Canucks facing millions $$ out of pocket in lawsuit if they lose

Discussion in 'Fugu's Business of Hockey Forum' started by LadyStanley, Sep 14, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
View Users: View Users
  1. LadyStanley

    LadyStanley RIP Fugu

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    75,345
    Likes Received:
    3,034
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Sin City
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ally-getting-his-day-in-court/article2166240/

    The Moore-Bertuzzi/Cancuks/Crawford lawsuit scheduled for court in 2012. Original suit sought $38m in loss damages (from lack of playing career) and amended suit will be expanded to include (estimated potential) loss from post-playing career.

    So, if the Canucks/Crawford get ruled against, their insurance is only paying out $10m (plus $1m legal fees). Wonder where/if the rest of that award would be coming from.


    MOD NOTE: Let's just talk about the business aspects of this suit, such as the insurance coverage/non coverage. No need to rehash the incident or place blame.
     
  2. jumptheshark

    jumptheshark Rebooting myself Sponsor

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2003
    Messages:
    82,373
    Likes Received:
    2,321
    Trophy Points:
    250
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    currently creating a new identity
    Location:
    Have Backpack Will Travel
    as I said on the nuck board this will have longer and bigger ramification

    here is an example

    Say Sean Avery(as example) losses it on the ice and hits sid the kid after the whistle and ends sid the kids career. The pens put a claim to cover sid the kids contract and Sid the kid's who has personal insurance to cover his career beyond that of his current contract. those two insurance companies feel that while they have to pay out the claims--have a problem with the fact the injury was outside of the normal play and file a civil suit against Avery and his team so that in fact someone else pays th claim
     
  3. Fugu

    Fugu Guest

    Hopefully we can get some of our lawyers out of hibernation, but there are several issues here that I'd like to explore.

    Jurisdiction

    Colorado courts threw the case out citing it was out their jurisdiction. British Columbia has its own laws that limit the amount that could be paid out in damages. Tom Benjamin, blogger and labor expert (consultant to courts) had this to say at that time:
    It's interesting that the claim of permanent brain damage didn't arise in this initial foray in the BC courts. Moore's education, as Tom pointed out, worked against him because it was thought he'd be able to work well beyond any hockey career he might have had (which arguably was never going to be substantial). That figure can be calculated if you take the league minimum with some reasonable raise and assume he has an average NHL career span. We're nowhere close to $30+ million if that's how you account for it. (Do agent fees get calculated in this, btw?)

    So if there's anything new for me here, it's the new claim of permanent brain damage that prevents Moore from ever putting his Harvard degree to use. I'll add that comparables can probably be pulled for other Harvard grads with similar degrees, and I'm at least doubtful that they all would have multimillion dollar earnings, but that's another tangent.

    More from Benjamin (Feb 2006):
    I'm pulling Tom's stuff out because I think he's done a great job of framing this case from a legal perspective, and he has links to the original stories covering this since we go back to 2005.


    Damages and How Canadian Courts Decide (and again, Why Ontario)


    2008: http://canuckscorner.com/tombenjamin/2008/03/29/in-search-of-a-settlement/

    And in the comments section:

    Just as Tom can list out the probable path for a player of this type/age/trajectory, the same could be said for the claims of livelihood away from hockey. Since this is being brought before Canadian courts, what is the probable outcome when damage claims are seemingly multiples of times higher than actual loss of income that could be reasonably projected?
     
  4. Mr Atoz*

    Mr Atoz* Guest

    It's another example - albeit in an unusual way - of sports coming down to money and only money. Moore sues everyone. Bertuzzi sues Crawford in case Bertuzzi loses and has to pay up. It would be funny if Naslund suddenly sued Moore. Moore refuses to work because it hurts his case of brain damage allegedly inflicted. Does he magically recover after the suit is over like a soccer player writhing in agony after a non call? Do canuck fans riot after the verdict because it's a habit? Tune in tomorrow on "As the Puck Turns."
     
