“. Which is not true by the way, Alla is not an engineer.

3) Russian pension was coming once in a quarter to a savings account and withdrawals from that account could be made only on the next business day. In Innisfil there were no CIBC branch, and trip to the closest one in Barrie to withdraw cash usually needed to be planned at least a day ahead because there were only two cars in the family, one used by Pavel to drive to work, another by Nikityuks for YMCA English classes. That’s where “2 days notice” comes from. It all was discussed and acceptable for everybody because the only reason why Nikityuks needed cash once in a while was if they wanted to send a gift to their friends or relatives in Russia, or to bribe someone like Yana Skybin. And they didn’t want to withdraw cash themselves because simply could not memorize ATM pin and did not understand English, always asked Svetlana to do it for them. They stopped trying when Valentin once was going to put some gas at the pump and ended up purchasing a couple of car washes instead.

4) Yes PoA was executed in 2009 in Russian speaking firm in Toronto. What Honorable Justice Mulligan omits here is Valentin’s perjury all over the case that the firm was not Russian and he did not understand what he was signing. Nice twist, isn’t it? Makes Svetlana a bad guy and Valentin Nikityuk a victim of abortion in one short!

5) It’s impossible to open a bank account in Canada using Power of Attorney, attendance in person is almost always required. That is why CIBC account on the name of Alla and Svetlana was opened in 2005 during the 1st visit of Alla to Canada: personal attendance of every co-owner is mandatory. By the way, the Power of Attorney was executed in 2009, 4 years after that. And it comes to a pile of perjury again because Nikityuks testified that they didn’t know about accounts opened on their names because Svetlana allegedly opened them using PoA. In fact they were present in person every time, used accounts since 2005, even still being in Russia, when withdrew Danilovs’ support in Russian ATM, and there is documentary proof of that in every case. But our Honorable Honor is not a big fun of common sense and doesn’t care about perjury if it makes YMCA responsible.

6) What is this final phrase “The Russian pensions were as a result of their years of work in Russia.” here for? Even a chipmunk knows that pension is always a result of years of work. Do we have to cry now? Well, our Captain Obvious, all in tears, makes this wise statement with a big purpose: to make all this pile of absurd look reasonable, and we all get the final impression that Danilovs are bad guys, and Nikityuks are victims of something, not clear of what exactly though, but wait for it.

Combination Skybin + Bornmann + Mae + Mulligan is just a deadly fact twister.

[69] When the Nikityuks first moved into the house in Innisfil, Pavel used about $15,000 of the Nikityuks’ money to furnish the home for family living.

So freaking what? Is it again “abuse” of some kind? Half furniture for the new house was purchased by Nikityuks, another half by Danilovs. For the family living together, that’s fair, isn’t it? New house needs furniture, unless you plan to sell the house or sleep in bags on a floor. Nikityuks enjoyed the furniture shopping by the way, and there are plenty of pictures taken in Brick and Leons with them choosing mattresses, arm chairs, fridge etc. But just put good thing in bad place, and oops: now furniture shopping with your parents becomes some kind of fraud. Your Honor, have you discovered in your findings did Svetlana use Power of Attorney when she bought a new mattress for Valentin, or not?

[74] I accept Mr. Nikityuk’s evidence that he gave the Danilovs $15,000 when they first arrived from Russia. These were the funds available to them when they liquidated their final Russian bank account balances before departure. This was in addition to the prior wire transfers.

You do, do you, your honor? This $15,000 story is so funny and educational about Canadian justice system that it worth a separate post which I will submit on Danilovs’ behalf in a few days. Keep in touch, folks, it’s gonna be interesting.

[82] When the Danilovs first moved in the relationship was good. Mr. Nikityuk was able to sponsor one of his daughters for a visit to Canada from Russia. The parties took trips and outings together. Ms. Danilova made arrangements for the Nikityuks to take English as a second language classes at the local YMCA. She continued to support them with medical visits and other aspects of daily living. But it is clear that the Nikityuks’ desire to live separately became an ongoing issue. Ms. Danilova acknowledged that her parents did have the right to live separately if they wished to. She denied that the situation got so bad that Mr. Nikityuk wanted to move back to Russia.

