Schemes, Scams, Frauds.

www.crimes-of-persuasion.com Site Directory

Law Suit Against Canadian Telemarketers

The following pages outline a Canadian law suit against a telemarketing operation from Quebec which used various but common techniques to defraud its predominantly elderly victims from other provinces. Examples include the 1 of 5 Prizes, Advance Fee Sweeps, Reloading and Recovery Scams.

It reads like a mystery novel once you start seeing how the law firm untangles the multitude of intertwined players and corporate entities.

Sadly, the case was apparently lost by default due to a late filing of the amended claim after a motions judge ordered a revamp.

VERSION 26 Court File No.

ONTARIO COURT (GENERAL DIVISION)

BETWEEN:

ELSA HORVATH, JOAN CAPUTI, FREDERICK RAINE, NELLIE POLLARD, JOSEPH BALAZOVIC, NORMA BLUNDELL, KATHLEEN SOMERVILLE, GORDON TAYLOR, MARY GIBBONS, MICHAL RABKO, RUTH IRVING, LORNE BESTWARD, GIOVANNA IMBESI, ELAINE WILCOX, RICHARD CONNELLY, RAJESH KALRA, ED DENMAN, JUSTINA REGUSH, NICOLA TERLIZZI, GUNDRUN DUNLOP, ILENE DEARING, PAULETTE FOURNIER, HUGH McCREADIE, CONSTANCE (CONNIE) GOLDNEY, HILTRUD REINEKE, ESTATE OF FLORENCE WRAY, JOHN STIRLING, HAZEL LINDNER, MARION JOAN POLSON, HARRY AND JEAN MISKEW,

Plaintiffs

- and -

MYRON SHRYBMAN, M. BAZID, SUSAN COHEN-FREEDMAN, JOSEPH WARASH, GEORGE WARASH, MORRIS WEINSTEIN, PETER TRODJMAN, RONALD SHEAR a.k.a. RONNIE SHEAR, STEVEN SHEAR, HELENE FISHMAN, BERNIE KARACHINSKY a.k.a. BERNIE KAY a.k.a. BERNARD KARACHINSKY, MICHAEL JOHNSON, CARRIE SIMON a.k.a. CARRIE FINKELSTEIN a.k.a. CARRI SIMON, CHRISTINE SHAW, LENN GOMES, MARC ANDRE BLOUIN, 9045-7698 QUEBEC INC. c.o.b. COLUMBIA GROUP, CANADIAN HOUSEHOLD DISTRIBUTION, 2547-8918 QUEBEC INC., LEONARDO AMARI a.k.a. LEONARD AMARI, LUIGI AMARI, STEFANIA AMARI, 9053-9305 QUEBEC INC. c.o.b. I.S.P. INC a.k.a. ISP a.k.a. I.S.P., 9051-1254 QUEBEC INC. c.o.b. SHOPPERS IMPORT GROUP, STEVEN SHELTON, SEWERYN KRYK, MARC GREGWELL, DAVID ROST, AARON MIZRAHI, HERWIG RADLGRUBER a.k.a. HERWIG RADLEGRUBER, TED GROSSBAUM, 9049-9526 QUEBEC INC. c.o.b. THE CONSUMER GROUP, RICHARD NARIK, ANDRES TOUSIGNANT, THOMAS ALTENBURG a.k.a. TOM ALTENBURG, KIMBERLY DUPIGNY, SHELDON CAPLAN, DINO DEL GROSSO, ASCENZA MANCINI, MARIO DEL GROSSO, IAN HERMAN, MARK ANTHONY BABIERRI, HELEN SARTY, YVETTE ARSENAULT, EYAL ARTZY, PAMELA ANNE GORDON, LISA GOLDENBERG KARP a.k.a. LISA GOLDENBERG a.k.a. LISA KARP, DAWN PAMELA BLAKE, CATHY MOORE, VICTOR DANCHAK, CATHY WILSON, BERNARD FISHMAN, SANDRA STOBER a.k.a. SANDRA STOBER FISHMAN, MICHAEL JERRY GRANOFSKY a.k.a. M.J. GRANOFSKI a.k.a. MICHAEL GRANOVSKY, R. DERY, NATHALIE DUDRAGNE, DANIELE SMITH, JACQUES DAGENAIS, PIERRE SAVIGNY, LUC PHILIPPE McCUISTON, ELIAS BAKOMICHALIS, 9049-4824 QUEBEC INC. c.o.b. TRIPLE CROWN INDUSTRIES/LES INDUSTRIES TRIPLE CROWN, 9049-4545 QUEBEC INC. c.o.b. EAST COAST TRADING/COMMERCE COTE EST, DAWN CARPENTER, GABOR KOVACS,

