c: COURT FILE NUMBER Q.B.G. NO. OF 203 . OF BENCH FOR SASKATCHEWAN 3. JUDICIAL CENTRE REGINA THE ESTATE OF ADAM HEROLD BY ITS EXECUTOR RUSSELL HEROLD, RUSSELL PLAINTIFFS HEROLD AND RAELENE HEROLD JASKIRAT smote SIDHU ADDSH DEOI DEFENDANTS IRUCKING LTD AND Jet-1N DOE Bus AC TURER LTD - NOTICE TO DEFENDANT 1 The plaintiff may enter judgment in accordance with this Statement of Claim 01' the judgment that may be granted pursuant to The Queen 15? Bench Rules unless, in accordance with paragraph 2, you: serve a Statement of Defence on the plaintiff; and file a copy of it in the of?ce of the local registrar of the Court for the judicial centre named above. 2 The Statement of Defence must be served and ?led within the following period of days after you are served with the Statement of Claim (excluding the day of service): 20 days if you were served in Saskatchewan; 30 days if you were served elsewhere in Canada or in the United States of America; 40 days if you were served outside Canada and the United States of America. 3 In many cases a defendant may have the trial of the action held at a judicial centre other than the one at which the Statement of Claim is issued. Every defendant should consult a lawyer as to his or her rights. 4 This Statement of Claim is to be served within 6 months from the date on which it is issued. 5 This Statement of Claim is issued at the above?named judicial centre on the 9?h day of July, 2013. pl 1.:oeal Regigtlai STATEMENT OF CLAIM The Parties 1. The Estate ofAdam Herold (herein ?Adain?) by its executor Russell Herold, who was born on April 12, 200i and until his death resided in and around the town of Montniartre, Saskatchewan. 2. The Plaintiff, Russell Herold (herein ?Russell?), is an individual who resides in and around Montmartre, Saskatchewan. 3. The Plaintiff, Raelene Herold (herein ?Raelene?), is an individual who resides in and around Montmartre, Saskatchewan. 4. The Defendant, Jaskirat Singh Sidhu, (herein ??Singh?) is an individual who resides in and around Calgary, Alberta. 5. The Defendant, Adesh Deol Trucking Ltd. (herein ?Adesh?) is a body corporate registered to carry on business in Alberta and operates semi power units and trailers in the Province of Saskatchewan. 6. The Defendant, John Doe Bus Manufacturer Ltd. (herein ?Bus Manufacturer?), is the designer and manufacturer of the bus (herein ?Bus?) that transported the Humboldt Broncos Saskatchewan Junior Hockey Team including hockey players, therapists, radio coaches, managers and staff (herein ?Humboldt Broncos?), on April 6, 2018. General Facts 7. On April 6, 2018 the Humboldt Broncos were travelling on the Bus to Nipawin, Saskatchewan to play game 5 of a playoff game against the Nipawin Hawks. 8. At approximately 4:30 p.111. the Bus carrying the Humboldt Broncos was driving northbound on Highway 35 approaching the intersection of Highway 35 and 335 near Armley, Saskatchewan (herein ?Armley Corner?). At or about the same time, Singh was driving a semi?trailer power unit with two attached Super Trailers (herein ?Se1ni?) owned and operated by Adesh, westbound on Highway 335 approaching the Armley Corner intersection. 9. The Anniey Corner intersection is bordered by a long strand of evergreen and other dense brush trees (herein ?Trees?) on both highway 35 and highway 335. On highway 35 the Trees prevent drivers from seeing traffic approaching the Armley Corner intersection that are travelling west on highway 335. 10. The sight lines for the drivers travelling north on highway 35 as they approach the Arniley Corner intersection are not suf?cient to allow the drivers to see the traf?c approaching the intersection from highway 335. 11. he sight lines are not in accordance with the guidelines or rules and regulations established by the Government of Saskatchewan and/or the Department of Highways and in any event are not suf?cient to allow drivers of vehicles travelling on highway 35 to take evasive action if required to avoid an accident. 12. Vehicles travelling on Highway 35 have the right of way over vehicles travelling on Highway 335, at the Armley Corner intersection. 