Well, your Honor. You either were sleeping through the entire Trial, or you are twisting facts on purpose. Let’s look:

1) Danilovs “first moved in” on June 1, 2009.

2) “Ms. Danilova made arrangements for the Nikityuks to take English” classes at the local (20 km one way) YMCA in the same 2009, through Yana Skybin by the way.

3) After 3 years of those classes, in 2012, Nikityuks still “don’t speak, don’t read, don’t write and don’t understand English“, but they definitely picked up in YMCA a lot of ideas how to scam Canadian social assistance system. What the hell do they teach on those “classes”, sponsored by the Government, i.e. by taxpayers, by the way?

4) “Mr. Nikityuks was able to sponsor one of his daughters” in July-August 2011, just one month before the idiotic “abuse” story started to roll over. During that visit Nikityuks showed Valentin’s daughter the house in Barrie where “they will be living soon”, so they had big plans already then, way before all alleged abuse incidents.

What a twist! So, basically, in your Honor’s words, “relationship was good” till July-August 2011. That is totally true, your Honor, for a change. To be precise, till August 20, 2011 (Yana’s birthday party), when Nikityuks decided to pursue with Skybin’s plan of obtaining social housing on a high priority basis.

Now, your Honor, with that being said, you can through away a good half of your “decision” because it just doesn’t make any sense. According to Pavel, in Russia they would call it “бред сивой кобылы в лунную ночь”, but I am not sure I understood it correctly – please translate yourself.

See? Just omit a few events, mess with dates, put some facts from left column to right, make up a few missings, bend the rest a little bit, and boom! Now YMCA’s bribery, conspiracy and fraud becomes a boring family matter, sort of “divorce”. YMCA is all white and fluffy, no shit on their head at all.

Good job Mr. Mae. Seriously.

Related Images:

Witness Credibility

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?

Related Images:

Alleged physical abuse

Determining the fact if there was physical abuse in the family or not is the corner stone of the entire case. Every word in Justice Mulligan’s decision must be flipped to the opposite if there were no physical abuse.

If there was abuse then Nikityuks’ and Skybin’s story is true, i.e. they were concerned about their safety and left to social housing to avoid confrontation.

If there were no abuse then Danilovs’ story is true, i.e. Nikityuks just wanted to live separately by all means and imitated family abuse to avoid 4 year waiting list for social housing. They probably even thought that they were doing a good thing and the family would thank them later.

Let’s look:

[170] I am satisfied that the Nikityuks were financially abused from the time they arrived in Canada. They wanted to live separately. That was the plan in the inducement e-mail. Social housing was not their first choice, but it seemed to them that it became their only choice. The Danilovs discouraged any talk of social housing and for good reason. They knew that if the Nikityuks moved to social housing, it would constitute a breach of their Sponsorship Agreement with the Government of Canada. The continual discussion about moving out and social housing became an irritant and led to emotional arguments. I am satisfied that there was a physical altercation as well, some pushing by Svetlana of her mother. But even if I am wrong on that finding, it is clear that financial abuse and emotional abuse had already occurred.

Basically, after 5 weeks of Trial Justice Mulligan could not find any evidence of alleged physical abuse despite of all effort made by YMCA, Graham Partners and Community Legal Clinic. Common sense says that if you cannot find evidence of something, that something simply is a lie.

But Ontario Supreme Court Justice Mulligan is “satisfied with his findings even if he is wrong“! How about that? This simply means that he made up his mind already before the Trial and despite of all evidence decided to send his “message” by all means.

There was no “pushing” mentioned in any evidence, neither in oral nor in written. Quite the opposite, the evidence was ”grabbing” which allegedly caused bruises “looking like fingerprints”, “5 centimeters diameter”, not “some pushing”. Bornmann even organized an idiotic “demonstration” where poor Alla, chocking on laugh, tried to improvise how she was “grabbed” and “shaken”, not very convincing but very funny.

Yana’s letter “To whom it may concern”, widely circulated (attached to Anastasia’s affidavit):

Alla showed me her arms, and there were bruises on both arms. On the weekend their daughter came for a visit from Toronto, and they showed her the bruises, too.

