An opinion piece by Vancouver Sun columnist Daphne Bramham, the same bleeding heart that sided for women's ski jumping:
Cambie merchant’s battle raises questions about justice
By Daphne Bramham , Vancouver Sun columnist
July 29, 2009 11:01 PM
We’re taught in Canada that justice is blind, that all of us have a fair chance in the courts, which won’t discriminate for or against the rich or the poor.
It’s why the blindfolded goddess of justice — Themis — holds balanced scales in a prominent place in the main lobby of Vancouver’s courthouse.
But is justice blind for British Columbians seeking remedies in the civil courts? Or is it weighted in favour of the affluent?
Those are the troubling questions raised by Cambie Street businesswoman Susan Heyes’s continuing fight to survive the devastation of the Canada Line construction. They’re the same questions lawyer Peter Ritchie asked last winter when his clients — family members of a victim of the Queen of the North ferry sinking — settled their case because they didn't have enough money to go to court.
Heyes is the feisty maternity-wear designer, manufacturer and retailer, who took on TransLink and the public-private partnership that is building and will operate the rapid transit line from downtown to Richmond and the airport.
During the four-year construction disruption, Heyes’s business went from thriving to dying. She had a 20-year-plus unblemished record of paying her bills. But to keep her company alive, Heyes remortgaged her house twice and ran up credit card debts of $135,000.
She was certain it was the construction that was killing her business and others along Cambie Street, but she got no help from her neighbours. Many were too overwhelmed to fight; others were unwilling to bare themselves and their financial statements for all to see.
Her suggestion that they file a class-action suit fell on deaf ears until after her trial, when it appeared that she might win. Then, a class-action suit was filed and more legal games have begun. TransLink and the partners asked Supreme Court Justice Ian Pitfield to remove himself from the case. On Wednesday, Pitfield filed his written reasons for refusing.
In May, Pitfield decided that Canada Line construction had bled $600,000 away from Heyes’s company — less than
the $900,000 she claimed and less than the mortgage on her home.
TransLink and its public-private partners were ordered to pay Heyes the damages and $138,000 in court costs, which don’t include her lawyer’s fees for preparing the case.
The companies paid the court costs but appealed, arguing that the legal “nuisance” the construction caused was justifiable because rapid transit is a public good.
They also argued on Wednesday in the B.C. Court of Appeal that that they shouldn’t have to pay the $600,000 until after the appeal was decided.
Why? Because the companies would suffer “irreparable harm” if they won the appeal and Heyes couldn’t return the money.
But $600,000 is chump change for them. Heyes’s lawyer, Cameron Ward, calculated that it is less than five one-thousandths of a per cent of the companies’ total assets of $13.2 billion.
Besides, the companies already saved $400 million by doing the more disruptive cut-and-cover construction. And the companies’ combined assets don’t take into account the combined treasuries of the federal, provincial and municipal governments.
Not only do they have a stake in the Canada Line, they have a huge stake in the case’s outcome.
If Pitfield’s decision is upheld, it will affect how all public works projects are planned and carried out in the future.
It’s no secret that from the beginning, everybody involved with the Canada Line hoped that Heyes would just go away. Even now, it’s not a stretch to suggest that some would like to starve her out or frighten her away with requests such as suggesting that if they had to pay the court-ordered damages, Heyes should have to put up her house as security.
They asked for that even though the damages were awarded to her company.
Justice Edward Chiasson sided with Heyes, noting that without the $600,000, she might be bankrupt before the appeal went to trial.
Chiasson acknowledged the risk that even with the $600,000, Heyes might not be able to repay it if she loses the appeal. But the judge said he considered what would best serve justice and that was that Heyes deserves the fruits of her judgment.
Indeed she does. A scrappy underdog, she’s taken on the big corporations and is winning.
Still, she’s at risk of losing everything. How’s that for fairness?
The government recently introduced some measures aimed at countering that, but there’s no consensus on whether they’ll make it better or worse.
But we need the system to work at all levels — civil and criminal. We need to live up to that promise that justice is not only blind, but accessible to all.
[email protected]
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
What another pile of B.S. from the same Sun columnist.
Prev
Linear Mode