13. Vehicles travelling west on Highway 335 as they approach the Armley Corner intersection have a speed limit of 100 kilometres per hour dropping to 60 kilometres per hour prior to approaching the Annley Corner intersection. Prior to entering the intersection the vehicles travelling on highway 335 must stop at a stop sign before entering and proceeding through the intersection. In addition, the vehicles travelling on highway 335 are warned to stop at the stop sign posted at the intersection by ?ashing red lights. The red lights warn the drivers travelling on highway 335 and approaching the intersection to slow down before coming to a complete stop. 14. There have been many accidents including fatal accidents at the Armley Corner intersection in the past. 15. At approximately 4:30 pm. Singh, intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently, drove the Semi through the Annley Corner intersection without adhering to the warning lights and signs and did not stop the Semi at the stop sign, when it was unsafe to do so and contrary to the driving laws of Saskatchewan including those laws enacted pursuant to The Traffic Safety Act C. 7118.1, Statutes of Saskatchewan 2004 and The Highway Tra??ic Aer C. lei?3.1, Statutes of Saskatchewan, 1986 (herein ?Laws?), at the same time the Bus carrying the Humboldt Broncos was travelling through the Armley Corner intersection. 16. The Bus hit the Semi in the Armley Corner intersection (herein ?Accident?), causing it to rapidly decelerate, its roof to come off and the Bus to overturn onto its side. l7. The Bus carrying the Humboldt Broncos was not equipped with early warning safety devices or shoulder harness seatbelts and its roof was not designed or manufactured to withstand the impact created by the collision between the Bus and the Semi. 18. As a result of the accident, the Humboldt Broncos were ejected from the bus and onto the highway and surrounding areas causing 16 deaths and many physical and injuries to the passengers. 19. The accident has caused severe mental and emotional stress and anxiety to the Humboldt Broncos loved ones including parents, siblings and the Plaintiff?s. Facts Specific to Adam 20. Adam grew up on a farm outside of Montmartre, Saskatchewan, with his father, Russell Herold, his mother, Raelene Herold and his sister, Erin Herold. 21. Adam spent a great deal of time with his family farming, playing hockey and many social activities including hunting, gardening and spending time at the family cabin. Adam was very close to his family and his family was very close to Adam doing everything together. 22. Adam was the youngest member of the Humboldt Broncos who had played with the team for only 8 games prior to the Accident. 2,3. In 2017, Adam was named the Regina Pat Canadian?s captain that led his hockey team to be the champion of the Mac?s Midget Hockey tournament, in Calgary, Aiberta. 24. Adam was drafted number 34 overall by the Prince Albert Raiders in the 2016 WHL Bantam Draft. 25. But for his death, Adam would have played in the National Hockey League (herein and been a member of the National Hockey League Players Association. 26. Adam had the potential to earn approximately $20?$30 million dollars over the course of his NHL hockey career. 27. But for his death, Adam would have also taken over and operated the farm that his family had built up through the years and would have farmed it to earn a living. Facts Speci?c to Russell and Raelene Herold 28. Raelene Herold (herein ?Raelene?) and Russell Herold (herein ?Russell?) are the mother and father of Adam. 29. Both Russell and Raelene loved Adam and spent their lifetime including many hours, days and years with him teaching him to he an ethical and moral person with the character to be a high achiever. 30. Both Russell and Raelene, as a resuit of the Accident, have suffered extreme physical and emotional pain and suffering that has caused them to lose signi?cant enjoyment of life. 31. Both Russell and Raelene suffer from feelings of anger, loneliness, sadness, worry and anxiety in relation to Adam?s sudden death and the Accident. Facts Specific to Jaskirat Singh 32. The Defendant, Singh, was the operator of the Semi owned by Adesh during all relevant times to this action. 33. Singh was not and he knew he was not suf?ciently skilled or trained to operate the Semi. 34. The Defendant, Singh, was travelling westbound on highway 335 through the Annley Corner intersection for the ?rst time. Singh had only received two weeks of training and had only operated the semi power unit for two weeks prior to the collision. Further, he had only been driving as a semi~trailer driver with Adesh for approximately two weeks prior to the Accident. 35. Singh did not follow and/or did not have knowledge of the rules, regulations and standards for operating and driving semi power units and trailers in Saskatchewan in accordance with the Laws. 36. Singh?s acts and/or admissions during all relevant times to this action were intentional, reckless and/or negligent in his failure to properly travel through the intersection in accordance with Saskatchewan laws. The results of his conduct were catastrophic causing 16 deaths and many physical and mental injuries to the Humboldt Broncos and the parents of the victims. 