Thursday, September 29, 2011

CRIMINAL WITH 72 CONVICTIONS FACES MORE CHARGES BUT CBSA WANTS HIM DEPORTED

See Toronto Sun story below. This is one of the persons caught after CBSA released photos of its "most wanted". The question is whether the court would stay the charges to allow a deportation, or if the court would proceed with the charges, in which case the deportation will have to wait until after the trial is completed Since he already has 72 convictions ( incredible as it may seem), there would be little point in proceeding with further charges.

CBSA wants man deported before new criminal charges heard Toronto & GTA News Toronto Sun
CBSA wants man deported before new criminal charges heard

First posted: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 08:31 PM EDT

CBSA officials are trying to have outstanding charges against Wasford Uriah Steer so he can be speedily deported. Change text size for the storyPrint this story Report an error

TORONTO - An accused pimp with 76 convictions who was among Canada’s most wanted criminals has been placed on an immigration hold as officials try to speedily deport him for a second time.

Wasford Uriah Steer, 39, of Jamaica, will appear for a bail hearing at a Finch Ave. W. court on Friday.

Steer was arrested last month for allegedly trying to pimp a 16-year-old girl and charged with procuring for the purpose of prostitution, exercising control and living off the avails of prostitution.

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) officials are trying to stay his criminal charges in favour of a speedy deportation to Jamaica. If a judge agrees to stay the charges, Steer can be deported sometime next month, the officials said.

The girl was allegedly being put to work as a prostitute when she called a family member who contacted police, Toronto Police Const. Tony Vella said Wednesday.

The pair were found in a west-end motel.

“We believe there are other victims out there,” Vella said. “They are being asked to call our sex crimes unit.”

The suspect travelled from Toronto to London, Niagara Falls, Windsor, Montreal and other cities in an alleged bid to recruit girls for prostitution, police alleged.

Steer was deported in 1999 for criminality and then snuck back in a year later allegedly using fake identification. He filed a failed refugee claim as well as appeals to try and stay in Canada.

He was the subject of a nationwide manhunt that ended after he and 31 others had their identities posted online by the CBSA who have been seeking the public’s help in capturing the fugitives. Five suspects, including Steer, were arrested.

Also appearing for an immigration hearing next month is alleged war criminal Arshad Muhammad, also known as Certosa Aranci, 43, who could be deported to his native Pakistan.

Muhammad was arrested last July in Mississauga after a member of Peel Regional Police spotted him in a hardware store. He was among the first suspects arrested following the release of a list of Most Wanted War Criminals after prodding by the Toronto Sun.

He returns to an Immigration and Refugee Board on Oct. 24.

SELF-STYLED "IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT" FACES 149 MORE CHARGES

Incredible story.  I would also suggest that they need to investigate how he obtained his immigration to Canada.

Convicted fraudster faces 149 new charges


Convicted fraudster faces 149 new charges

Acted as immigration consultant; People who took his advice 'may have their status in Canada revoked'

By Paul Cherry, The Gazette
September 28, 2011

MONTREAL - A Montreal man already serving a five-year prison term for bilking the federal government while ruining the lives of people he was supposed to help faces 149 new criminal charges in a separate investigation into his work as an immigration consultant.

Yafim Goikhberg, 46, was returned to the Montreal courthouse this week where he learned he faces new charges involving 48 people who sought refugee status or a temporary resident permit to live in Canada.

Two weeks earlier, on Sept. 9, Superior Court Justice Sophie Bourque sentenced Goikhberg to five years for defrauding eight people who fell victim the moment they set foot on Canadian soil. He was convicted of five counts of fraud, 13 counts related to false documents and two counts of extortion.

One of Goikhberg’s victims was reduced to begging for money in a métro station. Some spent as much as three months behind bars while the federal government tried to establish their true identities. Goikhberg forced one couple to return to Israel when they weren’t able to pay for his services.

Meanwhile, he collected more than $25,000 from a federal government program that provides emergency funds to refugee claimants. The victims never saw a cent.

Those charges were the result of a Montreal police investigation. The most recent charges follow a subsequent investigation by the Canada Border Services Agency.

