FROM: TIM PETTIT
TO: 'callum.houston@hotmail.com'
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2010
Mr. Houston,
I am counsel for ICBC as Third Party in the above matter. I do not act for either
yourself or Mr. Graham.
At present, our approach to the defence of this matter is to deny both liability and
injury. We are not at present making any offers of any compensation to Mr.
Graham.
We have reviewed your statements as to what happened on the date in question,
specifically, that the plaintiff hopped up on the hood of your vehicle, refused to
get off, was taken by you on a short, relatively low speed ride to the highway and
back and then alighted from your vehicle without injury. Our review of the police
file suggests that your version of events is supported by independent witness
testimony, though, these witnesses regrettably declined to provide full written
statements. Furthermore, we have reviewed the plaintiff's version of events in
light of the independent witness testimony and are presently of the view that the
plaintiff's version is contradicted by this independent evidence. Therefore, on
balance, at present, it is our view that your version of events is more likely than
the plaintiff's and, if accepted by the court, should lead to a dismissal of the case
on the issue of liability.
On that basis, our present approach is to deny liability as stated above and
proceed to trial on that basis. We are presently in the process of scheduling trial
dates for this matter. I am writing you, in part, to request your cooperation in
defending the action against you on the issue of liability. We will require your
testimony at trial if we are going to refute the plaintiff's assertions as to what
happened on the day in question.
As well, we are presently taking steps to re-interview the independent witnesses
and gain a clearer and more accurate understanding of their evidence so that we
may more accurately assess the issue of liability.
We are also contesting the issue of whether or not an injury occurred. As you
know, the plaintiff alleges numerous injuries from the incident in question.
However, if your version of the incident is preferred by the court over the
plaintiff's, then, we do not believe the court will conclude that the plaintiff was
injured as your version of the incident does not appear to establish any
reasonable mechanism for injury and, furthermore, does not support the injury
mechanism claimed by the plaintiff, ie. being clipped by the car and thrown onto
the hood.
Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed the medical records provided to ICBC by
the plaintiff's counsel and can advise that these appear to demonstrate significant
delays (in the order of months) in reporting of certain symptoms such as left knee
and right shoulder complaints. On that basis, we do not believe that a court,
properly informed, can conclude that the incident led to these problems.
In part on that basis, our present approach is to deny the allegation of injury and
proceed to trial on that basis as well. I have reviewed your statements to ICBC
and note that you lived in proximity to where the plaintiff worked and have
evidence as to his physical status in the days and weeks following the incident
and, generally speaking, your observations tend to contradict his allegations of
injury. On that basis, we would request your cooperation in defending the action
against you on the issue of injury as well. Again, your testimony at trial would be
important in refuting these claims of injury.
We are presently taking steps to obtain further disclosure of the plaintiff's medical
records as part of this defence. Additionally, we are scheduling a medical
examination of the plaintiff and will seek orthopedic evidence as to the
significance in the plaintiff's delay in reporting symptoms. We would welcome
any investigative leads that you may be able to provide including names of
witnesses who could speak in an informed fashion as to the plaintiff's status.
Please also note that we are scheduling an examination for discovery of the
plaintiff for the very near future.
As per above, I reiterate that we seek your cooperation in the defence of this case
and I look forward to same.
Please feel free to contact me at your convenience, either by email, mail or phone
as per the particulars below.
NORTH SHORE LAW LLP
Timothy H. Pettit
600 - 171 West Esplanade, North Vancouver, BC, V7M 3J9
Direct: 604 982-4053 | Fax: 604 980-4019
Email: tpettit@northshorelaw.com
www.northshorelaw.com
NOTE: The information contained in this message may be subject to solicitor
client confidentiality. Any unauthorized distribution, copying or dissemination of
this communication is prohibited without specific permission from the intended
recipient. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by
reply as soon as possible.
TO: 'callum.houston@hotmail.com'
DATE: FEBRUARY 10, 2010
Mr. Houston,
I am counsel for ICBC as Third Party in the above matter. I do not act for either
yourself or Mr. Graham.
At present, our approach to the defence of this matter is to deny both liability and
injury. We are not at present making any offers of any compensation to Mr.
Graham.
We have reviewed your statements as to what happened on the date in question,
specifically, that the plaintiff hopped up on the hood of your vehicle, refused to
get off, was taken by you on a short, relatively low speed ride to the highway and
back and then alighted from your vehicle without injury. Our review of the police
file suggests that your version of events is supported by independent witness
testimony, though, these witnesses regrettably declined to provide full written
statements. Furthermore, we have reviewed the plaintiff's version of events in
light of the independent witness testimony and are presently of the view that the
plaintiff's version is contradicted by this independent evidence. Therefore, on
balance, at present, it is our view that your version of events is more likely than
the plaintiff's and, if accepted by the court, should lead to a dismissal of the case
on the issue of liability.
On that basis, our present approach is to deny liability as stated above and
proceed to trial on that basis. We are presently in the process of scheduling trial
dates for this matter. I am writing you, in part, to request your cooperation in
defending the action against you on the issue of liability. We will require your
testimony at trial if we are going to refute the plaintiff's assertions as to what
happened on the day in question.
As well, we are presently taking steps to re-interview the independent witnesses
and gain a clearer and more accurate understanding of their evidence so that we
may more accurately assess the issue of liability.
We are also contesting the issue of whether or not an injury occurred. As you
know, the plaintiff alleges numerous injuries from the incident in question.
However, if your version of the incident is preferred by the court over the
plaintiff's, then, we do not believe the court will conclude that the plaintiff was
injured as your version of the incident does not appear to establish any
reasonable mechanism for injury and, furthermore, does not support the injury
mechanism claimed by the plaintiff, ie. being clipped by the car and thrown onto
the hood.
Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed the medical records provided to ICBC by
the plaintiff's counsel and can advise that these appear to demonstrate significant
delays (in the order of months) in reporting of certain symptoms such as left knee
and right shoulder complaints. On that basis, we do not believe that a court,
properly informed, can conclude that the incident led to these problems.
In part on that basis, our present approach is to deny the allegation of injury and
proceed to trial on that basis as well. I have reviewed your statements to ICBC
and note that you lived in proximity to where the plaintiff worked and have
evidence as to his physical status in the days and weeks following the incident
and, generally speaking, your observations tend to contradict his allegations of
injury. On that basis, we would request your cooperation in defending the action
against you on the issue of injury as well. Again, your testimony at trial would be
important in refuting these claims of injury.
We are presently taking steps to obtain further disclosure of the plaintiff's medical
records as part of this defence. Additionally, we are scheduling a medical
examination of the plaintiff and will seek orthopedic evidence as to the
significance in the plaintiff's delay in reporting symptoms. We would welcome
any investigative leads that you may be able to provide including names of
witnesses who could speak in an informed fashion as to the plaintiff's status.
Please also note that we are scheduling an examination for discovery of the
plaintiff for the very near future.
As per above, I reiterate that we seek your cooperation in the defence of this case
and I look forward to same.
Please feel free to contact me at your convenience, either by email, mail or phone
as per the particulars below.
NORTH SHORE LAW LLP
Timothy H. Pettit
600 - 171 West Esplanade, North Vancouver, BC, V7M 3J9
Direct: 604 982-4053 | Fax: 604 980-4019
Email: tpettit@northshorelaw.com
www.northshorelaw.com
NOTE: The information contained in this message may be subject to solicitor
client confidentiality. Any unauthorized distribution, copying or dissemination of
this communication is prohibited without specific permission from the intended
recipient. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by
reply as soon as possible.
| SUBJECT: GRAHAM V. HOUSTON AND ICBC |
| "ICBC-RCMP-ATTORNEY GENERAL CONSPIRACY EXPOSED PART 2" ICBC'S FEBRUARY 10, 2010 STATEMENT: |
An extremely suspicious February 10, 2010 e-mail statement I received from a disreputable North
Vancouver, BC law firm that claimed to represent the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. In
the e-mail, the shady North Vancouver, BC law firm also claims to be scheduling trial dates on behalf
of Erle Stanley Graham pursuant to yet another sham BC Supreme Court lawsuit that doesn't exist.
Vancouver, BC law firm that claimed to represent the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. In
the e-mail, the shady North Vancouver, BC law firm also claims to be scheduling trial dates on behalf
of Erle Stanley Graham pursuant to yet another sham BC Supreme Court lawsuit that doesn't exist.