37. On July 6, 2018, Singh was charged pursuant to the Criminal Code of Canada with 16 counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death and 13 counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing bodily injury. Facts Specific to Adesh 38. The Semi was owned by Adesh. 39. At all relevant times to this proceeding, the Defendant, Singh, was an employee and/or authorized agent of Adesh who acted on behalf of Adesh. 40. At all relevant times to this proceeding, Singh, was performing his duties as an employee and/or authorized agent of Adesh who acted on behalf of Adesh and was authorized by Adesh to drive, operate and/or control the Semi. 41. At all relevant times, Adesh intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently failed to properly and/or adequately instruct and/or train Singh to be a semi-trailer driver pulling two Super Trailers, pursuant to industry standards and Laws in Saskatchewan. 42. Adesh allowed Singh, a driver with insufficient skill and/or training to drive a route that he had never travelled before. 43. Adesh is vicariously and/or otherwise responsible and accountable for the acts and/or omissions of Singh. Facts Speci?c to John Doe Bus Manufacturer Ltd. 44. The Bus involved in the accident on April 6, 2018 was designed and manufactured by John Doe Bus Manufacturer Ltd. 45. Upon colliding with the Semi, the Bus roof popped off and detached from the bus. 46. The bus was not equipped with chest harness seatbelts and/or other safety measures to minimize or lessen the consequences ofan accident. 47. The Bus was not designed or manufactured to minimize or lessen the consequences of an accident or the injuries that may result therefrom. Negligence of Jaskirat Singh 48. The Defendant, Singh, owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs to operate and drive his Semi exercising all reasonable care and skill to avoid doing, or not doing any act which he could reasonably foresee would cause an accident and injury to the Plaintiffs including: a. A duty to know the Laws and to drive the Semi in accordance with the Laws including stepping at the stop sign located on highway 335 at the Armley Corner intersection and slowing down when approaching the intersection when warned to do so; 13. A duty to yield the right of way; c. A duty to obtain the necessary skill and training to Operate the Semi in accordance with industry standards; d. A duty to not drive the Semi in a dangerous or reckless manner without having regard for the safety of the members of the public including the Plaintiffs; gs A duty to not drive the Semi in a fashion that created a situation of danger and emergency; f. A duty to keep a proper lookout for another vehicle approaching on highway 35 that would be visible and obvious to a reasonable person exercising reasonable care; g. A duty to slow down and to stop so as to avoid the collision with the Bus; h. A duty to not enter into the intersection when he knew or ought to have known it was unsafe to do so; i. A duty to not drive the Semi directly into the path of the Bus; j. A duty to take action to avoid the Bus from striking the Semi when he knew or ought to have known that a collision was likely to occur; k. A duty to drive and operate the Semi under control at all times; 1. A duty to drive, operate and control the Semi in a reasonably prudent manner and/or to take reasonable precautions of a reasonable driver to avoid accidents; 49. The Plaintiffs relied Upon the Defendant, Singh, to satisfy the above duties of care. 50. The Defendant, Singh, breached the aforementioned duties of care as follows: He did not know the Laws and did not drive the Semi in accordance with the Laws including stopping at the step sign located on highway 335 at the Arinley Corner intersection and he did not slow down when approaching the intersection when warned to do so; He did not yieid the right of way; He did not obtain the necessary skill and training to operate the Semi in accordance with industry standards; He did drive the Semi in a dangerous or reckless manner without having regard for the safety of the members of the public including the Plaintiffs; He did drive the Semi in a fashion that created a situation of danger and emergency; He did not keep a proper lookout for another vehicle approaching on highway 35 that would be visible and obvious to a reasonable person exercising reasonable care; He did not slow