Well, the daughter’s affidavit is right here, and guess what? All this bullshit about bruises is just a lie! By the way, the above mentioned “weekend” was August 20, 2011, Yana’s birthday party, when Nikityuks visited her, made an expensive gift, and nobody saw any bruises on Alla who was wearing short sleeves.

August 20, 2011 – Yana Skybin’s birthday party – Alla (on the right) wearing short sleeves. No one sees any bruises.

Transcript of 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.

So, to sum up, bruises looking like “fingerprints”, 5 centimeters diameter, all kinds of colors, nobody can mistake from an occasional bruise a person can get, but nobody actually can see when Alla wears no sleeves. Not very convincing, right? So Mr. Mae needs some damage control and look what he came up with:

Cross-exam of Svetlana by Mae on Trial – Volume 3:

Q. So my last question to you, would it be a surprise to you that when Ms. Malisheva comes to this court to give evidence, she’s going to say that she went out with your mother in August 2011 and she saw the bruises on your mother’s shoulders. Would it be a surprise to you?
A. I don’t know what – how to answer the question because I don’t know. You do whatever you want to do.

Q. Well, I’m telling you that is the evidence we’re going to hear. She saw the bruises on your mother and your mother told her exactly how the bruises happened. They were caused by you and she saw exactly the same things that Yana Skybin saw on August 23, 2011 but on different day.

This obviously was a very important testimony for Mae. With proven that Yana could not see any bruises in August 2011 because there were no bruises, Mae and his buddy Bornmann delay the Trial till autumn by all means and during that 5 months gap “prepare” his new “witness” Malisheva. As a matter of fact, Mae delegated this duty to Russian-speaking Yana who basically wrote the entire script for Malisheva’s testimony, but Malisheva is not a very good actor, cannot memorize the entire script and happily screwed up. Perjury is difficult. Conspiracy to commit perjury is a felony offense, but Justice Mulligan doesn’t care about perjury at all:

Malysheva ’s testimony about “attack” which allegedly took place in August 2011:

Q Did you spend time together with them (Nikityuks) in the summer of 2011?
A Yes.

Q. During this time, were you ever told about any issues they were having?
A. No.

Q. Did you spend any time with Alla during that summer, the two of you?
A. We spent time all together: Alla, myself, Valentin, my husband, and my children.

Q. During that time in that summer 2011.
A In August, we were at the park, and Alla shared with me a problem – a family problem. Yes, we were at the park. We’re enjoying our time, and Alla complained to me that she had serious problems with her daughter in the family.

Q. What kind of problems?
A. Well first of all, she showed me bruises on her arms, and told me that her daughter attacked her at home.

Q. What did those bruises look like?
A. They looked like fingerprints.

There you go. “Fingerprints” again. Sound familiar, right? Did Skybin ever see how fingerprints look? How bruises can look like “fingerprints”? Especially 5 centimeters in diameter. How “some pushing by Svetlana of her mother” can cause bruises looking like “fingerprints” of “5 centimeters diameter”?

Malysheva Cross-ex:

Q. You spoke about Alla telling you in August of 2011, that her daughter, Svetlana, had attacked her?
A. I did not say 2011.

Q. Okay, so when did you have this conversation with Alla?
A. I met with them in October 2011. It couldn’t have been August at any rate.

Oops!

Q. Thank you. So, maybe I misunderstood. Could you tell us when Alla told you about her daughter attacking her?
A. In August. It must have been 2012, since I met them in 2011. Don’t confuse me.

Q. Okay. I’m not trying to confuse you. Do you recall where this conversation took place?
A. Of course, in a park. Killbear Park.

Q. And you had gone to Killbear Park with the Nikityuks?
A. Yes.

Q. So, I’d like to now have the witness look at the first volume of the white binder, Tab 89. And I will give you the page number, just a moment.
Q. Do you recognize these photographs?
A. Yes, of course.


Q. And is this the trip to Killbear Park you took with Nikityuks?
A. Yes

Q. Yes, and would you agree that that was on October 2nd, 2011?
A. Was – well, that’s wonderful that there is a date here. Again, it has been five years. I’m sorry, forgive me, I can’t give you exact dates. I can remember the events that took place, not the dates. I’m sorry.

