[excon]

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

[tanequil]

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

[JudyKayTee]

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.

[JudyKayTee]

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.

[excon]

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

[JudyKayTee]

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.

[tanequil]

So restitution of $500 is OK??

[JudyKayTee]

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

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

[tanequil]

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...

[excon]

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

[JudyKayTee]

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

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

[tanequil]

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!

[Soleil001]

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?

[Fr_Chuck]

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.

[JudyKayTee]

[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.