Hello
My story is simply of stupidity. I forgot to pay for a $20 cooker and walked out with it. I was in canadian tire and purchased around $150 of goods. I took all the merchandise home and realized that I did not like one of the electric kettle and came back to return it a few days later. While I was there, I decided to pick up a cooking pot and placed it under the cart. I was with my girlfriend then and we both decided to go return the previously purchased ketttle. After returning the kettle, we forgot to pay for the cooking pot and walked out of the store with the cooking pot. Right after, a lady who identified herself as an store theft personnel approached us and told us to return to the store. She called the cops on us and despite us telling her that it was a simple case of forgetfulness that we didn't pay for the pot and not any intention on our part to steal, she didn't buy it.
The police officer came and we explained the same to him and he let us go without pressing any charges. We were both happy that we didn't get any legal issues thrown our way because of this misunderstanding. However, a few days later I received a letter from dutton brock lawyers (toronto, canada) stating that we need to each pay $350 for the incident otherwise a civil action claim will be started.

We called the lawyer and he said that he will still ask us to pay, but dropped the price to $250. I am a medical student, not a lawyer and I wanted to seek the help of anyone else who has any idea of how to fend off these lawyers that are looking to make easy money $$ from people who make silly mistakes.

Please help.
Thanks

Incident occurred in Kitchener ontario.
Thanks

I think you are being scammed tanequil. The police let you go without pressing charges so where does this lawyer come in? I think you had better visit the Police detachment in Kitchener and ask some questions. There is no way, absolutely no way you should have to pay $350 each to get out of this mess. Or you could just do some checking up yourself, phone Canadian Tire, ask them if this is possible. Take matters into your own hands and find out.

Tick (Canadian)

Edit: Google says these lawyers are, 'a mid sized' insurance litigation?? Don't know what this has to do with theft. There was no loss by Cdn. Tire.

I don't have the letter with me yet.. but the letter looks a lot like this ( I am in ny right now... but I saw my gfs letter when I visted her last weekend)... I am still waiting for my lettter.

Letter from Law Firm - shoplifting claim for damages (http://www.golishlaw.com/answers/991cmmt.htm)

I still say visit the Police detachment and speak to the officer who dealt with you at Cdn.Tire. There were no charges laid, this is unacceptable. Take the letter; hire a lawyer just don't let this happen.

Tick

Do you guys know of actual cases where civil charges have been dropped somehow? I have tried speaking to the lawyer on one occasion but no luck there.
Hiring a lawyer will cost me $250/hr or so and that might turn out to be more expensive than paying.

Any tips as to what I can do?
Or am I doomed to pay $500 (me and my girlfriend together) for this stupidity?

I don't know much about Canadian law but, as tickle has pointed out, the police didn't press charges and the store sustained no loss as the merchandise was recovered and (presumably) put back on the shelf for re-sale. Therefore I fail to see where these lawyers have any kind of claim against you. Have you researched the case cited in the letter, Hudson's Bay v. White? I'd check it out. Also, if I'm reading the letter correctly, this incident occurred in 1999 and is therefore 10 years old ; well past the statute of limitations I'm sure, in any jurisdiction, for a $20 misdemeanor theft. In the letter you are threatened with "civil action." Has this actually occurred? Have you been served with a summons to appear in court? Ultimately there's no real issue until and if you actually are served with a summons. A demand for payment from a lawyer, in and of itself, doesn't constitute any kind of legal proceeding and does not constitute a judgment against you. I'd wait until you're actually served with a summons. If you are, then I'd try to negotiate directly with the store as I'm willing to bet that they'd settle for an amount that's less than over 16 times the amount of the theft in question.

Hello t:

I agree with tick. I've agreed with her since the FIRST time we've heard that this regularly happens in Canada. In fact, I've correctly identified it as extortion. If YOU did this same thing, YOU'D go to jail.

Nonetheless, it appears that nobody has stopped these stores from doing what they do... It's SOO bad, that it's creeping into the US, too.

Plus, nobody has been able to produce a Canadian LAW that supports their claim. As far as I know, there IS none.

