Overturn Judge's errors that allowed ICBC demand its legal fees from the injured disabled
0 have signed. Let’s get to 200!
Please support our Public Outcry for Justice
Canadian Judiciary System is Failing!
Justice Served for the Strong, the Powerful & the Rich, but Justice Denied and Lost for the Weak, the Poor, the Injured, the Disabled & the Traumatized
The Heartbreaking Story: ICBC has been treating the injured disabled brother and sister indescribably unfairly and, the Judges of the Supreme Court (New Westminster, British Columbia, Canada) & the Court of Appeal (Vancouver) as well compounding their sufferings, doing absolute injustice by ignoring the truth
1. We the injured disabled lay plaintiffs, Yin Yin Ma and Hla Maung (brother and sister)earnestly urgently request for your support to overturn the unfair unreasonable decision of Honourable Mr. Justice Armstrong which is full of errors, both palpable factual errors and errors in law that had allowed ICBC to demand its huge amount of its legal fees, approximately $150,000 or may be even more from us who were injured in 3 car accidents (Ms Ma injured in 3 car accidents in 2007 and 2009 and, Mr Maung in the latter 2 accidents).
2. Both of us have been suffering from ongoing severe chronic pain injuries. Ms Ma was diagnosed with chronic pain disorder, fibromyalgia, mild traumatic head injury, PTSD, anxiety and depression due to chronic pain.
3. We, the disabled brother and sister would really like to let the public know the extent of absolute injustice, the worst instance of the crime of Obstruction of justice/conspiracy ICBC has committed and still continues committing its unspeakable torturous psychological attack against us, the injured disabled lay plaintiffs.
4.It is in the interest of every human being who has a sense of justice to look into our heartbreaking story.
5. As we all know, each and every injustice done to every fellow human being is an assault to the whole Justice system internationally and universally. Each and every inhuman treatment, torment, unfair untimely death and bloodshed committed against a fellow human being is the assault to the whole humanity as all human beings are related in humanity.
6.First of all, we would like the public to be aware of the fact that we did not have a fair trial as one of our basic our basic human rights as Canadian citizens, our access to legal representation in face of serious legal matter has been systematically and repeatedly denied although the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee every Canadian citizen with basic human rights; one of them as "the right to fair trial” and consequently we have not received any justice.
7.We cannot believe the way we have been treated by ICBC (Insurance Corporation of British Columbia) regarding our personal injury matter,and when we look to the justices of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal, our sufferings been compounded and we have been more traumatized than ever as they have been making totally unreasonable unjust decisions against us. 7. They have been making those blatantly unreasonable, unjust decisions not in the interest of justice, but in the interest of the notorious giant, ICBC.
8.We would like to go public and contacted Go Public CBC by email several times months ago, but as we did not get any response, we have decided turn to social media.
9. Apparently, this case is the most unjust case ever in the history of Canadian Judiciary system as it obviously has been failing to recognize and do justice by ignoring the many evident instances of repeatedly committed crime of Obstruction of Justice by the notorious giant ICBC against the injured disabled lay plaintiffs. (Note: we will be posting all the evidence including documents, photos and affidavits submitted at all the trial, hearings and legal proceedings.)
10. We have faced and continue to face Obstruction of Justice as our access to justice has been systematically and repeatedly blocked. Our basic human rights, as Canadian citizens, to legal representation by a lawyer at trial and all hearings in face of this serious legal matter have been repeatedly denied throughout the legal proceedings both at the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
11. We had been hugely disadvantaged not being represented by a lawyer at the trial. As lay persons, we just did not understand and know what the defense and their medical experts and their witnesses were conspiring against us. It was just beyond our ability to understand their conspiracies against us.
12. It is totally unjust that we as injured plaintiffs have not been allowed to get legal assistance and representation from a lawyer at trial when we are in face of a legal problem. Our access to justice had been denied when we were not allowed to get legal assistance and representation from a lawyer at the trial. We did not have a fair trial because we were not allowed to be represented by a lawyer at trial and consequently we have not received any justice.
13. We have faced and continue facing Obstruction of Justice from the defense regarding the 3 motor vehicle accidents (MVAs) cases for Ms. Ma and 2 MVAs for Mr. Maung.
14. The worst instance of the crime of Obstruction of justice/conspiracy ICBC has committed and still continues committing is its unspeakable torturous psychological attack against us.
15. We just would like the public know in details how these traumatizing incidents have been happening to us. Upon review, we have found some clues that clearly indicate both of these incidents are the defense's willful attempts to obstruct justice.
16. Evidently, each time we had to testify at the Court regarding our MVAs cases, we had experienced intense grief and profound sadness due to the death of a parent.
17. Our beloved father, Mr. Hla Din passed away on November 17, 2014(please see a copy of death certificate of Mr. Hla Din) of so-called cancer just six weeks before the start of our trial proceedings in January 2015. That trial had to be adjourned because we were grief-stricken and traumatized due to the loss of our beloved father.
18. In the same way, we have been grief-stricken again due to the death of our beloved mother, Mrs. Hnin Myaing Din who passed away on February 27, 2017, when we need to go to the Court of Appeal regarding our 3 MVAs cases. Our beloved mother Mrs. Hnin Din passed away (Please see a copy of death certificate of our mother, Mrs.Hnin Myaing Din) of so-called pneumonia within three days at Royal Columbia Hospital just two weeks prior to the time we had to file our Notice of applicat to the Court of Appeal.
19. The judgement of Honourable Mr Justice Armstrong was released on March 16, 2017 which was one day after the funeral of beloved mother, Mrs Hnin Myaing Din on March 15, 2017. Because we were extremely traumatized and grief-stricken, we were not able to proceed with our notice of appeal application within the set limit of time and we had to request for an extension of time.
20.Strangely, the number of paragraphs included in the judgement of Honourable Mr Justice Armstrong is 111 paragraphs that coincided the numbers of “Treasured photos of our beloved mother, Mrs Hnin Myaing Din posted by us on the Ocean View Didnity Memorial” online website. (we posted 111 photos of her treasured photos.) Please go to Ocean View Funeral Home, Dignity Memorial Website online and enter our beloved mother’s name, Mrs Hnin Myaing Din under “OBITUARY” to see that we posted 111 photos of our beloved mother. This is how the Defence has been emotionally harassing, stalking and traumatizing us covertly behind the scene.
21.Obviously, these incidents could not be happening coincidentally. It is no doubt that they are rather conspiracies than coincidences in order to block our access to justice regarding our 3
22.MVAs cases. We do believe that we have been facing surprise attacks (which absolutely cannot be strange coincidences) by the deaths of our beloved father and mother each and every time we have to go to the Court regarding our MVAs cases.
23.Our beloved father, Mr. Hla Din passed away of so-called cancer just weeks before the start of our trial proceedings in Jan. 2015. That trial had to be canceled as we were grief-stricken by the tremendous loss of our beloved father. Similarly, we received the email from Honourable Justice Armstrong on February 16, 2017, which is one day after the funeral of our beloved mother, Mrs. Hnin Myaing Din on Feb. 15, 2017, that his judgment would be released in one week. Again, we have been grief-stricken by the tremendous loss of our mother at the time we need to file our Notice of Application to the Court of Appeal.
24.We would like to refer to para. 23 and 27 of ICBC defense lawyer, Mr. Robert Easton's affidavit:
Para 23: "The plaintiff's sister represented to the Court that she and her brother would be seeking a lawyer to represent them. I informed Mr. Justice Crawford I doubted any lawyer would be willing to assume the conduct of their case. I asked Mr. Justice Crawford to direct a further Case Planning Conference for November 13, 2012, to see if, by that time, the Plaintiff had retained counsel. That direction was given."
Para 27: "The next Case Planning Conference took place Nov. 13, 2012. Mr. Justice Saunders presided. The plaintiff and his sister attended. Mr. Justice Saunders ordered by consent that the plaintiff's action and his sister's action be tried together and that they are scheduled for trial for 15 days. The assumption was that the Plaintiff would not find a lawyer to act for him."