down or stop to avoid the collision with the Bus; He did enter into the intersection when he knew or ought to have known it was unsafe to do so; He did drive the Semi directly into the path of the coach bus; He did not take action to avoid the Bus from striking the Semi when he knew or ought to have known that a collision was likely to occur; He did not drive and operate the Semi under control at all times; He did not drive, operate and control the Semi in a reasonably prudent manner and/or to take reasonable precautions of a reasonable driver to avoid accidents; 10 51. Singh knew or ought to have known that by not driving the Semi to satisfy the above duties of care that he would cause loss of life, severe mental and physical injuries and damages including severe pain and suffering to persons such as the Plaintiffs. 52. The Plaintiffs have suffered loss of life, severe mental and physical injuries and damages to be proved at trial including extreme pain and suffering. 53. The actions and omissions of Singh, were done intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently and jointly and/or severally caused the above loss and damages to the Plaintiffs. Vicarious Liability of Adesh for the Actions of Singh 54. The Plaintiffs claim that Adesh is vicariously liable for the actions and/or omissions of Singh as he was an employee and/or agent of Adesh acting in the course of his employment and/or agency duties, at all relevant times to this action. Negligence of Adesh 55. The Defendant, Adesh, owed a duty of care to the Plaintiffs to train and direct Singh on how to properly operate and drive the Semi exercising all reasonable care and skill to avoid doing, or not doing any act which a reasonable and prudent semi driver could reasonably foresee that would prevent an accident and injury to the Plaintiffs including: a. A duty to reasonably ensure that Singh knew the Laws and to drive the Semi in accordance with the Laws including stopping at the stop sign located on highway 335 at the Armley Corner intersection and slowing down when approaching the intersection when warned to do so; 10. A duty to reasonably ensure that Singh knew to yield the right of way; c. A duty to reasonably ensure Singh received the necessary skill and training to operate the Semi in accordance with industry standards, rules and regulations; 11 . A duty to reasonably ensure Singh did not drive the Semi in a dangerous or reckless manner without having regard for the safety of the members of the public including the Plaintiffs; . A duty to reasonably ensure Singh did not drive the Semi in a fashion that created a situation of danger and emergency; . A duty to reasonably ensure Singh knew to keep a proper lookout for another vehicle approaching on highway 35 that would be visible and obvious to a reasonable person; . A duty to reasonably ensure Singh knew to slow down and to stop so as to avoid the collision with any vehicle including a coach bus; . A duty to reasonably ensure Singh knew to not cross an intersection when it was unsafe to do so; A duty to reasonably ensure Singh knew to not drive the Semi directly into the path of any vehicle including a coach bus; A duty to reasonably ensure Singh knew to take action to avoid driving the semi into the path of another vehicle including a coach bus if a collision was likely to occur; . A duty to reasonably ensure Singh knew to drive and operate the Semi under ?control at all times; . A duty to reasonably ensure Singh knew to drive, operate and control the Semi in a reasonably prudent manner and/or to take reasonable precautions of a reasonable driver to avoid accidents; .A duty to reasonably ensure Singh was a competent semi driver capable of following the Law, driving and operating the Semi and avoiding accidents with vehicles including a coach bus; 12 56. The Plaintiffs relied upon the Defendant, Adesh, to satisfy the above duties of care. 57. The Defendant, Adesh: breached the aforementioned duties of care as follows: 11. . It did not reasonably ensure that Singh knew the Laws and to drive the Semi in accordance with the Laws including stopping at the stop sign located on highway 335 at the Armley Corner intersection and slowing down when approaching the intersection when warned to do so; . It did not reasonably ensure that Singh knew to yield the right of way; it did not reasonably ensure Singh received the necessary skill and training to operate the Semi in accordance with industry standards, rules and regulations; . It did not reasonably ensure Singh did not drive the Semi in a dangerous or reckless manner without having