Q. And so, is this the park visit that Alla showed you the bruises?
A. Yes.

Q. And this is also when Alla told you about the attack, that Svetlana had attacked her?
A. The same day, not at the same time when the pictures were taken, because everybody’s very happy in the pictures. We were there for sufficiently long time.

After that Killbear trip Nikityuks came home and Valentin said that their “friends” to whom he told that they sold property in Russia and sent all monies to Svetlana as a gift, asked him if he is a fool.

Another alleged episode of physical abuse was Pavel throwing plates at the wall. Even assuming that it happened, but there is no any proof that it did, not clear how it is physical abuse but not just damage to the wall.

There are some pictures provided by Valentin to “prove” that damage. But they:

  1. Were not listed in the Affidavit of Documents before the oral discovery, and that Affidavit specifically states that there are no more documents in Nikityuks’ possession relevant to the case, i.e. at the moment of swearing the Affidavit they did not have those wall pictures. And even despite Valentin is apparently doesn’t have a problem to lie in affidavits, it’s very difficult to come up with a motive why would he lie in this case that he doesn’t have any more documents related to the case. This is a unique situation when he actually swear the truth: as of April 13, 2013 he doesn’t have any more pictures or other documents relevant for the case:
    Affidavit of Documents of Nikityuks before Oral Discovery
  2. Were produced by Nikityuks after oral discovery by plaintiffs’ demand because they were stupidly mentioned by Valentin during examination.
  3. Do not prove anything: those are the pictures of some wall with some minor scratches which could be taken anywhere and at any time, but definitely not in plaintiffs’ house were the incident allegedly happened, because Nikityuks did not have access to the house since October 2011, and Discovery, when the pictures were produced 1st time, was in 2014, i.e. at that time they yet did not exist. Even the color of the wall is totally different, so those pictures of damaged wall are just fake.

Even Justice Mulligan who trusts Nikityuks and doesn’t trust Danilovs because they trade stocks, doesn’t say a word in his “decision” about that plates. But come on Your Honor, you cannot ignore the fact that Valentin Nikityuk perjured himself by bringing up this ridiculous “story”. And what does it say about Valentin’s credibility?

All the effort YMCA lawyers allocated on delaying the Trial into the 2nd session, finding more “witnesses” of alleged bruises during the 5 months break and preparing those “witnesses” proves the importance of the issue.

The fact that despite of that effort YMCA failed to prove that bruises ever existed, had to be properly assessed by Justice Mulligan and to dramatically affect his decision. The fact that it did not means again that he either forgot about all spring testimonies and evidences after 5 months gap, or was biased against Danilovs.

Related Images:

Power of Attorney Perjury

Valentin Nikityuk, Svetlana’s stepfather, always lived by his own rules. Supposedly his lawyer Erik Bornmann explained him the importance of telling the truth when you swear an affidavit, but maybe not because Erik, of all people, could not care less about the truth. Bornmann doesn’t care what is the best for his client, all he cared about back in 2011 was his job security for the next few years. Therefore the more lies, the better, the more idiotic and unbelievable they are, the better.

Let’s take a look at the Affidavit of Valentin Nikityuk sworn on October 18, 2010 for the purpose of getting Certificate of Pending Litigation on the house in Innisfil:

15. Following our arrival in Canada, Danilova and Danilov would, from time-to-time, instruct my wife and/or me to sign documents in English. These documents were not translated into Russian or explaining the purpose of the document. Danilova and Danilov would say, and I believed it to be true, that these documents were necessary for the immigration status. In 2011, my wife and I discovered that we had unknowingly signed Powers of Attorney in favor Danilova and/or Danilov in 2009 as described in paragraphs 22 and 23 below.

Then it all goes on in the Counterclaim:

52. Danilova and Danilov instructed the Nikityuks to execute powers of attorney for property in favor of Danilova and Danilov. These documents were in written in English. The Nikityuks executed the powers of attorney, but they did not understand the purpose of these documents. The Nikityuks signed the documents because Danilova and Danilov indicated that these documents had to be signed because of the Nikityuks’ immigration status. The Nikityuks believed and trusted Danilova and Danilov.