Goikhberg is accused of “having induced, aided or abetted people to misrepresent themselves and of using forged documents in order to obtain refugee status or a temporary resident permit.”

The CBSA noted that some of the 48 people who took Goikhberg’s advice “may have their status in Canada revoked.”

In the previous case, the victims “did not come to Canada with the idea of immigrating in an illegal way,” according to Bourque’s written decision. They were looking for work, to study or to flee danger in their country.

Goikhberg is a Canadian citizen who immigrated from Russia in 1992.

During the two-month jury trial, he acted as his own lawyer, insulted his victims while cross-examining them, insisted on speaking only in Russian, accused several people of being anti-Semitic and claimed to be the victim of a conspiracy.

A psychiatrist found Goikhberg fit to stand trial – but, in her written decision, Bourque wondered whether he is “completely sane in spirit and equilibrium.”

Bourque noted that Goikhberg filed a motion alleging the judge “is the grand-daughter of Eva Braun and Adolf Hitler.”

According to Bourque’s 17-page decision, Goikhberg would use tips from contacts in Russia, parts of the former Soviet Union and Israel and would wait for his victims as they arrived at the airport.

“From the first meeting, often just as they were leaving the airport in his car, (Goikhberg) would ask for money to pay for services to come,” Bourque wrote.

“At the moment of their meeting with (Goikhberg), they were vulnerable, did not know the language, and didn’t have a place to live or work.”

Goikhberg would bring them to his LaSalle condominium and take control of their lives.

Before presenting their cases to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, he would take their legal identification, replace it with false documents and invent a story in an attempt to obtain refugee status.

The new case against Goikhberg returns to court in October.

Tuesday, September 27, 2011

FILIPINOS COMPLAIN ABOUT "CONSULTANT"

Incredible story, watch the video. I can never undersand why people insist in not hiring laweyrs insted of those wh make empty promises.

Toronto News: Laundress cleaned us out, Filipinos say - thestar.com

THE IMMIGRATION EXPERIENCE AND SATISFACTION

This is interesting, although not surprising. The study appears to be highly subjective, yet it confirms that language barriers, poor economic performance, are drivers in the dissatisfaction gap.

‘Satisfaction gap’ hinders the immigrant experience - The Globe and Mail


Pawel Dwulit For The Globe and Mail

Economy Lab

‘Satisfaction gap’ hinders the immigrant experience

frances woolley

Globe and Mail Blog

Posted on Monday, September 26, 2011 10:12AM EDT

A recent working paper by Peter Burton and Shelley Phipps of Dalhousie University studies the life satisfaction of youth who immigrated to Canada as children, plus immigrant parents. They used data on thousands of recent immigrants and Canadian-born families collected through the Canadian Community Health Survey from 2002 to 2008.

Immigrants’ lower satisfaction comes down, in part, to economics. The immigrant families Burton and Phipps studied had incomes approximately one third lower than those of comparable Canadian families. These income differences explained more than one quarter of the satisfaction gap between Canadian-born and immigrant youth. For parents, the loss of life satisfaction due to low income was even greater, perhaps because parents make sacrifices to shield their children from economic hardship.

Yet no one expects immigration to be easy. Coming to a new country, not speaking the language, and being separated from family and friends is hard. For girls in particular, ethnicity and language appear to explain a significant portion of the satisfaction gap between immigrants and non-immigrants.

Language and ethnicity are important to parents too. Burton and Phipps found that 43.5 per cent of the gap in satisfaction between immigrant and Canadian-born mothers could be explained in terms of language and ethnicity differences, with East Asian and Black parents (but not South Asian ones) experiencing lower levels of life satisfaction.

But does it get easier over time?

Burton and Phipps answered this question by looking at people’s sense of belonging, how they answered the question ““How would you rate your sense of belonging to your local community?”

Immigrants felt less of a sense of belonging than the Canadian-born. For youth, feeling like you don’t belong is a better predictor of being less satisfied with life than being an immigrant. Indeed, once Burton and Phipps controlled for people’s sense of belonging, the gap between immigrant and comparable non-immigrant youth went away. (That was not true for parents, however -- even immigrant parents who felt like they belonged to their local communities were still less satisfied than non-immigrants).