  5. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    As far as the jurisdictional hearing in Colorado, Moore was attempting to engage a special Colorado statute to confer jurisdiction as Colorado has a "long arm" statute that permits such actions over foreign defendants subject to a court's directions.

    In addition to having jurisdiction over the particular case (this is often called "subject-matter jurisdiction") the court must also have jurisdiction over the particular defendant ("personal jurisdiction"). Defendants who are individual residents of Colorado or business entities formed or headquartered in Colorado will be subject to the jurisdiction of Colorado courts. Alternatively, if an out-of-state individual commits a tort while in Colorado (as by negligently driving through the state), or if an out-of-state business markets and sells a dangerous product within the state, there will also generally be a sufficient jurisdictional basis for the Colorado courts over a claim for injuries resulting from those acts. The question of personal jurisdiction requires consideration of a statute adopted by Colorado (like many other states) called the "long-arm statute" (C.R.S. 13-1-124), a statute which represents the Legislature's effort to extend the "long arm" of Colorado courts' jurisdiction over non-Colorado defendants to the fullest extent permitted by the United States Constitution.​

    However to do that it was necessary to show a nexus between Colorado and the battery that occurred in Vancouver when Bertuzzi delivered the sucker punch. This was done by pleading that a civil conspiracy came into existence at the time of the Moore hit on Naslund and continued up to the Bertuzzi sucker punch. There was shorter statutory limitation period for this action so that is why it was brought forward first. Also at the time the matter was heard Moore was no longer being treated in Denver as his contract had expired and he was back in Ontario.

    Civil conspiracy is a difficult claim to make out since it has to be proved on a criminal standard unlike most civil claims and the judge did not find sufficient evidence to let the case go forward - in other words the Colorado court determined that there were Canadian courts with better claims as to jurisdiction.

    BTW Colorado has similar restrictions as to non-pecuniary damages (pain and suffering) similar to Canada and has more limited punitive damage limits than Canada. Since the bulk of the claim is based pecuniary damages such as past lost income and loss of future income earning capacity, in terms of caps on damages it was pretty much a wash. There was no significant juridicial advantage to Colorado in respect of damages. The other thing in Colorado Moore was guaranteed a jury trial and that is not necessarily the case in Canada as such cases can be heard by judge alone.

    Once that decision was made by the Colorado court rejecting personal jurisdiction there was no need to continue trying to make out the claim of civil conspiracy as it was not necessary to found jurisdiction in BC nor Ontario. BC would work because the incident took place there and the Canucks were located there but both Moore and Bertuzzi has off-season residences in Ontario and Bertuzzi also had other assets located within the jurisdiction ( a golf course, other business ventures, etc.). It is possible to bring a case in more than one jurisdiction and in this case Moore as the Plaintiff chose Ontario.

    In this case the Ontario courts assumed jurisdiction and the case continued there.

    This will be a battle of the medical experts as to the extent and severity/permanence of the neurological damage from the brain injury and also the actuaries to calculate damages for past and future loss of income based upon contingencies.

    In terms of what the courts do this is pretty much run of the mill - the unique aspect is that this involves hockey players rather than an MVA.

    From a legal issue perspective the claim for vicarious liability and/or negligent supervision against the team and Crawford are the most interesting but it is not unique as there is case law in sports on this issue already as I note below.

    As far as insurance, that may have been a driving force in Bertuzzi adding Marc Crawford as a third party defendant:

    A third-party suit, in which Bertuzzi is suing former Canucks head coach Marc Crawford, will be heard at the same trial.

    Bertuzzi contends that Crawford encouraged him to avenge Moore’s hit on then Canucks captain Markus Naslund in a game three weeks before the incident in Vancouver. Crawford denies that he sent Bertuzzi on the ice to exact retribution.

    The stakes are high for Crawford, the Canucks and particularly Bertuzzi, who now plays for the Detroit Red Wings. While the Canucks and Crawford are covered by the team’s insurance policy, Bertuzzi is not because he pleaded guilty to assault and was sentenced to probation and 80 hours of community service.