So, if I was you, I'd tell the stupid lawyer to SUE. If it IS a law, you won't lose more than he's asking of you. But, if it's NOT, the lawyer will run away.

I'd also like you to come back and tell us what you did, and what happened.

excon

I have asked a Canadian Attorney to respond - in the meantime, it would appear that both the OP and his girlfriend have some serious memory problems.

Hopefully we will get the "Canadian answer" from one of the experts in Canadian law. Enough info was posted for the law firm to probably find the exact circumstances if they want to go through the bother. The circumstances as seen by the store might be telling.

In the meantime I believe the store and law firm CAN do this by law - but I cannot find the law. Further, I believe it's restitution in lieu of arrest for theft. No restitution = charges being filed.

So let's see what the answer is.

Further, I believe it's restitution in lieu of arrest for theft. No restitution = charges being filed.Hello again:

Judy described the CLASSIC definition of extortion.. Gimme money or I'll do something BAD to you.

excon

PS> (edited) Besides, restitution for a $20 cooker, would be about, ohhhh, I don't know, $20. That would be assuming they let them walk away with the cooker, and they didn't do that, of course.

Also, if I'm reading the letter correctly, this incident occurred in 1999 and is therefore 10 years old ; well past the statute of limitations I'm sure, in any jurisdiction, for a $20 misdemeanor theft. In the letter you are threatened with "civil action." Has this actually occurred?

The letter/link provided above is only an example of the letter I am expecting to receive. The event that occurred with me is only about 21/2 weeks old. Curently, I am sitting in New York right now, so the letter will take a while to reach me. I happen to see the letter in ONtario when I was visiting my girlfriend last weekend. I should be getting the letter sometime this week and I'll try to put up a copy for you to see..



In the letter you are threatened with "civil action." Has this actually occurred? Have you been served with a summons to appear in court? Ultimately there's no real issue until and if you actually are served with a summons. A demand for payment from a lawyer, in and of itself, doesn't constitute any kind of legal proceeding and does not constitute a judgment against you. I'd wait until you're actually served with a summons. If you are, then I'd try to negotiate directly with the store as I'm willing to bet that they'd settle for an amount that's less than over 16 times the amount of the theft in question.

I have *never* been involved with any legal action before, ever! The letter essentially states that they will follow me in small claims court should I not pay them soon and they will also ask me to pay for the attorneys fees and any fees incurred by the lawyer and the defendant (ie $350 + lawyer fees+ etc)



The reality is that while me and my girlfriend know that we did not have any intention to commit any crime, I can also see how the store can believe that we were there to steal primarily because a lot of local students do get caught stealing there. I am not a local from Kitchener and I live in NY... but I am also being thrown into the grind with the rest of the bunch.

I have asked a Canadian Attorney to respond - in the meantime, it would appear that both the OP and his girlfriend have some serious memory problems.

It is/was a simple error on our part.. we were both talking about our day and in the course of our conversation, forgot to pay. Silly, but not deviant. Had we reached our car and realized that we didn't pay for something, we would have come back and paid... probably laughing at cdn tire at how we could have stolen if we wanted to...

So am I to understand that your girlfriend received a letter from a law firm and therefore you expect that one is likewise forthcoming your way? Was the letter you posted the one your girlfriend received or from some other source? I'd try talking to a criminal lawyer from Ontario and find out whether such practices in these situations are common and/or legal. Here in the states you can contact the local bar association's lawyer referral service and get referred to an experienced lawyer for an initial low-cost or free consultation - sometimes the lawyer will talk to you right over the phone. Maybe Canada has a similar arrangement ; it's worth looking into.

Hello again:

Judy described the CLASSIC definition of extortion.. Gimme money or I'll do something BAD to you.

excon

PS> (edited) Besides, restitution for a $20 cooker, would be about, ohhhh, I dunno, $20. That would be assuming they let them walk away with the cooker, and they didn't do that, of course.


And the charges also include the security guard's time, blah, blah, blah - but I'm sure you know that.

Again - let's let a Canadian law firm make the decision. I'm hoping someone gets back to me tomorrow (Monday).

I don't see it as extortion - of course, I also don't see a plea bargain as extortion. Difference is that this is outside the Court.