But is feeling like you belong just a matter of time, something that builds the longer you’re in Canada? For parents, the answer is yes: the longer immigrant mothers and fathers live in Canada, the more they feel like they belong to their local communities.

For teenage girls, however, the answer is no -- girls who have been in Canada for longer are less likely to feel a strong sense of belonging to their local community.

After reading Burton and Phipps’ paper, three things struck me.

The first was the sheer magnitude of the satisfaction difference between immigrant and Canadian-born mothers: 22.9 per cent of immigrant mothers -- those who have been in Canada 17 years or less -- are very satisfied with life, compared to 48.5 per cent of Canadian-born mothers. I wonder: are there policies that would reach out directly to immigrant mothers, getting people involved in the local community, whether that’s coming to meet the teacher nights, or joining school councils? Or is it just economics: immigrant mothers are shouldering the burden of making ends meet.

The second thing that struck me about Burton and Phipps’ was the pain of not belonging. How will immigrant girls who find themselves caught between different sets of cultural expectations sort it all out?

Finally, it’s not all bad news for immigrants. Immigrants are, on average, more likely to be in excellent health than the Canadian born. Researchers call this the healthy immigrant effect, and attribute it to diet. Immigrants are also more likely to live in two-parent families. By making good lifestyle choices, like instilling healthy eating habits, immigrant parents may be building the foundation for future life satisfaction.

CBSA LAYS CHARGES AGAINST MONTREAL "IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT"

This just released. Apparently the person in question was not a "registered" immigration consultant, but rather one of those people who often represent themselves as such. I am sure there will be more news on this subject.

CBSA Investigation Leads to Fraud Charges Against an Immigration Consultant - MarketWatch


press release

Sept. 26, 2011, 4:10 p.m. EDT

CBSA Investigation Leads to Fraud Charges Against an Immigration Consultant

MONTREAL, QUEBEC, Sep 26, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) filed 149 charges against Yafim Goikhberg, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Criminal Code. He appeared in court today at the Palais de Justice in Montreal.

Mr. Goikhberg is accused of having induced, aided or abetted people to misrepresent themselves and of using forged documents in order to obtain refugee status or a temporary resident permit. He is also accused of acting as an immigration representative in return for fees without authorization, and communicating false or misleading information to encourage immigration to Canada.

According to the CBSA investigation, at least 48 people submitted applications based on Mr. Goikhberg's advice, and some of them may have their status in Canada revoked. CBSA investigators also discovered that the accused had assumed other persons' identities during his consulting activities.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews congratulated the CBSA: "I commend the CBSA for its ongoing efforts, together with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in helping protect people from becoming victims of fraudulent immigration consultants."

Immigration consultants are professionals who, in return for fees, provide people with advice, consultation services, assistance or representation services with regard to their applications to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. These professionals are subject to the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) and must be members of the ICCRC in order to perform their duties in Canada.

The CBSA's Criminal Investigations Program helps protect Canadians and Canada's economy by investigating potential border-related offences and pursuing prosecution of individuals who commit these offences. CBSA investigators investigate offences affecting border security, such as the use of forged documents to enter Canada, smuggling or the illegal import or export of goods that are controlled, regulated or prohibited. In pursuing its investigations, the CBSA works closely and consults with a number other departments and federal enforcement agencies, including Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

CBSA LAYS CHARGES AGAINST MONTREAL "IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT"

This just released. Apparently the person in question was not a "registered" immigration consultant, but rather one of those people who often represent themselves as such. I am sure there will be more news on this subject.

CBSA Investigation Leads to Fraud Charges Against an Immigration Consultant - MarketWatch


press release

Sept. 26, 2011, 4:10 p.m. EDT

CBSA Investigation Leads to Fraud Charges Against an Immigration Consultant

MONTREAL, QUEBEC, Sep 26, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) filed 149 charges against Yafim Goikhberg, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Criminal Code. He appeared in court today at the Palais de Justice in Montreal.