    Bertuzzi, 36, will be personally liable for any damages that may be awarded, although the Canucks’ insurance policy only covers the team and Crawford up to $10-million with an additional $1-million for legal fees.
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/spor...ally-getting-his-day-in-court/article2166240/

    In respect of the issue of the permanence of a disability, that is often one of the most difficult decisions for counsel to make in these sorts of cases. It takes time to determine how injuries may resolve - if they ever will or at least to get a handle on predictability. If you go ahead too soon then you may not have the evidence needed to make your case and as much of the claim for loss of future income earning capacity is driven by this contingency, it is critical to get it right.

    Having done personal injury cases from both the defence (insurer) and plaintiff side, it is always difficult to determine when to go to trial as catastrophic injuries may not fully resolve or become clear until years after the event. In one case when I was on for an insurer we pushed an early settlement with a motorcyclist and he took it. Shortly thereafter he suffered a spinal cord injury when a cracked non displaced fracture of the vertebrae, displaced rendering him a near total quadriplegic. However as he has settled and signed a release, his only recourse was to sue his doctors for negligence in failing to detect the injury... and he was not successful.

    In cases involving concussions and neurological injuries it can take years - as here to get a handle on the full extent of the injuries and be in a position to adduce evidence as to its future impact. And remember this stretches beyond his Moore's hockey career and through the rest of his life.

    As Tim Danson, Moore's lawyer said recently:

    “It has been very difficult for the process to take this long. But actually, we needed the passing of time to fully understand the magnitude of the brain injury. This (incident) just didn’t terminate his NHL career. It impacted everything in his life. It impacted his future and his future employment.

    “We’ve had years to look at this now and because Steve Moore has exceptionally high intelligence and is a Harvard graduate, we needed to evaluate all the factors involved. If we went to a jury too early, you wouldn’t have had the answers. It has been a lot of years and a lot of tests and we’ve learned a lot about the brain. I can’t really go into details right now because that will be a live issue at the trial.â€​

    As far as the amount claimed, there are numerous heads of damages but the one that can really mount up in a hurry is loss of future earning capacity. It does NOT just apply to what Moore may have made in his hockey career.

    As a general rule when you calculate the damages you split them into the various categories and then figure each out.
    R v Agat Laboratories Ltd, Alta CA

    A defendant is liable to a plaintiff for all the natural and direct consequences of the defendant's wrongful act so by his battery Bertuzzi will be responsible for all expenses and losses that Moore has incurred and may incur in future.

    This would include all expenses as well as actual lost income. Where dollars can really mount up is loss of future earning capacity and not just over his hockey career but his entire life. Also the court would look at the loss of pension benefits. There would aslo be a consideration of loss of opportunity as a veteran NHL'er would have more opportunity to market himself.
    http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-74...ook-at-the.html

    Here is the generally accepted tests for entitlement:
    In Moore's case not only will the court look at his hockey career but whether or not the brain damage he has suffered will have an impact on other future careers. There have been several recent pro sports studies which indicate that a severe concussion with long term PCS materially increases the chance of Alzheimer's Disease and other neurological impairments. This would all be the subject of claim.

    Then there are damages for the wrongful act (the battery) itself as well as non-pecuniary (pain and suffering) damages. Moore is also claiming punitive (aka exemplary) damages due to the nature of the tort. These sort of damages can be awarded when a defendant's conduct is particularly willful, wanton, malicious, vindictive, or oppressive. Punitive damages are awarded not as compensation, but to punish the wrongdoer and to act as a deterrent to others who might engage in similar conduct. There is no upper limit on such damages.

    There are also aggravated damages which are considered compensatory in nature:
    TWNA v Clarke 2003 BCCA 670

    As you can see the dollars can mount up very quickly but ultimately it will be up to the judge (or jury if there is one) to determine that actual dollar value of the award.