Defendants

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

TO THE DEFENDANTS

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the Plaintiffs. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a Statement of Defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the Plaintiffs’ lawyer, or where the Plaintiffs do not have a lawyer, serve it on the Plaintiffs, and file it, with proof of service, in this Court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this Statement of Claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your Statement of Defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days. Instead of serving and filing a Statement of Defence, you may serve and file a Notice of Intent to Defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedures. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your Statement of Defence.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. If you wish to defend this proceeding but are unable to pay legal fees, legal aid may be available to you by contacting a local Legal Aid office.

Date: March , 1999

Address of Court Office:
393 University Avenue, 10th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M5G 1E6

TO:

CLAIM

The Plaintiffs claims against all the Defendants, or any one of them, as follows:

Damages in the amount of $150,000 for each Plaintiff for breaches of the Competition Act, R.S.C. 1985 C.c-34, for infliction of economic injury by unlawful means, fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and deceit;

Additional damages in the amount of $200,000 for each Plaintiff for the affliction of emotional distress, inconvenience, and consequential economic hardship;

In the alternative, restitution of the full amount of monies received by any of the Defendants from each Plaintiff;

In the further alternative, damages for misrepresentation for each Plaintiff in the amounts paid by each Plaintiff to the Defendants;

In the further alternative, damages for conspiracy to defraud and for fraud in the amount of $150,000 for each Plaintiff.

In the further alternative, rescission of any contracts between the Plaintiffs and Defendants, and repayment of all monies remitted in relation thereto;

Punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages in the amount of $30,000 for each Plaintiff;

Prejudgment interest pursuant to the provisions of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.43 for each Plaintiff;

An order directing the Defendants to fund a charitable organization for the elderly in the amount of $100,000;

Costs of this action on a solicitor and client basis; and

Such further and other relief as to this Honourable Court is just.

The Plaintiffs  ( Victims - the promises made and the money lost )

The Defendants ( An inside look at the deceptive subterfuges used )

The Law

The Plaintiffs rely on the provisions of the Competition Act, R.S.C- 1985, C-34 relating to prize scams, and in particular s. 52 to s. 59, and s. 36. In the event that the Plaintiffs’ damages need to be further clarified, the Plaintiffs will provide details prior to trial.

In the alternative, the Plaintiffs are entitled to rescind their contracts with the Syndicate on the grounds that the Syndicate have violated provisions of the Business Practices Act, R.S.O. 1990, and similar statutes of other provinces.

By reason of the Syndicate’s conduct as set out above, the Syndicate have been unjustly enriched at the expense and to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs claim restitution in this amount.

The Statement of Claim is being served on the Syndicate who do not reside in Ontario because it is in respect of damages arising from torts committed primarily in Ontario, damages sustained primarily in Ontario from a tort or breach wherever committed, and that all the Syndicate are proper parties to these proceedings.

The Plaintiffs plead that witnesses and police databases necessary to these proceedings reside in, or are located in Ontario.

The Plaintiffs plead that they have joined together as Plaintiffs in this singular case because of the economic reasons and that they would not otherwise be able to afford to sustain individual lawsuits, and further, in the interest of justice.

The Plaintiffs propose that this action be tried by a jury at Toronto, Ontario.

DATED: March 7, 1999

PAULOS LUIZOS
Barrister & Solicitor
500 Danforth Avenue, Suite 312
Toronto, Ontario
M4K 1P6
Tel (416) 778-5778
Fax (416) 778-4611

Solicitor for the Plaintiff

HORVATH -AND- SHRYBMAN

(Short Title of Proceedings)
ONTARIO COURT (GENERAL DIVISION)
Proceeding commenced at Toronto

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

[40545D]

www.crimes-of-persuasion.com© Crimes of Persuasion 2000Legal Disclaimer

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ The Victims ] [ Defendants ] [ Interlinks ]