Mr. Goikhberg is accused of having induced, aided or abetted people to misrepresent themselves and of using forged documents in order to obtain refugee status or a temporary resident permit. He is also accused of acting as an immigration representative in return for fees without authorization, and communicating false or misleading information to encourage immigration to Canada.

According to the CBSA investigation, at least 48 people submitted applications based on Mr. Goikhberg's advice, and some of them may have their status in Canada revoked. CBSA investigators also discovered that the accused had assumed other persons' identities during his consulting activities.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews congratulated the CBSA: "I commend the CBSA for its ongoing efforts, together with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in helping protect people from becoming victims of fraudulent immigration consultants."

Immigration consultants are professionals who, in return for fees, provide people with advice, consultation services, assistance or representation services with regard to their applications to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. These professionals are subject to the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) and must be members of the ICCRC in order to perform their duties in Canada.

The CBSA's Criminal Investigations Program helps protect Canadians and Canada's economy by investigating potential border-related offences and pursuing prosecution of individuals who commit these offences. CBSA investigators investigate offences affecting border security, such as the use of forged documents to enter Canada, smuggling or the illegal import or export of goods that are controlled, regulated or prohibited. In pursuing its investigations, the CBSA works closely and consults with a number other departments and federal enforcement agencies, including Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

CBSA LAYS CHARGES AGAINST MONTREAL "IMMIGRATION CONSULTANT"

This just released. Apparently the person in question was not a "registered" immigration consultant, but rather one of those people who often represent themselves as such. I am sure there will be more news on this subject.

CBSA Investigation Leads to Fraud Charges Against an Immigration Consultant - MarketWatch


press release

Sept. 26, 2011, 4:10 p.m. EDT

CBSA Investigation Leads to Fraud Charges Against an Immigration Consultant

MONTREAL, QUEBEC, Sep 26, 2011 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) filed 149 charges against Yafim Goikhberg, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and the Criminal Code. He appeared in court today at the Palais de Justice in Montreal.

Mr. Goikhberg is accused of having induced, aided or abetted people to misrepresent themselves and of using forged documents in order to obtain refugee status or a temporary resident permit. He is also accused of acting as an immigration representative in return for fees without authorization, and communicating false or misleading information to encourage immigration to Canada.

According to the CBSA investigation, at least 48 people submitted applications based on Mr. Goikhberg's advice, and some of them may have their status in Canada revoked. CBSA investigators also discovered that the accused had assumed other persons' identities during his consulting activities.

Public Safety Minister Vic Toews congratulated the CBSA: "I commend the CBSA for its ongoing efforts, together with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in helping protect people from becoming victims of fraudulent immigration consultants."

Immigration consultants are professionals who, in return for fees, provide people with advice, consultation services, assistance or representation services with regard to their applications to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. These professionals are subject to the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council (ICCRC) and must be members of the ICCRC in order to perform their duties in Canada.

The CBSA's Criminal Investigations Program helps protect Canadians and Canada's economy by investigating potential border-related offences and pursuing prosecution of individuals who commit these offences. CBSA investigators investigate offences affecting border security, such as the use of forged documents to enter Canada, smuggling or the illegal import or export of goods that are controlled, regulated or prohibited. In pursuing its investigations, the CBSA works closely and consults with a number other departments and federal enforcement agencies, including Citizenship and Immigration Canada and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

IS THIS HOW TO STOP A DEPORTATION?

This is the wrong message: those who had due process of law and have exhausted their recourse should not be allowed to stall by refusing to cooperate. And now the naive federal government thinks that they can pay $2,000 to get people to leave? A failed strategy if I have ever seen one.

CTV Montreal - Montreal mom who collapsed at airport ordered to leave for Mexico Friday - CTV News

Friday, September 16, 2011

MORE ON P.E.I. IMMIGRATION PROGRAM WOES

The saga continues. Abolish all provincial nominee programs and revamp one federal skilled program for all provinces.