    Here is how the Supreme Court of Canada has laid out the process for determining loss of future earning capacity and it has been the law for 30 years. The oft-quoted passage of Dickson, J, that is the standard for determining prospective loss of earnings is as follows:

    “We must now gaze more deeply into the crystal ball. What sort of a career would the accident victim have had? What were his prospects and potential prior to the accident? It is not loss of earnings but, rather, loss of earning capacity for which compensation must be made... A capital asset has been lost: what was its value?â€

    The first thing that must be determined is the level of earnings that the plaintiff had at the time of the accident as well as the reasonable estimate of the plaintiff's future average level of earnings as, “without doubt, the value of the plaintiff’s earning capacity over his working life is higher than his earnings of the time of the accident.â€

    The next thing to be determined is the length of the working life of the plaintiff. On that point the court had this to say:

    “One must then turn to the mortality tables to determine the working life expectancy for the appellant over the period between the ages of 23 and 55. The controversial question immediately arises whether the capitalization of future earning capacity should be based on the expected working life span prior to the accident, or the shortened life expectancy. Does one give credit for the “lost yearsâ€? When viewed as the loss of a capital assets consisting of income earning capacity rather than a loss of income, the answer is apparent: it must be the loss of that capacity which existed prior to the accident. This is the figure which best fulfills the principal of compensating the plaintiff for that for what he has lost.â€

    The next thing to be determined are the contingencies and the court had this to say:

    “It is a general practice to take account of contingencies which might have affected future earnings, such as unemployment, illness, accident and a business and business compression… There are, however, a number of qualifications which should be made. First, in many respects, these contingencies implicitly are already contained in an assessment of the projected average level of earnings of the injured person, for one must assume that this figure is a projection with respect to the real world of work, vicissitudes and all. Second, not all contingencies are adverse, as the above list would appear to indicate… ‘Why count the possible buffets and ignore the rewards of fortune?’ Finally, in modern society there are many public and private schemes which cushion the individual against adverse contingencies. Clearly, the percentage deduction which is proper will depend on the facts of the individual case, particularly the nature of the plaintiff’s occupation, but generally it will be small."

    This sort of exercise goes on every day in the courts so it is nothing new.

    Another issue is the liability of the team. Under the law employers are liable in various situations for the wrongful acts of their employees (vicarious liability) and may be guilty of wrongdoing themselves if they failed to defuse a situation or handle players properly (negligent supervsion).

    The NHL itself has already provided much of the basis for the claim against the Canucks. Do you not recall that as part of the disciplinary process the team was fined and what Colin Campbell had to say at the time.

    Employees of the team were making idiotic comments about the hit on Naslund and fanning the flames or more accurately tossing gasoline on the flames. That is why the NHL whacked the Canucks with a big fine because the team management (read Burke and Crawford) did not do what they should have to control the situation.

    In fining the Canucks Colin Campbell said:

    "In light of numerous player comments about Mr. Moore following the Vancouver-Colorado game of February 16, we believe the Vancouver organization ultimately bears some responsibility for monitoring and, to the extent necessary, attempting to moderate the focus of its team. While the League provided appropriate advance warnings to both organizations, and while some steps were apparently taken by the Vancouver organization to ensure a proper focus by the players on the game itself, we believe that more could have and should have been done."

    Seems pretty clear that the NHL put some of the responsibility for Bertuzzi's criminal actions upon the Canucks. Moore is using that evidence to make his claim.

    There are two separate legal bases under which the Canucks could be found liable:
    1. Vicarious liability
    2. Negligent supervsion

    Under the law employers are liable in various situations for the wrongful acts of their employees (vicarious liability) and may be guilty of wrongdoing themselves if they failed to defuse a situation or handle players properly (negligent supervsion).

    By operation of law an employer can be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees if damage or injury results from the actions of the employee. The Canucks and Crawford will try to paint Bertuzzi's actions as completely unauthorized and unconnected to or outside of the scope of his position as a professional hockey player. Bertuzzi will say that he was doing what he was being encouraged to do - exact retribution on Moore.