53. Danilova and Danilov used the powers of attorney to open bank accounts in the names of the Nikityuks without the Nikitvuks’ knowledge of the same.

Really? Have anybody try to open a bank account in Canada without owner’s knowledge? I am wondering if it’s possible.

54. From time to time, Danilova and Danilov instructed the Nikityuks to sign documents written in English without translating the content of the documents into Russian or explaining the purpose or effect of the documents. The Nikityuks signed these documents because Danilova and Danilov led them to believe that they were required to do so.

This Valentin’s “I signed this document but I did not understand it” goes on and on in this case, like Valentin would be a little capricious kid who didn’t understand what he was doing and what could be the consequences. But in fact it’s actually much worse: he just pretends to be an idiot, he understands very well what he is doing. Many years in Russia he worked for a KGB-controlled institution and he is very well trained in provocations, demagogy, propaganda, twisting words and facts etc. He is just a high-skilled professional liar and provocateur who probably can even cheat the lie detector. Combining his skills with his lawyer Erik Bornmann’s experience in dirty tricks, he can achieve unbelievable, like convincing Justice Mulligan that white is black and vise versa.

In the meantime, let’s look at a couple of other affidavits: Affidavit of Aurika Karasseva re Nikityuks PoA and Affidavit of Edward Merifield re Nikityuks PoA:

4. On September 15, 2009, Valentin Nikityuk and Alla Nikityuk attended at my office with Power of Attorney documents that had been prepared by someone other than myself.

5. I was asked to translate the Power of Attorney documents to Mr and Mrs. Nikityuk and to act as a witness to their signatures of the documents. I planned to asked an associate of mine, Mira Trakht, who is also fluent in the Russian and English languages, to act as the other witness, but when she was not available, I asked Edward Merifield, a lawyer who acts out of the same location, to act as the other witness.

6. Before Mr. and Mrs. Nikityuk signed their Powers of Attorney, I verified their identity, translated the entire documents to them, and satisfied myself that they fully understood what it was that they were signing.

Oops! And it works like this pretty much for every paragraph in that Counterclaim (more posts are coming). Your Honor, your favorite witness is a liar! With all your experience in Supreme Court, how could they cheat you like this so easy? Did they, really?

Related Images:

“Gratitude” or Bribery?

For a small gratitude (apparently $50 gift card) YMCA settlement counselor Yana Skybin will guide you through the process of obtaining social housing on a high priority basis avoiding all waiting lists. You’ll get your new apartment in just a couple of weeks. It’s illegal, but don’t worry: YMCA protects you at all levels.

Mystery. 1st nothing never, then vase, then chocolates, then ended up with $50 gift card. But Alla testifies that they never gave Yana any gift card. So what was that, so “precious” or “valuable”?

Oral Examination – Yana Skybin, p.90


Q512: Did you ever receive any gifts or any money from Nikityuks?
A: I did receive small gifts. I did not receive money from Nikityuks.

Q513: When did you receive small gifts?
A: When they came to my birthday there was a collective gift with other people; and they brought chocolates to the office which I shared with everybody in the office.There was one time when Alla brought a small vase. Mostly chocolates.

Q514-515: How chocolates can be precious? Email 17, line 2 – thank you that you came as well for your precious gift.
A: That wasn’t chocolates.

Q516-518: It was precious vase? They brought you precious gift and you said it was chocolates or small vase?
A: There was a collective gift and I thanked everybody who came to my birthday party.

Q519-522: And that was a big box of chocolates?
A: No it was a gift card.

Q523: For how much was the gift card?
A: I don’t remember the exact amount but I was grateful that people put it together.

2009-2011 Email correspondence between family and Yana Skybin in Russian #17


Q524: But email addressed to Alla and Valentin “Let me express profound gratitude that you have come as well as for your precious gift. You are very generous persons. Thank you very much”
A: I expressed my appreciation that they came and they contributed towards the gift

Q526: That was a gift card and you don’t know what amount was?
A: Collective gift card, yes, and it was $50

Can she be more evasive? “You are very generous persons” to express gratitude for a collective $50 gift card? Seems like Nikityuks’ share would be $10 or so. Why didn’t she send those “profound gratitude” emails to the other attendees of her party? I don’t buy it.