Difference is that this is outside the Court.Hello again, Judy:

And, it's in exchange for MONEY. To ME, that's a SIGNIFICANT difference...

Our criminal laws weren't passed so that they can be bartered for CASH. Nope. The ENTIRE process is corrupt. It's llegal, unethical and needs to be STOPPED.

excon

These aren't "our" laws - these are Canada's laws.

We are getting nowhere with this but just out of curiosity, you are saying that everyone stopped should be arrested and processed?

Or everyone who shoplifts (even if it's a mistake) should simply walk away?

What is your solution?

Keep in mind that my husband owned several Pharmacies and people forgot they had merchandise in their hands/pockets/purses all the time - and the losses came off the top. So maybe I come from a different place when it comes to this "victimless" crime.

just out of curiosity, you are saying that everyone stopped should be arrested and processed?Hello again, Judy:

I'm saying nothing more than if the loss prevention officer catches a shoplifter, he can let him go if he wants to, or he can call the police and press charges.

What he CAN'T do, in my opinion, is THREATEN to press charges if he's not paid money. It's extortion, plain and simple.

excon

And the wait to hear from a Canadian Attorney goes on -

Oh, incidentally - the loss prevention officer isn't threatening to press charges if HE/SHE isn't paid. It's the store that collects the money.

Good conversation for the discussion board and so I'm going over there to post. Curious to see what other people think. https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/other-member-discussions/extortion-402802.html

Then, depending on the results, we can all get on a bus and picket the Canadian government.

I'm not familiar with Canadian law or ethics requirements for attorneys. But in the US, particularly in NJ, there are strict ethics requirements. If an attorney in NJ was using his status as an attorney to threaten legal action that he knew was invalid or illegal he would be suspended and possibly disbarred.

Find out if there is an agency in your province that licenses and oversees attorneys. Contact them to find out if there are similar ethics rules and explain your situation. See what they say.

How often do canadian attorneys share their insight on this board?

Any word from the canadian attorney?

Hello again, t:

Apparently, our Canadian attorney's haven't checked in...

But, I'd trust Judy. I know Canada is wayyyy up there, but I think if the law we're discussing is, indeed, a law, it WOULD be published, and it COULD be found. Judy is VERY good at research. If she couldn't find it, maybe it doesn't exist.

I say again, call their bluff.

excon

I am just afraid of the other side: Should I do decide to go to court, what if I end up paying $350 plus the other attorney's fees as well... which might cost me over $1000.. I don't know.. I have limited funds and a far greater limited knowledge of law.

The irritating part right now is that I haven't even received his letter and my girlfriend is the only one who has and definitely, it is eating her up day in and day out.

So much turmoil for something silly that peoople should be able to consider and accommodate... sigh.




Hello again, t:

Apparently, our Canadian attorney's haven't checked in...

But, I'd trust Judy. I know Canada is wayyyy up there, but I think if the law we're discussing is, indeed, a law, it WOULD be published, and it COULD be found. Judy is VERY good at research. If she couldn't find it, maybe it doesn't exist.

I say again, call their bluff.

excon

Any word from the canadian attorney?


No - I worked yesterday and I'm working today. Right now I'm on the road, on my laptop.

I'll call - again! - when I get home.

Okay, here's what I heard from the second law firm. This is not extortion. At the time the person is stopped he/she is told that restitution must be made. The dollar amount of restitution varies by the amount stolen.

Retitution can either be agreed upon or charges can be placed and restitution Court ordered.

My source does not believe that this situation was entirely as posted. However, I still cannot find a site that makes reference to any of this.

The dollar amount of restitution varies by the amount stolen.. Retitution can either be agreed upon or charges can be placed and restitution Court ordered. Hello again, Judy:

One could call a duck and giraffe too, but that does't make it so...

They can wrap up the terms of this law, if it IS a law, in a nice pretty bow if they want to. But they can't escape what the action IS, rather than what they want to call it...

I COULD agree, if the restitution amount was the exact amount of the stuff stolen. If it's any MORE than that, and there's a THREAT to prosecute attached, that is the classic definition of extortion. The store cannot come out ahead. That is NOT what restitution is.

