26​ ​June​ ​2014

Without​ ​Prejudice

Delivered​ ​via​ ​Email

Dear​ ​Mr​ ​Somjen

Ref:​ ​550238/000001

Thank​ ​you​ ​for​ ​your​ ​correspondence​ ​dated​ ​20​ ​June​ ​2014.

I​ ​appreciate​ ​that​ ​you​ ​have​ ​been​ ​recently​ ​retained​ ​or​ ​you​ ​remain​ ​on​ ​a​ ​retainer​ ​basis
for​ ​the​ ​Vancouver​ ​Olympic​ ​Committee​ ​(VANOC)​ ​and​ ​that​ ​you​ ​have​ ​taken​ ​the​ ​time​ ​to
respond​ ​to​ ​my​ ​query.

As​ ​you​ ​are​ ​aware,​ ​the​ ​email​ ​dated​ ​5​ ​June​ ​2014​ ​was​ ​not​ ​my​ ​first​ ​communication​ ​with
John​ ​Furlong​ ​and/or​ ​Terry​ ​Wright.​ ​My​ ​history​ ​with​ ​VANOC​ ​and​ ​these​ ​individuals​ ​is
evident​ ​from​ ​numerous​ ​emails,​ ​phone​ ​messages​ ​going​ ​back​ ​to​ ​shortly​ ​after​ ​the
games​ ​themselves.​ ​However,​ ​as​ ​they​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​legal​ ​intervention​ ​is​ ​now​ ​a
requirement,​ ​I​ ​will​ ​respond​ ​in​ ​kind​ ​to​ ​the​ ​points​ ​laid​ ​out​ ​in​ ​your​ ​letter​ ​and​ ​reinforce
a​ ​few​ ​of​ ​my​ ​own.

First​ ​of​ ​all,​ ​I​ ​believe​ ​that​ ​we​ ​will​ ​need​ ​to​ ​agree​ ​to​ ​disagree​ ​regarding​ ​what​ ​you​ ​have
deemed​ ​as​ ​‘inaccurate​ ​and​ ​substantiated​ ​claims’​ ​regarding​ ​any​ ​intent​ ​on​ ​my​ ​part​ ​to
make​ ​these​ ​claims​ ​public.

The​ ​dual​ ​purpose​ ​of​ ​my​ ​email​ ​was​ ​to​ ​ensure​ ​that​ ​there​ ​was​ ​a​ ​mechanism​ ​in​ ​place​ ​to
support​ ​VANOC​ ​workers​ ​post​ ​games,​ ​including​ ​those​ ​with​ ​Post​ ​Traumatic​ ​Stress
Disorder​ ​(PTSD)​ ​like​ ​myself,​ ​and​ ​offer​ ​an​ ​opportunity​ ​for​ ​VANOC​ ​to​ ​sponsor​ ​my
forthcoming​ ​book.​ ​To​ ​be​ ​clear,​ ​the​ ​book​ ​is​ ​the​ ​story​ ​of​ ​my​ ​life​ ​and,​ ​as​ ​working​ ​on​ ​the
track​ ​that​ ​fateful​ ​winter​ ​is​ ​part​ ​of​ ​my​ ​life​ ​story,​ ​it​ ​certainly​ ​will​ ​form​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​book
–​ ​it​ ​will​ ​not​ ​be​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​the​ ​book​ ​despite​ ​your​ ​inference​ ​otherwise.

I​ ​will​ ​not​ ​delve​ ​too​ ​far​ ​into​ ​the​ ​history​ ​leading​ ​to​ ​our​ ​communication​ ​as​ ​this​ ​is
appears​ ​to​ ​be​ ​purely​ ​subjective​ ​however;​ ​I​ ​will​ ​dispel​ ​a​ ​few​ ​wide​ ​assumptions​ ​that
were​ ​made​ ​within​ ​your​ ​letter.