25.Mr. Robert Easton's above statements clearly indicate as if he has known in advance that we would never find a lawyer who would represent us when we go to trial. We do believe that there were conspirators who had conspired against us not to get a lawyer who would have represented us at the trial. (We do not mean that Mr. Robert Easton had conspired against us not to find a lawyer.) There could have been covert agents who could have done and continue doing such conspiracies against us, the injured plaintiffs.
26.The absolute injustice has been done in our cases because Honourable Justice Armstrong unreasonably unjustly sided with ICBC lawyers and the statements of their medical experts and witnesses while apparently discredited the honest evidence of Ms. Ma, and Mr. Maung and the statements of their medical experts and family physicians.
27.We just would like the public to know the evidence and clues that clearly indicate both of these incidents are the defense's willful attempts to obstruct justice:
(a)The previous ICBC defense lawyer, Mr. Robert Easton stated in his June 7, 2013 email to the plaintiffs that he had difficulty scheduling the trial ..." the next time some priority will be given to us because the court has twice not given us the dates we requested."
b) Mr. Robert Easton stated in his April 8, 2013 email to the plaintiffs,"...The earliest the trial can be set is November of 2014. We will try to get that date." The father of the plaintiffs, passed away in November of 2014. (Although Mr. Robert Easton in his Nov. 19, 2012 email to Ms. Ma and Mr. Maung said that he planned to schedule the trial in June of 2014 which did not happen as we were not available in June 2014)
27. We received the email from Honourable Mr. Justice Armstrong on February 16, 2017, which is one day after the funeral of our beloved mother, Mrs. Hnin Myaing Din on Feb. 15, 2017, that his judgment would be released in one week. Now, we have been grief-stricken again by the tremendous loss of our beloved mother when we need to go to the Appeal Court.
28. We would like to refer to the words adopted by Justice Saad of the Court of Appeals of Michigan in People v. Sexton:
"The crime of obstruction of justice occurs when the effort is made to thwart or impede the administration of justice.
"For example, in obstructing justice through coercion, the crime is complete with the attempt and whether the attempt succeeds in dissuading the witness is material. Thus, if a defendant harasses or physically prevents a witness from appearing or testifying, or attempt to do so, such actions constitute obstruction of justice, regardless of whether the witness ultimately appears or testifies."
29.Since we have been grieving the death of our beloved mother and also due to our ongoing chronic pain conditions, we had requested to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time as we were unable to proceed with the procedures of Appeal Court. Please see a copy of our affidavit on sworn May 30, 2017.
30.We have been just overwhelmed and stressed out. As a matter of fact, what we do know and say for sure is that the extent of injustice we, the injured plaintiffs (not being allowed to get legal assistance from a lawyer) is indescribable. We have faced and continue facing nothing else, but an absolute injustice.
31.Moreover, another instance of Obstructing of Justice committed by the defence. Our evidence given at trial were deleted/destroyed by the defence as we found out there were missing transcripts.The defense had willfully destroyed the evidence of the witness to mislead the Court and obstruct justice. We would also like to point out that there are missing trial transcripts. It is totally unfair for the injured plaintiffs because if these missing transcripts were deliberately deleted/destroyed by the defense, we have faced another incident of Obstruction of Justice. Deliberately deleting the trial transcripts is the same as willfully destroying the evidence of the trial witness which is critical in the process of a legal proceeding before the Court.
32.It is heart-wrenching that ICBC making twists and turns and distortions through his experienced lawyers has been demanding us to pay their huge amount of legal fees approximately nearly $150,000 or, may be even more instead of paying any compensation for our sufferings and injuries.
33.We do not mean that Honourable Mr Justice Armstrong (HJA) and the defence lawyers involved, Mr. Robert Easton, Mr. Ryan Morasiewicz and Mr. John Bradbury have been doing these conspiracies against us. We do respect HJA who is an elderly justice as we respect our father.
34.We do appreciate Honourable Mr Justice Armstrong’s help for guiding us how to ask the defense witnesses questions as we were disoriented, being in terrible pain and confused not being able to effectively carry out throughout the trial proceedings. However, he ignored and refused to accept and consider some very important and relevant evidence we submitted to him. Consequently, he was extremely confused and made so many palpable errors, both factual errors and errors in law in his judgement.