If it's meant to punish, then that's the job of the courts - not the victim. That would be called vigilantism.

Sorry. I ain't buying it.

excon

Hello again, Judy:

One could call a duck and giraffe too, but that does't make it so...

They can wrap up the terms of this law, if it IS a law, in a nice pretty bow if they want to. But they can't escape what the action IS, rather than what they want to call it...

I COULD agree, if the restitution amount was the exact amount of the stuff stolen. If it's any MORE than that, and there's a THREAT to prosecute attached, that is the classic definition of extortion. The store cannot come out ahead. That is NOT what restitution is.

If it's meant to punish, then that's the job of the courts - not the victim. That would be called vigilantism.

Sorry. I ain't buying it.

excon



I'm not disagreeing with you - I'm just the messenger. I had (obviously) hoped for a section of law, some sort of justification. I didn't find it/get it.

Don't shoot me - I'm just the messenger.

So restitution of $500 is OK??

So restitution of $500 is ok??????


Were you asked about restitution in lieu of arrest and Court-ordered restitution and did you agree?

I am still awaiting the lawyers' letter. I called him this morning and left him a message that I haven't received any letter from him.

For now, no arrest was being discussed.

I guess my case presentation could have been clearer..

In essence, the lawyer said pay me or we will go file civil action/charges against you in court. This would constitute as the civil proceeding against me as no criminal charges had been laid.

SO yea, at this stage, I am waiting...

Hello again, t:

I DID notice that in your case they weren't threatening criminal charges... However, In my view, that doesn't materially effect the extortion demand they're making on you.. They are STILL threatening to do bad things to you if you don't pay.

Please post the letter in its entirety when you get it.

excon

So restitution of $500 is ok??????


When you first posted the "demand" was $350. How/when did it go to $500?

When you first posted the "demand" was $350. How/when did it go to $500?

Initially, they asked for $350 from me and my girlfriend.. then I called the lawyer and he said, he'll cut it down to $250 per person... so total ding of $500!

The answers I have seen posted here show a real ignorance of the law and how it works. I’m not saying that to be mean, I’m saying it so that people will be very, very careful about relying on some of the stuff in these posts. I am not taking one side or the other, but a lot of the information and opinions that have been posted make legally inaccurate assumptions or are at odds with legal principles. Also, I am not calling out particular people to rag on them, just to correct particular things they’ve said that are inaccurate. I hope this information is helpful.

(1) Forget about the fact that no criminal charges were laid -- it's irrelevant. In Canada, there are two main types of courts, criminal and civil. They deal with different things and they have different standards of proof. Civil courts are where you go when you are suing someone. When the store (or a company working for them) ask for money to compensate them in relation to shoplifting, they are dealing with civil liability. There is no relation between the existence of a criminal charge and civil liability. The fact that someone is not charged by the police makes *absolutely no difference* as to whether they can be brought before a civil court. Any lawyer can confirm this.

(2) It is not true, as “Tickle” claims that “there was no loss by Cdn. Tire.” There are costs associated with any shoplifting incident. For one thing, by law the security person *must* remain with the arrested person until the police arrive (rather than being out on the floor of the store watching for other shoplifters and protecting the store’s property) unless they receive instructions from the police to release the person. This can take hours because the police have more urgent calls to respond to than shoplifting incidents. The store ends up having to pay for the security person to do nothing, sometimes for 2, 3, 4 or even 5 hours. This is not the store’s fault or the police’s fault, it is required under the law, so if you want to blame someone, blame Parliament. The security person also has other duties (mostly with regard to creating and keeping records of the incident) that you will not see them carry out, but that nonetheless take time and cost money. Depending on how busy it is, a store may have 50 incidents like this in a year, 100, or more. When it is a chain store, it can get into the thousands. All those incidents add up to a huge amount of money. What civil recovery is for is to put that cost back on the person who caused the loss in the first place (the shoplifter) instead of the store having to pay for it.