Do you, your Honor?

Examination at the Trial, v.4 – Alla (in chief), p.1182-1183


Q. Now, you testified that you went to Yana’s birthday? Did you bring any birthday gift?
A. Yes.

Q. What?
A. Something that would from a China, I can’t remember, vase?

Q. Anything else?
A. No.

Q. Was there a gift card?
A. There was occasions we would collect as a group collectively, that’s how – they never gave a card.

Q. What there a gift card at Yana’s birthday?
A. No, no gift card, no.

Q. Did you ever contribute to a communal gift card?
A. Yes, that happened. It was a share, it was – here to understand they bought the gift card to collect the money and then buy a gift, yes, that’s how we do.

Q. Do you remember Yana Skybin sending you a thank you email for the birthday gift?
A. Yes, yes.

Q. Do you remember Yana thanking you for the precious gift?
A. A precious gift, I don’t know, we could collect all together and give it as a gift. Our share was there.

Q. Was this – this is the share and vase, or are you remembering now that there was a gift card?
A. I don’t know about the gift card.

(Bornmann cross-exams his own witness, and Alla annoyed). So it wasn’t gift card. What the hell was it then? Whatever, but what’s important is that it’s good enough, and 2 days later they start all this stinky “abuse in family” procedure and obtaining the social housing on high priority basis. In my opinion, common definition for this mysterious “precious gift” is bribery.

Related Images:

“Miserable Life”

[97] I accept the evidence of the Nikityuks that life in the house became miserable. Almost every aspect of their financial life was controlled by the Danilovs. I accept that the atmosphere in the house was worsening over time under circumstances where the Nikityuks were being abused financially, if not emotionally, by the Danilovs. The capital that they had built over a lifetime in Russia was lost in improvident trading in the stock market almost immediately after they came to Canada. They did not agree to such investments and were never properly informed about this loss. They had a strong desire to live independently. It was always part of the discussion and it was outlined in Pavel’s e-mail inducement offer. It indicated that they would have a separate apartment. They moved into the Innisfil house by themselves under circumstances where they assumed it was purchased with their money and registered in their name. The Danilovs moved in with them with no notice, offering them no choice in the matter, no explanation about the financial pressure that the Danilovs were under was offered; financial pressure which was created solely by the improvident stock market trading by Mr. Danilov.

No Your Honor. Nikityuks were lying. Their life was not miserable by any standards, and atmosphere in the house was not worsening over time, until in 2011 Yana Skybin broke into the family like a bull in a china shop, and she had her angle. There were more than enough evidence of that presented, you just ignored them all. Why, your Honor?

When verbal testimony of one party contradicts another party, the judge, in my opinion, must find other sources of information to confirm one side or another, he cannot just blindly accept one side and totally deny the other because he doesn’t like the other by some reason. What’s important, finding supporting evidence is not a problem in this case because there are plenty of documents, all presented at the Trial but completely ignored by Justice Mulligan, whatever his reasons are.

Let’s take a look, for instance, at some pictures taken in 2009-2011, period when Nikityuks’ life was most “miserable”, according to their testimony. Mr. Mae submits that people smile on photos with no reason. Well, may be he does, but Russians don’t. There is a Russian saying “смех без причины – признак дурачины”, which literally means “smile with no reason is a sign of an idiot”. In our case no one is an idiot, and the reason of people smiling on the photos is very simple – they were happy. Still in doubt? Let’s look at more pictures taken by Valentin himself.

You still think that maybe “atmosphere in the house was worsening over time”? OK, let’s take a look back at 2011, when in October Nikityuks “escaped the abusive home” because “nobody can live like that”, in reverse chronological order:

Let’s also take a look how that “atmosphere was worsening” by looking at some greeting cards given by Alla and Valentin to Danilovs in 2008-2011. They are in Alla’s writing in Russian, her native language. Translations are here. “Pashenka! Happy birthday! We want to see you always healthy, successful, happy. Thank you for your good attitude towards all of us. Hugs and kisses, Alla Alexandrovna, Valentin Andreyevich. February 2011” – this must be a zenith of that “worsening”.