PEI’s immigration program had long concerned Ottawa: Kenney - The Globe and Mail

CBSA ARRESTS ANOTHER FUGITIVE CRIMINAL

CBSA release of "most wanted" foreign criminals list unprecedented success with the capture of another serial convicted criminal yesterday. See story:

Most-Wanted fugitive nabbed in Toronto Toronto & GTA News Toronto Sun

Thursday, September 15, 2011

CORRUPTION ALLEGATIONS PROBED IN P.E.I. IMMIGRATION PROGRAM

The Globe and Mail reports a very disturbing investigation on the P.E.I. immigration program. I think all "provincial nominee" programs must be scrapped, they are politically motivated, badly administered, and make no sense In light of mobility rights under the Charter.

Ottawa calls for probe of PEI immigration program - The Globe and Mail

Wednesday, September 14, 2011

CANADA JOBS REPORT IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Interesting perspective on Canada's job market.

Hope in disappointing Canada jobs report - Bill Mann's Canada - MarketWatch


Sept. 13, 2011, 12:01 a.m. EDT

Hope in disappointing Canada jobs report

By Bill Mann, MarketWatch

PORT TOWNSEND, Wash. (MarketWatch) — “The biggest risks to the Canadian economy,” read the headline in a Vancouver daily this week, “are all global uncertainties that lie outside its borders.” Unlike the situation in America these days, Canada’s employment problems aren’t nearly as political and systemic.

The disappointing news last week that the Canadian economy shed 5,000 jobs last month, marking the second month in a row for job losses, according to Statistics Canada, also carried some good news as well: Most of those job losses were in part-time positions. Full-time jobs created were actually up.

And there’s far more hope in Canada these days than you’ll find in the U.S. in many areas, economically and otherwise. And there are several good reasons for it, not least of which is that while the U.S. will probably continue shipping jobs to China, Canada will be shipping oil to it.

Canada’s unemployment rate in August inched up to 7.3 per cent, rising by 0.1 percentage points from July’s 7.2 percent. The U.S. unemployment rate is over 9 percent.

Granted, the European debt crisis and the struggling U.S. economy are major factors weighing on the fragile but still-recovering Canadian economy, which has regained all its job losses from the recession. (Canada didn’t have a mortgage crisis because its banks are stronger and they’re far more regulated, which has helped its smaller economy greatly.)

Even though Canada’s jobless rate is lower than America’s and is nowhere near, say, that of Spain’s, which tops 20 per cent, Canada’s top leadership has turned its attention to jobs recently -- and there’s not even an election looming. Plus, unlike his American counterpart, Prime Minister Stephen Harper can actually do something about jobs, since his Conservative Party also controls the nation’s purse strings.

So, unlike that in the U.S., it’s not gloom and doom in the Canadian job market. In the U.S., President Obama’s $447 billion jobs proposal seems likely to be shot down or smothered by a Republican party seemingly hellbent on ending his presidency through whatever means necessary, even economic malfeasance.

Ottawa focused on jobs
Harper’s majority government, meanwhile, now seems more and more likely to hold off a bit on its deficit-reduction program these days and fund more jobs That’s quite a different scenario than the one in the taxphobic, Tea Party-infected U.S.

True, Harper’s Conservatives won their majority in Parliament partly by promising to cut spending and return to a balanced budget by mid-decade. But mostly, it was because of the ineptitude of its main opposition, the Liberal Party, and its feckless former leader, Michael Ignatieff.

Officials in Ottawa haven’t said yet what measures Harper might take to goose Canadian job creation But the 2011 Canadian budget contains several targeted measures to create jobs, such as money for energy retrofits and incentives for the private sector to hire.

Several of those programs are scheduled to expire with the current fiscal year, but extending some of them would be among the steps Harper’s government could take.

While the U.S. continues to export jobs to China, Canada will probably be exporting more and more oil there in the years ahead. Accounts receivable are preferable to debt.

It would doubtless be wise if the U.S. and Canada would move away from their petroleum-dependent economies, but alas, that’s not likely to happen any time soon. But, unlike the U.S., Canada is a net oil exporter. And flush Canadian suitor China’s energy-hungry economy wants — needs — increasing amounts of oil.