regard for the safety of the members of the public including the Plaintiffs; It did not reasonably ensure Singh did not drive the Semi in a fashion that created a situation of danger and emergency; It did not reasonably ensure Singh knew to keep a proper lookout for another vehicle approaching on highway 35 that would be visible and obvious to a reasonable person; It did not reasonably ensure Singh knew to slow down and to stop so as to avoid the collision with any vehicle including a coach bus; It did not reasonably ensure Singh knew not to enter the intersection when it was unsafe to do so; It did not reasonably ensure Singh knew not to drive the Semi directly into the path of any vehicle including a coach bus; 13 it did not reasonably ensure Singh knew to take action to avoid driving the semi into the path of another vehicle including a coach bus if a collision was likely to occur; k. It did not reasonably ensure Singh knew to drive or operate the Semi under control at all times; 1. It did not reasonably ensure Singh knew to drive, operate and control the Semi in a reasonably prudent manner and/or to take reasonable precautions of a reasonable driver to avoid accidents; m. It did not reasonably ensure Singh was a competent semi driver capable of following the Law, driving and Operating the Semi and avoiding accidents with vehicles including a coach bus; 58. The Defendant, Adesh, and its of?cers and directors, knew or ought to of knOWn that by not hiring or retaining drivers of their semi power units and trailers, to satisfy the above duties of care that they could cause loss of life, severe mental and physical injuries and damages including severe pain and suffering to person?s such as the Plaintiffs. 59. The Plaintiffs have suffered loss of life, severe mental and physical injuries and damages to be proved at trial including substantial pain and suffering as a result of the breach of the above duties of care. 60. The actions and omissions of the Defendant, Adesh, were done intentionally, recklessly and/or negligently and they jointly and/or severally caused the above loss and damages to the Plaintiffs. Intentional In?iction of Emotional Suffering 61. Further, and in addition to the above pleadings, the Plaintiffs state the actions and/or omissions ofSingh and Adesh were intentional and/or reckless, not caring whether they caused harm, loss or damages to the Plaintiffs. 14 62. The Plaintiffs state the aforesaid actions and/or omissions of Singh and Adesh constitute flagrant, extreme and outrageous conduct that they knew or ought to have known would result in loss, damages and harm to the Plaintiffs. 63. The emotional distress suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of the actions and/or omissions of Singh and Adesh are severe, intense, of long duration and has physically manifested itself in a manner that Russell and Raelene are not as productive and they suffer anger, guilt, loneliness, sadness, worry and anxiety that is manifesting itself to be physically and mentally unhealthy for each parent. 64. The conduct of the Defendants, Singh and Adesh, have jointly and/or severally caused the death of Adam and the severe emotional harm and distress referenced above, pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life to Russell and Raelene. Negligence of John Doe Bus Manufacturer Ltd. 65. The Defendant, John Doe Bus Manufacturer Ltd., as the designers, engineers, manufacturer, promoters, marketers and distributors of the Bus and its component parts, owed the Plaintiffs the duty of care in designing and manufacturing the Bus to take all reasonable steps to ensure that it was safely designed, manufactured and safe for use and would not be defective so as to cause injury to those who travelled upon it. 66. The Plaintiffs relied upon the Defendant, John Doe Bus Manufacturer Ltd, to satisfy the above duties of care. 67. The Bus posed a serious risk of injury and death to the passengers because of the defect in the roof design or manufacture of the roof, that it had no shoulder harness seatbelts to keep its passengers inside the Bus in the event of an accident and that it had no other early warning safety features to warn the driver of the Bus of a potential accident. 