1) The​ ​personal​ ​assistance​ ​that​ ​I​ ​sought​ ​from​ ​VANOC​ ​two​ ​years​ ​ago​ ​was​ ​in
relation​ ​to​ ​support​ ​with​ ​my​ ​claim​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Workers​ ​Compensation​ ​Board
(WCB).​ ​A​ ​large​ ​respected​ ​company​ ​such​ ​as​ ​VANOC​ ​would​ ​have​ ​provided
credence​ ​for​ ​my​ ​claim​ ​considering​ ​how​ ​VANOC​ ​and​ ​the​ ​WCB​ ​were​ ​aware
that​ ​certain​ ​workers​ ​received​ ​support​ ​and​ ​other​ ​did​ ​not.​ ​Being​ ​the​ ​actual
first​ ​responder​ ​and​ ​having​ ​my​ ​claim​ ​denied​ ​impacted​ ​me​ ​deeply.​ ​I​ ​freely
 provided​ ​VANOC​ ​with​ ​all​ ​my​ ​circumstances​ ​and​ ​there​ ​was​ ​never​ ​a​ ​request​ ​to
from​ ​VANOC​ ​to​ ​sign​ ​a​ ​waiver​ ​regarding​ ​my​ ​privacy​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​support​ ​my
claim​ ​to​ ​the​ ​WCB.​ ​There​ ​was​ ​no​ ​other​ ​motive​ ​regarding​ ​this​ ​contact.
2) You​ ​state​ ​that​ ​the​ ​placement​ ​of​ ​the​ ​posts​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​construction​ ​was
carefully​ ​considered​ ​‘taking​ ​into​ ​account​ ​the​ ​all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​information​ ​and​ ​advice
available​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time’.​ ​You​ ​go​ ​on​ ​to​ ​say​ ​that​ ​it​ ​included​ ​‘information​ ​very
much’​ ​like​ ​mine​ ​‘addressing​ ​[my]​ ​concerns’.​ ​ ​I​ ​find​ ​this​ ​statement​ ​very​ ​wide
indeed,​ ​in​ ​fact,​ ​so​ ​wide​ ​that​ ​it​ ​is​ ​obvious.​ ​There​ ​is​ ​little​ ​benefit​ ​on​ ​lingering​ ​on
this​ ​point​ ​within​ ​this​ ​letter​ ​for​ ​my​ ​response​ ​as​ ​I​ ​aim​ ​to​ ​be​ ​succinct​ ​as
possible​ ​and​ ​focus​ ​on​ ​the​ ​real​ ​facts.
3) The​ ​assistance​ ​I​ ​provided​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Safety​ ​Audit​ ​was​ ​at​ ​the​ ​request​ ​of​ ​VANOC
and​ ​consisted​ ​of​ ​one​ ​days’​ ​attendance​ ​at​ ​a​ ​meeting.​ ​I​ ​insist​ ​that​ ​protocols​ ​and
standards​ ​that​ ​I​ ​suggested​ ​at​ ​that​ ​meeting​ ​are​ ​still​ ​not​ ​wholly​ ​implemented
to​ ​ensure​ ​future​ ​safety.​ ​Again,​ ​another​ ​redundant​ ​point​ ​for​ ​this​ ​letter.

As​ ​stated​ ​above,​ ​due​ ​to​ ​the​ ​tone​ ​of​ ​your​ ​letter,​ ​there​ ​is​ ​little​ ​point​ ​in​ ​trying​ ​to​ ​refute
your​ ​clients’​ ​claims​ ​in​ ​a​ ​single​ ​letter,​ ​and​ ​it​ ​will​ ​not​ ​benefit​ ​me​ ​nor​ ​you​ ​to​ ​rehash​ ​the
timeline​ ​again;​ ​I​ ​will​ ​save​ ​this​ ​for​ ​the​ ​VANOC​ ​chapter​ ​of​ ​my​ ​book​ ​that​ ​I​ ​continue​ ​to
write.​ ​I​ ​note​ ​that​ ​VANOC​ ​is​ ​not​ ​requesting​ ​a​ ​release​ ​nor​ ​is​ ​it​ ​preventing​ ​me​ ​from
disclosing​ ​my​ ​claims​ ​publicly,​ ​this​ ​is​ ​admirable.

Finally,​ ​in​ ​response​ ​to​ ​the​ ​without​ ​prejudice​ ​offer,​ ​I​ ​do​ ​accept​ ​the​ ​offer​ ​of​ ​the
counselling​ ​and​ ​retraining​ ​program​ ​from​ ​Back​ ​In​ ​Motion.​ ​I​ ​understand​ ​from​ ​your
letter​ ​that​ ​this​ ​offer​ ​is​ ​without​ ​admission​ ​of​ ​any​ ​liability;​ ​I​ ​would​ ​expect​ ​nothing​ ​less
from​ ​VANOC.

Please​ ​do​ ​provide​ ​me​ ​with​ ​the​ ​necessary​ ​details​ ​for​ ​the​ ​scheme​ ​so​ ​that​ ​I​ ​can​ ​both
physically​ ​and​ ​mentally​ ​prepare​ ​to​ ​attend.​ ​As​ ​evident​ ​from​ ​all​ ​of​ ​my
communications,​ ​my​ ​aim​ ​is​ ​to​ ​be​ ​a​ ​positive​ ​contributor​ ​to​ ​the​ ​community​ ​and​ ​get
back​ ​to​ ​work​ ​and​ ​life​ ​as​ ​normal.

My​ ​contact​ ​details​ ​remain​ ​the​ ​same.

Kind​ ​regards

Mr​ ​Terrance​ ​Kosikar