China is a promising part of the Canadian jobs picture — and indirectly, that of the U.S:

Canada’s oil-sands production of bitumen is expanding rapidly, and China is pressing Ottawa to build a pipeline to British Columbia so it can get at that crude more easily. Alberta’s Energy Minister Ronald Liepert said in New York last week that Canada’s oil-sands industry is facing a job shortage of 75,000 positions, and he wants to make it easier for unemployed American construction workers to come to that oil-rich province to work. Alberta’s oil-sands industry will double production in the next decade, he said.

Plus, a shortage of qualified Canadian workers as Baby Boomers retire is the reason most often cited for Canada’s increasing legal immigration. That’s another big difference in Canada and the U.S. these days.

Full-timers rule
So, it’s not all doom and gloom, even in a cooling Canadian jobs market, where, over the past year, the economy still has created almost 225,000 jobs, an increase of 1.5 per cent. Full-Time work is up by 2.2 per cent, and part-time jobs down by 2.3 per cent, says Statistics Canada.

So, to borrow a familiar U.S. political phrase, there is reason to keep hope alive in Canada, even with sluggish and sometimes-shaky world and U.S. economies heavily weighing on it.

Hope is definitely something that’s still easier to find in Canada, where the government in Ottawa, even a nominally conservative one, isn’t as paralyzed or polarized as it is in the U.S. As we’ve noted, Canada’s Conservative Party is much closer to the U.S. Democratic Party than it is to the GOP on the political spectrum.

So overall, the latest disappointing jobs report isn’t ominous. John Clinkard, chief economist for Canada at Deutsche Bank AG, told the Toronto Globe and Mail that he sees it as a lull rather than a slump, and said the spate of full-time job growth for much of this year shows the underlying strength in Canada’s jobs market.

And we’ll take full-time jobs to those part-timers any day.

MORE PHOTOS OF WANTED CRIMINALS BEING RELEASED BY CBSA

Here we go again....more wanted criminals sought by CBSA...

New photos of wanted criminals being released Toronto & GTA News Toronto Sun


New photos of wanted criminals being released

First posted: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 06:57 PM EDT Updated: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 07:10 PM EDT


TORONTO - A Toronto gunman who was one of Canada’s “Most Wanted” was deported to Jamaica in record time as officials gear up to release new mug shots of other dangerous criminals hiding here, officials say.


About a dozen photos of suspected war criminals and foreign offenders will replace those captured due to help from the public after two lists of fugitives were released by the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Public Safety Ministry officials said.

Six suspected war criminals and four foreign hoodlums were rounded up since the names of the suspects were publicly released. Five of the men have been deported and one has left the country.

The most recent deportee was Reginald George King, aka “Dee Dee”, 41, who was escorted to Kingston, Jamaica, by two officers on a flight from Pearson airport last Sunday, officials said.

King was arrested Aug. 19 in Walford, Ont., a small town about 200 km east of Sault Ste. Marie, where he had been hiding. He was convicted of assault with a weapon and possession of a loaded and restricted weapon.

A warrant was issued for his arrest after he failed to show up for removal from Canada.

Officials said King was photographed and released by police on his arrival in Jamaica where he is not sought for any crimes.

Also busted was drug dealer Xun Zhang, 32, of China, on Aug. 18 in Richmond, B.C.

Zhang has a record that includes drug trafficking, assault, robbery, theft and conspiracy to produce a controlled substance.

And, Walter Ernesto Guzman, 35, of El Salvador, surrendered to Montreal police on Aug. 19. He was sought for convictions that include drug trafficking, assault and uttering threats.

Guzman became the centre of a furor after he was freed by an immigration board member in Montreal on $3,000 cash bond after being a most-wanted fugitive. He has since been deported.

Police have also stepped up their hunt for accused foreign criminal Wei Guo Wu, who they said has ties to Chinese organized crime in Canada and China.

Wu, 43, is sought in connection with the abductions of Xui Jun “Johnny” Fei, 40, and North York real estate agent Jainguo “Tony” Han, 44, who disappeared from Fei’s Mississauga home on Jan. 20.

Fei had hired Han to sell his 15-room mansion on Featherston Dr.

Fei was released by his abductors six days later, but Han’s body was found in the Markham home he was held captive, dying of a heart attack during his captivity.

They men are among a group of 1,400 dangerous criminals without immigration status who are hiding in Canada.

