VANCOUVER — Nine out of 10 Stanley Cup rioters who were taken to court by ICBC have been found liable for damages they did to vehicles during the riot.
The insurance corporation, which was seeking to be recompensed for payments it had made to the insured owners of the vehicles, filed lawsuits against a total of 82 civil defendants following the June 2011 riot in downtown Vancouver.
Settlements were reached with 37 of those defendants and default judgments were found against another 35. That left 10 defendants who went to trial. Most of them had been convicted separately in criminal proceedings.
In assessing liability at the civil trial, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliott Myers noted that it was not the case of a directed or co-ordinated riot, and did not involve gangs coalescing and then moving from location to location in unison.
Participating in the riot in itself did not establish joint or individual liability, meaning the issue needed to be settled by examining vehicle by vehicle, defendant by defendant, said the judge.
Travis Alexander, who was convicted of participating in a riot and sentenced to four months in prison, was found by the judge to be liable in the damage of three vehicles.
He jumped on the roof of a Nissan Versa that was parked outside the Canada Post building on Georgia Street and helped flip it on its side. The vehicle was later destroyed by fire but it was not evident who set it alight, said the judge.
Seven young men — Andrew Comber, Joel Corrigan, Andrew Cuthbert, Jordan Houde, Timothy Lau and two young offenders — were each found liable for doing damage to one vehicle.
Sean Yates, the only defendant who was represented by a lawyer, was alleged to have been involved in damaging four vehicles but the judge found there was insufficient evidence to make out a case against him.
Yates had thrown a mannequin into the window of a burning Audi on Seymour Street, but the vehicle was already destroyed and as his lawyer pointed out, it was the equivalent of “kicking a dead horse,” noted the judge.
A finding that punitive damages were called for was sought by the plaintiff, ICBC, but the judge noted that most of the defendants had been convicted criminally and there was nothing to indicate the penalties they received were inadequate.
“I do not minimize the gravity of the conduct that took place. Watching the videos of the riot was a disturbing exercise because it illustrated a major part of a major city in complete disarray, caused by the intentional acts of the rioters.”
The judge said that the riot showed the delicate line between order and chaos, but the criminal sentences took into account the principles of denunciation and deterrence.
“While it is true, as pointed out by ICBC, that the accused were not charged with offences related to damage to property, I do not see the sentences would have been different had that been the case because the factors that were taken into account in the sentencing included the property damage not only to vehicles but in general.
“On that basis I decline to award punitive damages. There comes a point when “enough is enough”.
The amount of damages each defendant will have to pay will be determined at a later date, taking into account the settlements already reached, said the judge.