35.We were speechless and appeared back before Honourable Mr Justice Armstrong because all errors in his decision were extremely palpable. All his findings of facts regarding our credibility are absolutely based on unfounded evidence. We can overturn each of those findings.
36.We confirmed if he himself wrote the decisions and knew the contents of it. HJA replied that he assigned someone to write his decision.
37.When we pointed out to palpable errors in his decisions, HJA said that we had to write them down and submit them to the Court of Appeal so that his decision would get overturned and a new trial would be ordered.
38.As advised by HJA, we have been trying to appeal to the Court of Appeal. However, we have not been able to keep things on time. Due to our severe chronic pain condition/ fibromyalgia, pain-related stress, depression and concentration problem; and also grief-stricken and traumatized due to the death of our beloved father and mother, it has been extremely difficult to be able to keep things on time and had to request foe extension of time to get legal assistance and legal representation from a lawyer.
39.On May 10, 2019, we had a hearing before Honourable Madam Justice Saunders, Honourable Madam Justice D Smith and Honourable Mr Justice Groberman to vary the decision of Newbury J.A. who unreasonably unjustly denied to remove our case from inactive list and of Fitch J.A. who denied our request for an extension of time. Their Oral Reasons for Judgement do not correctly explain our reasons that we explained in our memorandum of argument.
40.Their oral reasons said, “They brought the appeals, but did not pursue them in a timely manner.”
41.They did not consider our explanation in our memorandum why our appeal became inactive and why we we were unable to keep our appeal on time.
42.Ms Ma submitted six letters from her five medical doctors and her health coach from Pain BC, University of Victoria who diagnosed , confirmed and requested to grant her an extension of time as she has been suffering from severe chronic pain disorder, fibromyalgia, post traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and major depression.
43.Ms Ma and Mr Maung also clearly explained how they have made and have been making every efforts to retain a lawyer for our appeal. We would like to refer to our affidavit sworn on December 20, 2018 which includes our Retainer Agreement with Mr. Phil Cote attached as Exhibit B in our affidavit sworned on Dec, 20, 2018. It clearly shows that the contract states that Mr. Phil Cote agreed to contact the Defence and the Court of Appeal on our behalf.
44.We retained Mr. Phil Cote in March 2018 to give us legal assistance writing our factum and representing us at the Court of Appeal hearing. We did not retain him just to review our file.
45.As stated in our affidavit sworned on Decemer 20, 2018, Exhibits A,B, C, D, E which show that we repeatedly sent emails to him on March 22, 27 and 30, 2018 and requested to him to contact the Defense Lawyer and the Court. We requested to him to set the timeline to submit our appeal books and factum (transcripts books have been filed) so that our appeal file could be removed from the inactive list.
46.As Honorable Chief Justice McEachern stated in para 7, Rowan v. Dunwoody (1999 BCCA 755), if Mr. Phil Cote has contacted the Defence lawyer and the Court, to have our appeal removed from the inactive list, it would definitely have been ordered by consent.
47.The most critical point in issue is Honourable Madam Justice Newbury unreasonably dismissed our application to remove our file from the inactive list. Therefore, we did respectfully and humbly submitted to the Honourable Justices of the Court of Appeal to review her decision.
48.Honorable Madam Justice Newbury in para 6 of her decision, “ at some time in March 2018, the plaintiffs retained Mr. P. Cote for advice, although it is not clear whether that advice was limited to a review of the plaintiffs’ appeal or also encompassed making all filings and appearances in the Court on their behalf. (On November 20, 2017, another lawyer who had carried out some filings for the plaintiffs in November 2017 filed a notice that he was ceasing to act.)”.
49.Her above statement clearly indicates that Honorable Madam Justice Newbury failed to consider and ignored the obvious evident submitted in our Affidavit sworn on December 20, 2018. If she had carefully reviewed our Retainer Agreement with Mr. Phil Cote attached as Exhibit B in our affidavit sworned on Dec, 20, 2018. and filed on December 21, 2018, she can clearly see that the contract states that Mr. Phil Cote agreed to contact the Defence and the Court of Appeal on our behalf.
50.In the same way, the latter part of her statement in para 6, of her decision, “On November 20, 2017, another lawyer who had carried out some filings for the plaintiffs in November 2017 filed a notice that he was ceasing to act." clearly indicates that Honourable Madam Justice Newbury did not carefully consider the evidence the plaintiffs provided, that it was Mr. Harpreet Nirwan whom the plaintiffs retained on September 5, 2017, who unreasonably withdrew.
51.Honorable Madam Justice Newbury failed to consider and ignored the evidence provided by us. The Exhibit P of the affidavit, the emails between the plaintiffs and Mr. Harpreet Nirwan clearly shows that he agreed to the plaintiffs' application for longer factum when they first met him on Sept. 5, 2017. His email to plaintiffs on Sept. 7 and Sept 27 stated, "I will not become counsel of record until you have brought your application. I will assist in finding case laws for use in your application shortly."
52.Both lawyers we retained, Mr. Phil Cote and Mr. Harpreet Nirwan unreasonably withdrew.
53.After Mr. Nirwan's withdrawal, we diligently continued to look for a new lawyer. We contacted a number of lawyers and finally, we retained Mr. Phil Cote in March 2018 to give us legal assistance writing our factum and representing us at the Court of Appeal hearing. We did not retain him just to review our file.
54.After Mr. Phil Cote closed our file unreasonably, we contacted a number of lawyers. We have learned Mr. Phil Cote's failure to remove our appeal from the inactive list has seriously damaged, disadvantaged and jeopardized our appeal as some lawyers say they would like to take our appeal case only after it is removed from inactive lists.
55.Obviously, we do strongly believe that these incidents could not be happening coincidentally. It is no doubt that they are rather conspiracies than coincidences in order to block our access to justice regarding our 3 MVAs cases.
56.We have faced and continue to face Obstruction of Justice as our access to justice has been blocked. Our basic human rights to legal assistance as Canadian citizens in face of serious legal matter have been repeatedly denied throughout the legal proceedings both at the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal.
57.We had been hugely disadvantaged not being represented by a lawyer at the trial. As lay persons, we just did not understand and know the way the defense and their medical experts and their witnesses were conspiring against us. It was just beyond our ability to understand their conspiracies against us.
58.Upon review, we have found some clues that clearly indicate both of these incidents are the defense's willful attempts to obstruct justice.
59.Like justice Paul Walker’s actions resulted in a father being accused of sexually abusing his own children as he accepted an “expert witness” who was fraudulent; in our case, Honourable Mr. Justice Armstrong’s action,I.e., his errors both factual errors and errors in law as he one-sidedly and blindly accepted the defense expert witnesses (who made fraudulent accusations against us), resulted in the honest disabled injured brother and sister being accused of malingering our sufferings allowing ICBC unreasonably demanding us to pay ICBC defense lawyers’ legal fees almost nearly $150,000 or may be even more.
60.It is in the interest of every human being who has a sense of justice to seriously look into this heartbreaking story and support our public outcry for justice. As we all know, each and every injustice done to every fellow human being is an assault to the whole Justice system internationally and universally. Each and every inhuman treatment, torment, unfair untimely death and bloodshed committed against a fellow human being is the assault to the whole humanity as all human beings are related in humanity.
61.Earnestly, humbly and respectfully, we, the injured disabled lay plaintiffs ( we gave been suffering from ongoing severe chronic pain injuries, pain-related stress, anxiety, PTSD, depression) request for your support to join our the public outcry for justice to overturn the unfair unreasonable decision of the above Justices that had allowed ICBC demand its huge amount of legal fees, approximately $150,000 or may be even more from us.
Note: We will continue to post all the evidence and documents submitted to the judges at all legal proceedings both at Supreme Court (New Westminster, BC, Canada) and the Court of Appeal(Vancouver, BC, Canada)
Please sign and share our petition with your friends and, request them to sign.
Yin Yin Ma and Hla Shwe Maung
Complete your signature
0 have signed. Let’s get to 200!