Anyone seeking information on the fugitives are asked to visit a CBSA website or call a Border Watch Line at 1-888-502-9060

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Saturday, September 10, 2011

SPONSORSHIP OBLIGATIONS AND MARRIAGE CONTRACTS HIGHLIGTED IN LITIGATION

The recent case below highlights the consideration of sponsorship obligations in the context of marriage contracts. Aside from its interesting facts, people should be aware that under immigration legislation, spouses are responsible for supporting a sponsored spouse for three years, and as per a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, those who default can be exposed to collection proceedings by a Province if the sponsored spouse goes on social assistance.



Petruzziello v. Albert
Between Edmondo Petruzziello, Applicant, and
Viktoria Albert, Respondent

[2011] O.J. No. 3921

2011 ONSC 4182

Court File No. FC-07-00027514-00

Ontario Superior Court of Justice

J.E. Hughes J.


Heard: November 15-18, 22, 24-26, 29, December 1-3, 2010;
January 11, 2011.
Judgment: September 1, 2011.

(92 paras.)



REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

J.E. HUGHES J.:--

THE BACKGROUND

1     The applicant, Edmondo Petruzziello and the respondent, Viktoria Albert, were never married. When they began their relationship, he was a nightclub owner and a mortgage lender/broker, and she was an exotic dancer, recently arrived in Canada from Hungary on a temporary work visa. The length of their cohabitation and whether it was continuous is in dispute. Mr. Petruzziello has taken the position throughout this proceeding that the parties cohabitated for approximately 19 months. Ms. Albert initially did not dispute this position. However, that changed over the course of this action, and at trial she argued that the parties had enjoyed a continuous and conjugal relationship spanning six years.

2     Although many issues remain in dispute between the parties, they do agree on two things: Firstly, that their son, Edmondo ("Ed Jr.") was born during their cohabitation on March 21, 2002, and secondly, that they executed a Cohabitation/Marriage Contract dated April 25, 2006 (the "Contract"). Both parties were represented by counsel at that time; Mr. Petruzziello by David Pomer and Ms. Albert by Rahul Kesarwani.

3     The parties separated on May 1, 2007. On July 13, 2007, Mr. Petruzziello commenced an application primarily for access to his son, Ed Jr. Ms. Albert filed her answer shortly thereafter claiming, among other things, spousal support and in the alternative, that Mr. Petruzziello comply with the provisions of the Contract. At that time she did not challenge the validity of the Contract or seek to have it set aside.

4     On October 26, 2007, a case conference on all issues took place. As a result of meetings between counsel and the parties which occurred at court that day, Minutes of Settlement (the "Minutes") were signed by the applicant and the respondent. During those negotiations Mr. Petruzziello was represented by Mr. David Pomer and Ms. Albert was represented by Mr. Jeremy Dolgin.

5     The Minutes were incorporated into the consent order of Mr. Justice Nelson of the same date. The Minutes and the corresponding order purport to deal with spousal support on a final basis. The remaining issues were dealt with on a temporary basis and adjourned for further consideration.

6     In September 2008, the applicant brought a motion to reduce his child support obligation, on the grounds that he had experienced a reduction in his income. The respondent brought a cross-motion and for the first time raised the validity of the Contract and the Minutes as issues. Ms. Albert subsequently received leave to amend her answer accordingly.

7     The parties, with the assistance of their counsel, have agreed to a bifurcation of the issues, such that a hearing in relation to the validity and enforceability of the Contract and the Minutes would proceed prior to the trial of the spousal support claim. The essence of the trial before me today is: Ms. Albert wants the Contract and Minutes set aside and Mr. Petruzziello wants the Contract and Minutes upheld.

THE ISSUES

8     There are three primary issues for this court to decide:



·       A. What was the nature and duration of the parties' relationship? 

·       B. Should the Cohabitation/Marriage Contract of the parties dated April 25, 2006, be set aside as invalid and unenforceable? 

·       C. Should the Minutes of Settlement incorporated into the consent order of Mr. Justice Nelson dated October 26, 2007, be set aside as invalid and unenforceable? 

