viewtopic.php?f=51&t=10535
that I don't want to post there because it is almost totally irrelevant to that discussion and is quite wordy. Since there is no obvious place to put it I parked it in this forum.
The comment was;
Well if you like judicial humour let me present Canadian judge J.W. Quinn and a case where he went hog wild with judicial mockery, almost entirely at the plaintiff's expense;I love judges like Easterbrook who speak clearly and sometimes even with wry humor.
Trial decision;
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20 ... c5831.html
Order on costs;
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/20 ... c1177.html
This is part of the table of contents of the decision. Keep in mind it was written by the judge.
"Inspector Clouseau" Fridriksson AKA "the Fabricator" was the sole shareholder of the plaintiff corporation. You sort of sense that it isn't going to go well for the plaintiff when the judge starts his decision by saying;I. INTRODUCTION
1. The parties
2. The ever-changing statement of claim
3. Terry Lewis and Dee Lewis as defendants
II. FRIDRIKSSON: HIS NATURE, CHARACTER AND CREDIBILITY
1. Is there a Doctor in the house?
2.“Yes, I know, I’m guessing again”
3. Gilding the academic lily
4. Fridriksson plays Lieutenant Columbo with Inspector Clouseau results
5. Exaggerations and untruths
6. “All the madness that’s in your head”
7. Fridriksson and his selfie notes
8. nor Hell a fury like an audiologist scorned
9. Evasiveness/stubbornness
10. The Fridriksson Formula
11. Fridriksson the Fabricator
12. Conclusion
The judge started his review of Fridriksson's trial testimony with this;[6] After four weeks, the first witness, Stefan Fridriksson (“Fridriksson”), was still testifying. Six additional days were needed to complete his evidence. In total, Fridriksson sub-let the witness box for 26 days. He entered the box as an articulate professional with impressive academic credentials, displaying what appeared to be a sound and comprehensive recollection of events. When he stepped down, after more than 14 days of withering cross-examination, he was noticeably dazed, his credibility was reduced to existential confetti and he even appeared to be physically shorter than when the trial began.[2] The case for the plaintiff was leaking oil (at one point, I thought that I saw smoke) and everyone who was paying attention realized that whatever damages were at issue in the trial would be swamped by the costs tsunami that was approaching.[3]
[7] After Fridriksson wobbled out of the witness box, the trial lasted another money-burning 46 days, for a total of 72 days, spread over three years (yes, three years).
[8] There were 125 exhibits at trial, which is not overly burdensome except when one considers that Exhibit No. 1 consists of nine volumes and 561 documents and Exhibit No. 90 is comprised of six volumes and 129 documents.
[9] Closing argument was in writing: an eye-glazing, bum-numbing, disc-herniating total of 662 pages (single-spaced, medium-sized font and heavily footnoted). Then there were the answers to dozens of written questions that I forwarded to counsel in the course of preparing these Reasons. It was a superb effort.
[10] The trial was like a physical deformity that one, eventually, accepts as a permanent condition. Yet, despite everything, I will recall the experience fondly because of the unrelenting civility of counsel[4] and their unceasing mastery of the evidence, all under difficult circumstances.
Even Fridriksson's own lawyer essentially called him a liar in court;II. FRIDRIKSSON: HIS NATURE, CHARACTER AND CREDIBILITY
[28] Because of the central role played by Fridriksson in the evidence of the plaintiff, he deserves his own section of these Reasons and his credibility warrants early and thorough attention. He was the maypole around which the case for the plaintiff was conducted. Most of the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations are said to have been made orally by others to Fridriksson. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, Fridriksson spent most of the trial on the wrong side of unbelievable.
[29] Fridriksson was born in 1956. He opened his first hearing clinic in 1988. By 1998, he owned four clinics and, according to his testimony, he was “the largest single provider of hearing aids in the Province of Ontario.” In 1998, after selling his clinics, he and his wife and children moved to Puerto Vallarta, Mexico, where they “opened a charity clinic.” During this time, Carol Klassen studied Spanish and painting. In 2002, they returned to Canada and, in 2003, Fridriksson started a hearing clinic in Fort Erie. Three years later he opened a second hearing clinic, this one in St. Catharines.
[30] Determining credibility can be a challenge for a trial judge. We have no special powers in that realm and, wherever possible, avoid reliance upon darts, dice and Ouija boards. However, rarely, has a witness generously offered up so many reasons to be disbelieved. Fridriksson was an evidentiary gift who kept on giving. He ignored rule number one in the Litigants’ Credo: “Know thyself, because others soon will.” Enough of this preamble. Come with me now on a visit to the phantasmagorical world of Fridriksson. Pack lightly.
This went on through 1,500 paragraphs. It did not end well for the plaintiffs;[46] Fridriksson tried to explain his evidence:
Q. Sir, you put it on a document that became an exhibit in a court proceeding where you swore to tell the truth.
A. The exhibit was prepared on the way to court that morning as we were driving to court because Malte [von Anrep, lead counsel for the plaintiff] asked for it that morning and we typed it into the laptop as fast as we could, drove to the office, printed it off. I know there are, there are minor errors on it . . .
[47] Mr. von Anrep rose to clarify:
. . . he’s mistaken. He said that I instructed him to prepare a document on the way to court. What he meant was on the way to discovery. That’s a document that was produced in 2008, not something [prepared] on the way to court.
THE COURT: So that exhibit has been in existence for four years?
MR. VON ANREP: Yes.
Even though Fridriksson was not the plaintiff the judge awarded over a million dollars in costs against him and his wife personally and only $190,000 in costs against the actual plaintiff. He justified this as;[1495] Fridriksson has taken everyone on a hideously time-consuming and obscenely expensive journey down his private yellow brick road to the outskirts of the Emerald City where, it appears, he has a residence. It was not a worthwhile adventure.
[1498] Early in the trial, I alerted the parties to the reputational and financial risks associated with this type of litigation. Not a word that I said registered with them. All of those risks have materialized. Once more, I caution the litigants that the issue of costs carries more of the same risks: reputational damage is repeated; and, financial obligations increase. This story is not likely to improve with a re-telling. The parties are not bringing credit to the world of audiology and hearing clinics.
Beat that Judge Easterbrook![118] Fridriksson used a closely held corporation, which he controls, as a vehicle for an attempted fraud upon the court. He was the chief witness for the plaintiff, testifying for 26 days. I found that he knowingly and almost continually gave deliberately false or misleading testimony in support of the many allegations made against the defendants. In an action commenced by a corporation for the purpose of perpetrating a fraud upon the court, the owner and the de facto owner and directing mind of the corporation may be required to pay costs personally. The corporate veil was never intended to serve as a bandit’s mask.
[119] Certain other aspects of this case establish a very close connection between Fridriksson and the plaintiff. Although they are not sufficient to support a finding of personal responsibility, I will mention them only for completeness:
1. There can be no doubt that Fridriksson is the de facto owner of the plaintiff and its directing mind. The evidence is gorged with references by Fridriksson and Klassen (note - Fridriksson's wife) to that effect. For example, Fridriksson testified: “If I would have known the true facts, I would have not purchased the clinic”; “I would not have bought the clinic”; “I would have paid zero dollars for the clinic”; “Part of my reasons for buying the clinic . . .”; “We are the owners of the clinic . . .”; “We are a tenant . . .”
2. The testimony of Klassen repeatedly reaffirms that Fridriksson is the true and real owner of the Niagara Falls Clinic. She stated in evidence: “I don’t understand exactly, it was something the accountant and [Fridriksson] figured out, it was a way to, for the kids to inherit something”; “[Fridriksson] was doing the negotiations and making the arrangements . . .”; “It seemed to make sense that I owned the clinic but, really, [Fridriksson] owns it”; “Because the clinics[30] are basically [Fridriksson’s] . . . it’s all his call.”
3. Counsel for the defendants point out that evidence on the receivership motion indicates that the assets, business and affairs of the plaintiff are tangled up in a complex relationship involving three other closely held corporations belonging to Fridriksson, together with assets held personally by Klassen, allegedly in trust. Klassen has been paying large sums of money to the plaintiff to finance the litigation with the defendants.
[120] As for Klassen, in my Trial Reasons, at paragraph [5] and elsewhere, I found that, although “the sole officer, director and shareholder of the plaintiff, she was merely a puppet for Fridriksson, doing and saying his bidding.” Klassen was in court for the entirety of the testimony of Fridriksson and when her turn to testify came, she continued with the evidentiary charade and supported his attempt to perpetrate a fraud upon the court. I did not find her to be credible. It was obvious that her role was to plug the holes left by the testimony of Fridriksson. She knowingly allowed “her” corporation, the plaintiff, to be used as an instrument of fraud.[31]
[121] Fridriksson and Klassen should be jointly and severally responsible, along with the plaintiff, for the costs that I have awarded in connection with the 11 failed allegations of fraudulent misrepresentation in which my findings at trial were that evidence had been deliberately fabricated and the truth deliberately withheld. Although I did not say so in my Trial Reasons, I say now, that it was all in an effort, effectively, to perpetrate a fraud upon the court.
[122] It would be a cowardly court that failed to fix personal responsibility with Fridriksson and Klassen. If not now, when?
[123] Litigants who abuse the legal system as they did can expect to be dealt with severely when it comes to costs. Courts are not a playground for the unscrupulous.