(3) “s_ciani” raises the issue that the amount of money demanded in the letter is far more than the value of the merchandise that the security person thought was being stolen, plus the stuff can be put back on the shelf and sold. This again creates the impression that there is no loss, but as I said in (2), the loss does not come from the merchandise, it comes from the costs associated with dealing with the theft. For example, while it might seem crazy to be asked to pay $350.00 when you tried to steal a chocolate bar, the $350.00 does not go up if you try to steal a giant flatscreen TV because the value of the merchandise is irrelevant.

(4) “s_ciani” also raises the case of Hudson’s Bay v. White. I have looked into this case. At the trial level the court said you couldn’t sue over this type of incident and this type of loss. On appeal a higher court said you could. The basic lesson is that this procedure is legal.

(5) “s_ciani” also said you should try to negotiate directly with the store to pay less. No, that’s why they have a lawyer. The store will not talk to you. On the other hand, the lawyer or civil recovery company may well be open to accepting a smaller payment, especially if there are circumstances that justify it (meaning that the incident cost the store less than usual, not that you’re really, really sorry).

(6) “excon” says “In fact, I've correctly identified it as extortion.” No, this is bull. It is perfectly legal to let someone know that your position is that they bear liability based on their acts, but that you are willing to settle for a certain amount of money. Settlement (paying a certain amount to prevent the matter from going to court) is the most common way for legal disputes to be resolved. Law firms do this every day in every kind of case. Do you really think that the lawers who sent the letter would risk their license to practice or even criminal charges by openly engaging in extortion? And for $350.00 a pop? This is just silly.

(7) “excon” also says that this practice is “creeping into the US.” Actually it has been there a lot longer than in Canada and is well established.

(8) There is no particular law or section of law that makes this possible (nor is there one that prohibits it). The principle is the same one that creates all civil liability: if you do something, intentionally or recklessly, that ends up costing me money, and you knew or should have known that it would end up costing me money, then I can sue you for the money I’ve lost. In plain English, this is the basis of virtually all lawsuits.

(9) The person involved in this incident says that they forgot to pay for something rather than actually stealing it. That may well be true, but bear the following in mind. To a security person forgetting to pay and stealing *look* exactly the same. That is not their fault, it is just a fact of life, and an apparent theft is a legally proper basis for them making an arrest. Once they've arrested you, as I said earlier, they have to hold you until police arrive. This means that your conduct, even if you didn't steal, ends up costing the store a lot of money. It may not seem fair to stick you with the bill when you just forgot to pay for something, but if you look at it from the store's point of view you will see that it's not very fair to make them pay for your mistake either (which is what happens if they don't recover the cost of the incident from you). In fact, many people steal by simply carrying things out of stores quite openly and then, if they're caught, claiming that they forgot to pay. How is a security person supposed to differentiate between someone doing this and you?

As noted many times here, this is how it works in Canada, we have had 100's of posters over the years that get a letter to pay for damages and it is normally 300 or under.

And if they don't the store can still press charges within the SOL of the crime.

Just to be blunt, this is a very cheap way out of this and no criminal record.

[QUOTE=Soleil001;2031175]The answers I have seen posted here show a real ignorance of the law and how it works. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying it so that people will be very, very careful about relying on some of the stuff in these posts. I am not taking one side or the other, but a lot of the information and opinions that have been posted make legally inaccurate assumptions or are at odds with legal principles. Also, I am not calling out particular people to rag on them, just to correct particular things they've said that are inaccurate. I hope this information is helpful.[QUOTE]



I'll play devil's advvocate here. No question incorrect and/or misleading information is posted very often. We are all volunteers, trying to help. Some people are, in fact, Attorneys, others went to law school, some do great research, others have personal knowledge. Many of us have posted thousands of times - I have no idea what the combined total of the posts is.

You have called out certain people instead of simply posting the correct information, whether that was your intention or not.

You say people should be "very, very careful" about taking information from this site. Again, playing devil's advocate - why is what you have posted any more believable/reliable than any other info that has been posted?

Again - this argument over what is and what is not extortion goes on and on, including on another thread. I made phone calls to two Canadian firms and asked and posted what I was told. I am not in Canada. Someone who is - possibly you - should report the law firm (and the name has been posted) to the Canadian Bar. Let the Bar decide what is and what is not extortion.