68. Through their employees, of?cers, directors and agents, the Defendant, John Doe Bus Manufacturer Ltd, breached their duty of care by: 15 a. Wrongfully and intentionally accepting the foreseeable risk of injury and loss of life to the drivers, passengers and the public because of the design and manufacture defects with the roof and seatbelts of the Bus; h. Failing to eliminate the manufacture and design defects that they foresaw that would cause personal injuries and the loss of life to the drivers, passengers and the public and the families of those victims; c. Designing and manufacturing, assembling, distributing and selling buses with a design and/or manufacture defect; d. The Defendant failed to establish any, or any adequate, procedures for evaluating the design and manufacture defects of the bus; e. The Defendant failed to conform with good manufacturing practices; f. The Defendant failed to reasonably protect the passengers of the Bus; and g. The Defendant failed to exercise reasonable care or judgment in designing and manufacturing the Bus with safety features that would safeguard its passengers. 69. The failure of the Bus Manufacturer to satisfy its duties of care and meet a reasonable standard of care has caused damages to the Plaintiffs. The Bus Manufacturer is therefore liable in negligence. Punitive Damages 70. The actions and/or omissions of the Defendants, Singh and Adesh, referenced herein were reprehensible, reckless, malicious, highhanded and demonstrated such a lack of disregard for the health, safety and rights of the Humboldt Broncos and their parents, siblings and family members that the Plaintiffs claim punitive damages. I?m?judgment Interest 71. The Plaintiffs claim rare-judgment interest pursuant to the I?m?Judgment Interest Act, 8.8. 1984-85?86. 16 THE PLAINTIFFS THEREFORE CLAIM against the Defendants on behalf of the estate ofAdara Herold, Russell Herold and Raelcne Herold the following relief: a. A declaratory order by this l-lonourable Court that the intersection known as the Armley Corner at the intersection of Highway 35 and Highway 335 is unsafe to drive on as it is currently designed and maintained; h. A declaratory order by this Honourable Court that the sightlines at the Armley Corner intersection are not safe for vehicles travelling north on highway 35; c. A declaratory order by this Honourable Court that all coach buses carrying sports teams in Saskatchewan shall be equipped with shoulder harness seatbelts and other safety devices such as early warning devices to ensure passenger safety; (1. A declaratory order by this l-lonourable Court that the roof of the Bus was not designed or manufactured to ensure the roof stayed on the bus in the event of an accident; e. A declaratory order by this Honourable Court that all semi drivers ought to pass strict safety tests before they are allowed to haul two ?Super Trailers? in Saskatchewan; f. A declaratory order by this Honourable Court that The Automobile Accident Insurance Act, R.S.S 1978, C. and the Fatal Accidents Ac! R.S.S. 1978, C. F-ll are antiquated and do not adequately address the compensation required for victims and their families in relation to accidents that the Humboldt Broncos were subject to; g. Damages pursuant to The Fatal Accidents Act, R.S.S. 1978, C. including damages: fer any medical or hospital expenses; (ii) for funeral expenses; n. 17 for the cost of grief counseling; (iv) for the loss of earnings for the period in which Russell and Raelene are unable to work because of the death of Adam; for any other out?of-pocket expenses reasonably incurred as a consequence of the death of Adam Herold; (vi) for $30,000 or such other amount as is allowed by law, to each of Russel Herold and Raelene Herold for grief and the loss of guidance, care and companionship in respect of Adam Herold. General Damages for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life in an amount to be proven at trial; Damages for past loss of income and ?iture loss of income or, alternatively, a loss of capacity to work in the future in an amount to be proven at trial; Special damages for out of pocket expenses in an amount to be proven at trial; Punitive damages; Interest pursuant to the Pre-judgment Interest Act; Costs on a solicitor and client basis; Any and all relief that is allowed by The Queeri ?3 Bench Aer, C. 3.8. 1993 and the inherent jurisdiction of this Honourable Court; and Such further and other relief as counsel may advise and this Honourable Court may choose to allow. 18 DATED at the City of Regina, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 9th day of July, 2018. x" - (??ellor Solicitor for the Plaintiffs This Statement ofClaim was delivered by: RICHMOND NYCHUK Barrister and Solicitor 100~2255 Albert Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 2W5 Whose address for service is: Same as above Lawyer in charge of ?le: Kevin C, Mellor Telephone: (306) 359~0202 Facsimile: (306) 359-0330 E?mail: