407 ETR Doesn’t Want the Voices of Thousands Heard‏

I have been following, very closely, the Supreme Court Case that will tentatively be heard this January, 2015 between the 407 ETR and the Superintendent of Bankruptcy. The docket is growing in size with several Provinces including British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec putting notice of their intervention in.  As well, Class Action lawyers, Scarfone Hawkins and the Canadian Association of Insolvency & Restructuring Professionals are seeking intervener status. 

So far, the only objection to any of the requests to intervene is by 407 ETR.  407 ETR says of Class Action lawyers Scarfone Hawkins, “The Proposed Interveners do not represent any kind of public interest group or larger class of persons, despite the fact that they were granted Amicus status on the Appeal”.  
Supreme Advocacy LLP, SRL, is a team of lawyers and staff that have worked together for over 15 years providing clients with appellate advocacy services and legal opinions. In their response to Class Action lawyers, Motion for Leave to Intervene, they say that Scarfone Hawkins offers a “unique perspective, that of actual bankrupts… a putative class of persons which is significant in size, comprised of thousands of individuals…”
Who do you believe? 407 ETR or Supreme Advocacy LLP, SRL?  The facts as we know them is that Scarfone Hawkins’ Class Action that was filed in 2012 represents thousands of people that have claimed bankruptcy, are claiming bankruptcy and will be claiming bankruptcy in the Province of Ontario that has a debt to 407 ETR.
We all know there are thousands of more people affected by 407 ETR’s blatant ignorance of the Limitations Act, but that is not at issue in this case. However, the importance of this case to the overall behaviour modification to 407 ETR’s enforcement remedies can not be ignored.
The significance of this Supreme Court Appeal by 407 ETR can’t and shouldn’t be understated.  While we can appreciate why 407 ETR is trying to silence the voice of thousands of people affected by their predatory tactics, we can not allow those voices to be silenced!  We are hopeful that the court will grant Scarfone Hawkins leave to intervene in this appeal.  To quote Scarfone Hawkins Motion, “allowing the Proposed Interveners to make submissions will promote access to justice and judicial economy by narrowing and eliminating issues of law that would otherwise be decided in a Class Proceeding.  In the event the issues are determined favourably to the Superintendent and Proposed Interveners, the result will affect behaviour modification on 407 ETR in respect of enforcement remedies.”
The group “Stop the 407 ETR’s Abuse of Power” has been trying to affect behaviour modifications on 407 ETR’s enforcement remedies for 4 years now. Although the company has made some positive changes in those 4 years, they have NOT made the necessary changes that will ensure that they comply with consumer protection laws that Canadians deem fair and reasonable.  This case is very important to affect change and 407 ETR should NOT be allowed to thwart justice and drag out this issue any longer than they already have.  The hope is that the court will grant Class Action lawyers intervener status and that their submissions will be the voice of thousands.

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

22 Responses to “407 ETR Doesn’t Want the Voices of Thousands Heard‏”

  1. Me says:

    You go, Tammy. Thanks to you and your efforts, you are making these issues known for many people that are not otherwise able to stand up. I admire you for this and you keeping on with it so determinedly.

    Let’s hope and pray for good judgement and outcome both in the Supreme Court and the Ontario Superior Court cases. Private companies do not have the right to destroy legislation meant to protect the citizens of Canada.

  2. RocMon says:

    Thank you Tammy… please hang in there for all of our sake!

  3. TJ says:

    YAAAAAAAAY…thanks Mr DAY.

    Court finally got it right.

  4. TJ says:

    Limitation period has been confirmed at 2 yrs.

  5. TJ says:

    Only problem is they can still deny plate after the 2yrs.
    The statute only prevents them winning in court.

  6. TJ says:

    Also technically they can still hold off denying plate for as long as they want then only after that does the 2 yrs start. Given what the judge said was when discovery occurs. It should have been 2 yrs from 30 days after invoice. They could still collect 2 yrs interest. It is somewhat of a hollow victory.

  7. TJ says:

    This will only be of benefit to drivers now who they are trying to collect old debts from.
    What will now happen is they can hold off placing you in plate denial for say 5 yrs then collect the 5 yrs worth of charges. They would then have 2 yrs at that point to sue you and win.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      Yeah … I gathered that. If the company appeals perhaps a better case surrounding this can be made. For example section 16 & 22 gives times for notices to be sent, but the company views that as a suggestion not a limit. Would an intervener help in the appeal? There are many cases where the company waited years before placing someone in Plate Denial.

      Also, I am going to have my argument with MTO today. I’m sure I won’t get anywhere but at least I’ve got something to argue about.

  8. TJ says:

    The argument presented in court by 407 is not correct. They claimed they only knew that a customer was not going to pay when the registar notified them of a plate denial. This is backwards. They know they are not being paid because that is why they have to notify them to put your plate in denial.

  9. TJ says:

    So as it stands now 407 can unilaterally and arbitrarily
    decide when the clock starts on the 2 yrs by delaying when they request your plate be denied. Effectively extending the Limitation indefinitally.

  10. TJ says:

    Without mandating that the 407 must put you in plate denial say in 90 days….this ruling has no positive effect.

  11. TJ says:

    Every court in the land has made it clear that a Plaintiff has the obligation of mitigating their damages. By allowing them to stall on when they go to plate denial is an abuse and just plain gouging.

  12. TJ says:

    I find it odd that this was not reported in the news when it happened. Surely it would be of interest to 1oo’s of 1000’s of drivers.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      I am in agreement. My gut feeling tells me the 407 ETR will appeal this ruling. It is imperative that a more forceful defence be given regarding this.

  13. TJ says:

    As it stands there is no reason for them to appeal. They control when the 2 years begins by delaying having your plate denial envoked.
    The appeal needs to be by Mr.Day.

    It must be made clear that a plate denial must be invoked within a reasonable time like 3 mths., not years down the road.

    • Tammy Flores says:

      Well… we shall see. I’m sure they aren’t happy that the court ruled they are not exempt from the Limitations Act.

  14. Nick Dougherty says:

    I received my notice of plate denial in April 2013. I have not used the 407 since November 2010. While I owe for usage, the vast majority of the balance $10,000 plus)is interest.

    What dothe recent court findings do for me (or to me) in terms of financial obligation and plate renewal?

  15. m oliver says:

    Forgive me if this is dumb question but I’m a bit confused as to how this helps those of us who have had our plates denial for several years.
    My story is this;
    I NEVER had a transponder in my car and NEVER personally drove on the 407 yet I received a bill back in 1999 for approx $100.
    It has been a nightmare ever since. My bill is now over 5k and I had my plate denied over 5 years ago.
    Is there now a way to get my plate reinstated?

  16. Jack says:

    It’s no wonder Ontario has a 287 billion dollar deficit with corrupt lawyers making decisions in this province & every company moving out of here like Toyota gm Oshawa. Target . It’s lawyers like 407 has hired that are totally backward minded .

  17. Jack says:

    How can a province like Ontario have four times the debt as Russia . Ha . I’d say there is something seriously wrong here. Pretty soon we can cash our junk status bonds in.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: BlueHost Coupon | Compare CD Rates, Online Brokers and Press Release