Justice Quinn was unusually, and entertainingly, frank about this crook:
1 This is an exciting day (and excitement does not often make it to my end of the courtroom). It marks the final chapter (at least at the trial stage) of the now-tiresome 12-year tale of what will be, by paragraph [134] of these Reasons, the most expensive Lexus motor vehicle in the world.
3 In ascertaining the proper amount for costs … What are the implications of my trial findings that the defendant, Gurnek Singh (“Singh”), was unblinkingly dishonest, lied under oath, forged documents and attempted to perpetrate a fraud upon the plaintiff and the court?
As described in a later court case, Singh was the mastermind of a large insurance fraud. Shortly afterwards, he sold a damaged 1998 Lexus to the unfortunate plaintiff, promising to have it fully repaired. Quinn J. eventually awarded the plaintiff $33,465.77 for Singh’s breach of contract, deceit and misrepresentation, $50,000 for punitive damages and full indemnity costs of $133,211.74 plus HST. Only a portion of the judgment is under appeal. Unsurprisingly, the remaining portion remains unpaid, and Singh transferred his business assets to his wife.
Justice Quinn’s footnotes are compulsively quotable:
1 The length of the trial proved serendipitous: it afforded an opportunity to hear about, observe and listen to, Singh, thereby allowing me to conclude that, in the context of these proceedings, he is a man of whom nothing good can be said.
6 In a dark corner of the mind, one can almost feel felicitous admiration for a clever crook, but a stupid crook is to be doubly damned.
7 All fun features for an amusement park ride, but not appropriate for a motor vehicle.
9 Stupid crooks lack the self-awareness of their stupidity.
13 As a liar, Singh demonstrated the skill of a five-year-old.
14 Even to the point where one tail-light was from a different make of motor vehicle.
15 This may have been the first and only truthful bit of evidence tendered by the defence in the trial.
22 In the world of litigation, I question whether it is possible to prepare excessively.
The whole decision has a sad fascination, illuminated by unusually evocative language:
62 Singh maintained that he did not receive this fax. However, the telephone records of the plaintiff established that it was sent as he testified. Singh, overestimating the obtuseness of his audience, straight-facedly testified that perhaps the plaintiff had faxed a blank piece of paper.11 Singh did not produce any telephone records for this time-frame.
109 Singh was evasive as a witness. He refused to acknowledge simple factual matters. He failed miserably in making reasonably diligent efforts to provide documentary disclosure, rendering it obvious that his objective was to divulge only what he wanted the court to see. Singh lied under oath. He tendered forged documents in evidence with the intention that the court act upon them. He perpetrated a fraud upon the plaintiff and his plan was to do the same upon the court. In this trial, he was a one-man crime wave.
I think I will keep my old car a while longer. And I hope that the Pirbhai family eventually gets some compensation for their ordeal.
Ok, it’s not an environmental case, but wasn’t it worth reading anyway?