Recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision...

ICBC sued many defendants in relation to a conspiracy to disguise and distribute stolen vehicles. The central participant Suska was found liable at trial in 2008 for conspiracy to convert many stolen vehicles, and an award exceeding $500,000. Other individuals were found liable for fraud, conspiracy or conversion of individual stolen vehicles, and various awards of damages, interest and costs.

However, one defendant had escaped liability at trial on allegations that he conspired with Suska and participated in the conversion of several stolen vehicles. In 2011, the Court of Appeal reversed that aspect of the decision and sent those allegations back to the trial court for a new trial.

The appeal court's decision set forth important legal principles related to what is legally required for proof of conversion. Important aspects of the decision are the fact that it is sufficient that the person only assist another in converting stolen property and that it is not necessary to prove any knowledge that the items are stolen.

A second aspect of the decision ruled that wiretap evidence related to alleged interference with witnesses during the first trial would be admissible at the new trial.

Michael Hewitt represented the plaintiff in all the cases cited above.