    If the evidence is that the Canucks and/or Orca Bay did create or materially enhance the risk of Bertuzzi's’s intentionally tortious behaviour, they could be found vicariously liable for Bertuzzi's actions. Accordng to recent Supreme Court of Canada law on this issue if there is evidence that the employer created or enhanced the risk of an employee’s tortious conduct by creating an atmosphere of friction or confrontation, then that is sufficient to fix vicarious liablity. It used to be that vicarious liablity only applied to negligent acts but now it caninclude intentional torts such as battery.

    Negligent supervison is a little different as Moore is saying that the Canucks and Orca Bay committed a civil wrong (a tort).

    The theory of negligent supervision is well suited to professional hockey as the theory is based on a straightforward causal connection between employer fault (i.e. negligence in supervising an employee) and an employee’s tort, a defendant cannot raise the defence that the employee was acting outside the scope of employment (as may occur with a claim based on vicarious liability).

    A claim grounded on negligent supervision also provides Moore with the possibility of claiming punitive (i.e punishment) damages, something that is not available in a claim based on vicarious liability. Under Canadian law damages (a court award of money) for what are referred to as "pain and suffering" damages for the injuries and discomfort cause are currenlty limited to about $320,000 as a result of a series of Supreme Court of Canada court decisions. There is no limit to the amount of punitjve damages that may be awarded to a plaintiff.

    What evidence does Moore have to make the claim for vicarious liability and/or negligent supervsion?

    Thanks to the NHL Moore has very strong evidence for this type of claim.

    It is not the first time a team (incuding a hockey team) has been sued (and found liable) on these grounds.

    Wayne Babych of the Hartford Whalers sued Basil McCrae of the Quebec Nordiques for a slash to his knee that required knee surgery. In fact Babych pleaded negligent supervision and vicarious liability and included the Nordiques in the claim. The case settled out after the Nordiques and McRae were unsuccessful in trying to get the lawsuit dismissed.
    In the NFL the leading case is Hackbart vs. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc. which arose out of a National Football League game between the Cincinnati Bengals and the Denver Broncos in which the plaintiff, Dale Hackbart, a defensive player for Denver, was severely injured after a Cincinnati pass was intercepted near the goal line. Hackbart attempted to block the defendant, Booby Clark, an offensive player for Cincinnati, and fell to the ground. Clark, “[a]cting out of anger and frustration, but without a specific intent to injure,…stepped forward and struck a blow with his right forearm to the back of the kneeling plaintiff’s head with sufficient force to cause both players to fall forward to the ground.†Hackbart sustained a severe neck injury and was subsequently released by the Broncos. He sought recovery claiming, inter alia, reckless misconduct and, alternatively, negligence. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Hackbart’s claim was actionable and should not have been dismissed merely because the injury had occurred during a professional sporting event. The court stressed that “there are no principles of law which allow a court to rule out certain tortious conduct by reason of general roughness of the game or difficulty of administering it.†The case subsequently settled.

    In Dunn v. University of Ottawa, an intercollegiate football player was injured as a result of a violent hit delivered by a player on an opposing team. The plaintiff, a 150 pound punt returner for Carleton University, was preparing to return a punt when the defendant, a 225 pound linebacker for the University of Ottawa, lowered his head and drove his helmet into the plaintiff’s exposed jaw. The hit was a blatant violation of the intercollegiate five yard rule which creates a five yard “restraining zone†into which the tackler must not enter until the receiver has touched the football. The court held that the defendant’s conduct “fell far below the standard that might reasonably have been expected of a football player during an intercollegiate football game†and rendered its judgment in favour of the plaintiff. In so doing, the court provided a clear example of the tendency demonstrated by other Canadian courts when faced with similar facts to impose a requirement of intention or recklessness in the context of a negligence analysis. The court stated that “[o]nly when there is a deliberate intention to cause injury or a reckless disregard for the consequences of one’s actions in an uncontrolled and undisciplined manner will a finding of negligence result.â€

    In the NBA the leading case was the lawsuit brought by Rudy Tomjanovich of the Houston Rockets against the LA Lakers and Kermit Washington for head and neck injuries injuries suffered by a Washington sucker punch. Again note the team was sued and held liable. At trial Tomjanovich won a multi-million award and this was in 1978.
    And there have been findings of liability in the rough and tumble of professional rugby. In Canterbury Bankstown, this case arose as a result of injuries sustained in the course of a professional rugby match in New South Wales, Australia. In holding a professional rugby club liable for the deliberate tortious conduct (an illegitimate tackle) of one of its players, the appellate court stated that:
    So the claim against the Canucks seems legally well-founded - whether it can be proved or not in the courts is a whole other issue.
     
  6. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    Naslund (even if he was within the statutory limitation period of two years and he is not) would not have any basis for a suit against Moore because any claim would be covered under the principle of volenti non fit injuria (voluntary assumption of risk aka implied consent). Bertuzzi's action were so far outside the customary norms of the game that he lost this protection as did McSorley before him.

    If Moore is refusing to work then any damage award would be reduced for failure to mitigate his damages. According to his counsel he is unable to work.
     
  7. Fugu

    Fugu Guest

    Thanks, WC. I'll have to read that in the morning, after some coffee. ;)
     
  8. htpwn

    htpwn Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    19,397
    Likes Received:
    859
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Toronto
    It doesn't appear that Brian Burke is mentioned in the Globe article; Wasn't he listed as a defendant in past suits and is he still listed as one?
     
  9. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    He was a defendant in the initial suit in Colorado (part of the civil conspiracy) but IIRC he was not named personally as a defendant subsequently when the suit was filed in Ontario.
     
  10. Killion

    Killion Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    36,504
    Likes Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Wow. I need a stiff drink and a cigarette after reading that one. Most edifying. Good job!. :thumbu:
     
  11. htpwn

    htpwn Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2009
    Messages:
    19,397
    Likes Received:
    859
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Toronto
    Thanks. That's good news I suppose.
     
  12. Killion

    Killion Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    36,504
    Likes Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Good & bad. Burke offered Moore a 2 way contract with the Ducks, excoriated by the latters attorney for doing so. :naughty:
     
  13. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    Precisely the sort of idiotic stunt one would expect from Burke.
     
  14. cutchemist42

    cutchemist42 Registered User

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2011
    Messages:
    6,427
    Likes Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    Does that contract offer actually hold up in the courts as being genuine?
     
  15. Killion

    Killion Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    36,504
    Likes Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Burke offered Moore a 2 way contract; $475K if he played for the Ducks, $75K if he wound up in Portland. Danson called it further insult to injury, as his client was unable to play period.

    The initial offer for settlement was I believe $375K, rejected of course, followed by another of app. $1.2M. It too was turned down as being woefully inadequate. Meanwhile, in order to make himself as "creditor proof" as possible, amongst other things, Bertuzzi transferred title to his $1.2M home in Kitchener Ontario into his wifes name.

    Im not a lawyer and have absolutely no idea how germane Burkes' offer to Moore might be at trial however I suspect Danson could well decide to use it as further & rather damning evidence against the defendants. Nor do I have any idea what the courts might recommend or initiate if a judgment favors the plaintiff and in this case, one of the defendants (Bertuzzi) has jettisoned his financial holdings to his spouse, children, parents or whomever.

    Its one thing to win a judgment, often quite another to ever be able to collect. Obviously in this case thats not likely to be a problem with the Nuck's insurer, but as for the individual ('s) named?. Could be stormy seas ahead.
     
    Last edited: Sep 15, 2011
  16. Rocko604

    Rocko604 Playoffs?

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2009
    Messages:
    8,327
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    81
    Location:
    Vancouver, BC
    Out of curiosity, how can the Canucks, as an organization, be out millions since the current ownership group did not come on board until November 2004?
     
  17. LadyStanley

    LadyStanley RIP Fugu

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2004
    Messages:
    75,345
    Likes Received:
    3,034
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    Sin City
    As this was a pending/potential suit, it may have been covered by a clause in the sales agreement. IOW the old owners are still on the hook for a judgement over/above way insurance will pay, and/or a percentage. AFAIK, nothing about such in the sales agreement has been made public, so it's all guessing on my side.
     
  18. Mr Atoz*

    Mr Atoz* Guest

    According to his counsel OJ was innocent.
     
  19. Confucius

    Confucius Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,615
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Toronto
    I asked a lawyer about that type of situation (Putting stuff in the wife's name and claiming I had nothing), Lawyer just said, it's illegal. Gave me the annoyed look and went on.:(
     
  20. Killion

    Killion Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    36,504
    Likes Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Well, all I can say HH is obviously Bert received instruction from his council to transfer some of his paper around in order to shield his holdings. Some would call it prudent, others sleazy. Sounds like you encountered a member of the Bar who like a lot of them have to deal with paper chases' of this nature in securing just desserts for their clients on a daily basis... I cant begin to imagine how frustrating it must be for a litigator or creditor to win a judgment only to find yet more hurdles to jump in order to secure restitution. Yet the law permits it. Skalbania, Pocklington, "Big" Jim Norris etc were all masters at hiding the salami. :naughty:
     
  21. Roke

    Roke Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    2,605
    Likes Received:
    650
    Trophy Points:
    184
    Location:
    Winnipeg
    I'm not a lawyer and have only taken one law class (a fair ways back) in my life, but my understanding is that if you transfer the property before the action is performed it's fine, but doing so after the tortious act is committed can be pointless as courts are free to ignore such transactions.

    edit: I really shouldn't be using "tort" or the like because it makes it seem like I know what I'm talking about but I couldn't think of another clear word to use in it's place. To be clear, I could be wrong about the property transfer thing.
     
  22. Killion

    Killion Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    36,504
    Likes Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Nor am I, but still... I dont know about that. It depends on a lot of factors, jurisdiction, transferred to dependents, your spouse, off-shore, whatever. State by state & province-province it differs. Pocklington for example pulled all kinds of Shenanigans in avoiding his creditors, from personal to the Province of Alberta to the IRS & all stops in between. :naughty:
     
  23. Confucius

    Confucius Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,615
    Likes Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    139
    Location:
    Toronto
    Maybe it was illegal because I told the lawyer why I wanted to do it. I think lawyers have an obligation to be truthful even if it is detrimental to their client. I think we don't know if Bertuzzi acted on his own or with legal advice, in regards to transfer of the property.

    Another example, I knew a guy who was trying to beat an impaired driving charge. He told his lawyer, "this is what I'm going to say, because the police officer can't know what really happened". His lawyer said.......well I can't defend you now.
     
  24. Killion

    Killion Registered User

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Messages:
    36,504
    Likes Received:
    2,673
    Trophy Points:
    156
    LMFAO!... And ya, Lawyers live by a code of fairly strict ethics. If you "frame" a question to any one of them in such a way as to invoke the Skull & Cross Bones be prepared for a dirty look. Secondly, I find it impossible to believe that a guy who has done nothing but play hockey his entire life would be street savvy enough to understand the potential ramifications much less project that far into the future in covering his hiney' with so crafty a move all on his lonesome... As for the DWI, the Breathalyzers are faulty. Just bring in an expert Toxicologist. "No way my client couldve walked much less driven a car based on his height/weight & that blood alcohol reading". Works a charm. :naughty:
     
  25. Wetcoaster

    Wetcoaster Guest

    A company is a legal person. When you buy a company - shares as opposed to assets, you assume the contingent liabilities. That said I would expect that there is a clause in the sale agreement dealing with the new owners being entitled to some or all of an indemnity from the previous owners in the event of the Canucks being fixed with liability.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"