Also interesting are TD Visa statements of summer 2011, “MR VALENTIN NIKITYUK” section specifically: Marineland, African Lion Safari, Niagara, Simcoe County museum, Toronto tour, Midland cruise, African Lion Safari, Scenic caves, all in one summer – not too chubby for “miserable life”, huh? On the contrary, Valentin by all means is trying to impress his visiting daughter with the high quality of his life in Canada.

Emails sent by Nikityuk to friends and relatives – look at email #2 for instance, it’s of April 4, 2011, and it’s Valentin’s email to his brother in Russia:

Slava, as for your website. The kids don’t need it, they have enough on their plates for now. Pasha is employed by a solid company, with Sveta working from home. They turned their basement into office. Regarding us, me and Alla, we are not in need of anything, and I am not planning to make any commitments. So let’s drop the issue.

In some cultures life when you are “not in need of anything”, probably, can be considered miserable. Danilovs just had no idea that Nikityuks belong to that kind of culture.

Related Images:

Conspiracy

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.

Related Images:

Gift or Trust?

[162] I have already reviewed the inducement e-mail sent by Mr. Danilov to the Nikityuks in January 2008. I am satisfied that this was an offer which encouraged the Nikityuks to get their documents in order in furtherance of the Sponsorship Agreement, allowing them to immigrate to Canada. By their actions, the Nikityuks accepted the offer. They then sold their apartment, their car and their cottage. They transferred all of the proceeds to Svetlana. The transfer documents originating from the Russian bank used the word “present”. There is no evidence that this wording was discussed with the Nikityuks. It originated in the Russian banking documents. The Nikityuks had no input into that document.

What does it mean, exactly? Russia is very special, off course, but even Russian banks do not transfer money without clients’ input. Just imagine a bank transferring money back and forth, including abroad, “without client’s input” and think what Justice Mulligan is implying here. Really, your Honor???

On the contrary, “transfer documents originating from the Russian bank” have multiple Alla’s signatures and clearly state in Alla’s native language that the funds are transferred “not for investment purpose and not for buying real estate”, i.e. definitely not for “10% risk free investment” as in the “offer” they “accepted” (translated documents are here). How is this “no input”? Is it believable that during 3 years of the immigration process all “details were not discussed“? Mr. Danilov was financing Nikityuks’ immigration process and definitely would discuss those details, wouldn’t he? Nikityuks simply would not be permitted to immigrate by the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration if details were not discussed and all documents “in furtherance of the Sponsorship Agreement” were not in order already in 2004, 2005 the latest. Making life changing decisions and “putting documents in order” in 2008, when the long-waited permission to immigrate was finally obtained, was too late.

The reason why Alla put “PRESENT” in the bank draft was very simple: because it was a present. That is what Alla promised Pavel back in 2004 when he was about to make a decision to co-sign the sponsorship agreement or not. He was provider in the family and it was up to him, does he want Nikityuks in Canada or not. Alla’s input was discussed at the trial, but Justice Mulligan simply ignores that discussion and says “ah, there is no evidence!”, knowing that nobody ever would actually go through all that pile again and what he writes now becomes the truth forever because he is the judge and you are garbage.

So there is actually the evidence of GIFT, NOT TRUST. And this evidence, by the way, was concealed by Nikityuks till February 2016, just a few weeks before the Trial, despite of multiple motions in 2013-2016 with requests to produce those documents which were in possession of Nikityuks since 2008. Only by mistake of Nikityuks’ lawyer Mr. Bornmann’s assistant, in Mr. Bornmann’s absence, Danilovs were actually able to obtain those documents. It means that Nikityuks knew very well the importance of the evidence, but Justice Mulligan just plays on their side and pretends that “evidence does not exist” because he said so.

Related Images:

“Inducement” Letter

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,

  1. 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
  2. At the same time Pavel must provide them with all living expenses during 10 years of sponsorship commitment
  3. 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.
  4. 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,

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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?

Related Images: