Readers of this blog may recall that earlier this year I won my civil case against the Province of British Columbia and City of Vancouver arising from my arrest back in August of 2002 on a ridiculous unfounded suspicion that I might throw a cream pie at Prime Minister Chretien. Following a six day trial, Justice Tysoe of the Supreme Court of British Columbia declared that my constitutional rights had been infringed when I was strip-searched, imprisoned in a one metre by two metre cell for a day and had my car taken off the street and impounded so that police might search it for the nonexistent pastry. I was awarded modest damages of $10,100 plus court costs, which have been settled at $32,000.

The province and city could have avoided all these costs, plus the costs incurred by their four lawyers at trial, by simply delivering me a written apology.

I had hoped that the trial judgment would be the end of the matter, but the province’s lawyers filed an appeal. They accept that my rights were violated by the strip search, but plan to argue that the judge was wrong to award me $5,000 damages for that humiliating event. I responded to the appeal by seeking a decision that I was wrongfully arrested by the police and an increase in the damages I was awarded. Not to be outdone, the City’s lawyers have filed a cross appeal seeking repayment of the $100 I was awarded for the wrongful seizure of my car.

Factums and related documents have been filed in the Court of Appeal, and it is expected that the appeal will be argued in the spring of 2008.

So, just how much is all this costing taxpayers? Chief Justice Brenner has estimated that the average cost of a five day civil trial is $100,000 to each litigant involved. On that basis, the province and city may have forked out some $240,000 plus the $42,100 in damages and costs, for some $282,100 for the trial alone. When one adds the cost of the appeals, including purchasing all the transcripts, taxpayers will likely have spent over $300,000 for their governments’ stubborn refusal to say “we’re sorry”. An unpalatable prospect indeed.

I take no pleasure whatsoever in reporting this, which I do simply to illustrate why civil litigation is out of reach of the average citizen. Few people can rely on the courts for vindication, even when their constitutional rights are egregiously violated, because the cost is prohibitive. Governments with deep pockets can and will expend vast sums of money rather than admit any wrongdoing.

Hopefully, somehow, some day, those responsible for making the decision to litigate rather than apologize will get their just desserts.

Postscript: Here’s the most disturbing thing about this odyssey…When the police confronted me on the street that day, I was calm and collected. I raised my voice in protest only after I was handcuffed and after the police refused to tell me why they had handcuffed me. At trial the three police officers said I was handcuffed because I was loud and causing a disturbance. Although this was not the case, the judge accepted their contrived version of events and said that I was “mistaken” in my testimony. I certainly wasn’t mistaken, and this demonstrates that the average citizen won’t win a credibility contest with police officers. The ramifications of this in the criminal justice system are obvious. I take some solace in the fact that I wasn’t convicted of some serious offence and jailed on the basis of police testimony.

Six more people died in July after being shocked by Taser weapons, bringing the total number of North Americans who have died at the hands of police using these electrical stun guns to at least 275. The most recent fatality was Ronald Marquez, 49, of Phoenix, Arizona, who died on July 29th.

Tasers were introduced to Canada in 2000, without public consultation or debate, and fifteen Canadians have died after being Tasered. There are no testing regimes or safety standards for the devices, which incapacitate the subject with a 50,000 volt charge and which are restricted to law enforcement use only.

Betty Krawczyk will turn 79 on Saturday, August 4, 2007. Those concerned that she might mark the occasion by sitting down in front of a piece of heavy equipment can rest assured that there will be no such affront to the rule of law; the diminutive white-haired great-grandmother remains incarcerated at the Alouette Correctional Centre for Women in Maple Ridge, BC, where she is serving the 10 month prison sentence imposed last March. She was found in contempt of court by Justice Brenda Brown for having violated an Order made in a lawsuit commenced by the companies upgrading the Sea to Sky Highway. The Order restrained everyone from a number of activities, including travelling on the highway except in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. To date no one has been cited for contempt of court for speeding. The companies have taken no steps in furtherance of their lawsuit, which was clearly just a tactic to obtain a court order that would entitle the police to arrest misguided demonstrators like Betty.

Betty’s family and friends look forward to her eventual release from prison and to a delayed celebration of her birthday then.

Canada Line (RAV) construction is well under way in Vancouver, as evidenced by massive open trenches, noise, dust and traffic congestion. Businesses along Cambie Street are bearing the brunt of the disruption with no relief in sight from the governments that have committed billions of tax dollars to the project.

However, the July 2007 quarterly report says this (page 26): “In the second quarter of 2007, CLCO reached a tentative agreement with the Musqueam regarding a possible assistance package associated with the Musqueam fishery in the vicinity of the Canada Line bridges.”

Huh? Compensation to the Musqueam for disruption of fishing in the Fraser River, but no compensation for the suffering family-owned businesses along the Cambie Street trench?

The British Columbia government, a major proponent of this mega-project, portrays itself as business-friendly. The businesses along Cambie Street, at least those that are still there, have a hard time swallowing that proposition and one of them, Hazel & Co., has launched a legal action for damages based on misrepresentations, nuisance, trespass and injurious affection. More businesses may follow suit…

In May of 2002, lawyer Martin Wirick resigned from the Law Society of British Columbia and ceased practising law. It became apparent that he had misappropriated trust funds on a massive scale in real estate transactions involving his client Tarsem Gill and the “Vanview group of companies”.

Every BC lawyer has been victimized, for we have been levied some $600 per year for the last five years, or $3,000 each, in order to make restitution to the victims of the Wirick/Gill dealings. Some $42.1 million has been paid by us to those victims, mostly financial institutions, who suffered losses.

As far as I am aware, no charges have been laid against anyone in this case. We have been told this by the Law Society; “The Vancouver Police and the RCMP, through the Lower Mainland White Collar Crime Unit, announced in early 2005 that they are conducting a criminal investigation of Mr. Wirick and Mr. Gill”.

More than two years have passed since that announcement, and more than five years have elapsed since the Law Society first told us about the misappropriations. What is going on here?

Is the “Lower Mainland White Collar Crime Unit”, whatever that is, asleep at the switch?