THE EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS



·       A. What was the nature and duration of the parties' relationship?

9     It was the position of Mr. Petruzziello going into the trial:



·       * 

That he and Ms. Albert had commenced an intimate relationship in 2001, which resulted in the birth of their son, Ed Jr., on March 21, 2002; 

·       * 

That the parties had cohabited intermittently from 2001 to 2003, at which time the relationship broke down; and 

·       * 

That the parties reconciled on October 1, 2005, and separated on May 1, 2007, for the final time; that the length of his relationship with Ms. Albert was for a period of approximately 19 months, October 1, 2005 to May 1, 2007. 

10     Both the application issued by Mr. Petruzziello and the Contract at paragraph number 1, recite the commencement of cohabitation as October 1, 2005. However, the bulk of the evidence, including much of Mr. Petruzziello's own oral testimony, did not substantiate his position as to the nature and length of his relationship with Ms. Albert.

11     It was the oral evidence of Mr. Petruzziello that he met Ms. Albert in January or February of 2000 at Diamonds, which was a strip club in Mississauga. She performed a lap dance for him, and he subsequently asked her out to dinner. They eventually started dating regularly, and on or about April 4, 2001, she moved in with him at his condominium. Mr. Petruzziello stated that once she became his girlfriend she had to give up taking off her clothes for money. For purposes of the trial, the parties agreed that Ms. Albert had earned as much as $1,500.00 per week as an exotic dancer.

12     Once the parties moved in together, Ms. Albert began bartending at Mr. Petruzziello's club. He paid her approximately $500.00 per week to cover her miscellaneous expenses. Mr. Petruzziello paid for everything else, and he was prepared to pay for her to go to school to better herself; upgrading her education and obtaining better employment skills were very important to him.

13     Following the birth of their son, Ed Jr., in March 2002, it was Mr. Petruzziello's evidence that Ms. Albert worked at the club very little, and focused primarily on care for the baby and house. At one point, Mr. Petruzziello actually said, "I worked, and she did nothing." But in cross-examination, he admitted that Ms. Albert "was not a bad cook but could use some sharpening up on the housekeeping." He did disclose that she went to driving school, at his expense, and she successfully got her driver's licence, but he complained that, "she would not go to school to get English and advance herself."

14     Mr. Petruzziello shared that by February 2003, Ms. Albert was becoming extremely frustrated with his long hours of work. On one particular occasion that month, she accused him of arriving home late, impaired, and with lipstick on his collar. A domestic altercation ensued, which resulted in Mr. Petruzziello being charged with assault and being removed from the home. It was Mr. Petruzziello's evidence that his bail conditions prevented him from residing at his home and communicating with Ms. Albert. He stated that Ms. Albert was able to get a variation of his bail conditions, such that he was back home with Ms. Albert and their son, just after Ed Jr.'s birthday on March 21 that year. Based on this evidence, Mr. Petruzziello was out of the house approximately one month. Although the parties were physically apart, I find that there was no evidence that either one of them wished to be separated from the other; it was mandatory due to the bail conditions.

15     Mr. Petruzziello gave evidence that during their relationship the parties travelled together a lot; he mentioned Acapulco, Mexico in the spring of 2001, a Mediterranean cruise in September 2001, Las Vegas in December 2001, Niagara Falls with their son in the summer of 2003; they typically celebrated his birthday by taking a vacation abroad. Mr. Petruzziello recounted that in September 2003, he, Ms. Albert, and Ed Jr. went on a Mediterranean cruise which included Italy, Venice, and Rome but that when they arrived in Barcelona, Spain to return to Canada, Ms. Albert was denied admittance back to Canada because her visa had expired, she had forgotten her driver's licence, and so she had no photo identification verifying her address with Mr. Petruzziello in Canada. Mr. Petruzziello explained that as a result he sent Ms. Albert and Ed Jr. to Hungary to stay with her mother and he flew back to Canada. Mr. Petruzziello stated that, "getting them back to Canada was my priority", and he promptly began a sponsorship application for her to become a landed immigrant. This sponsorship included a contractual obligation whereby Mr. Petruzziello agreed to provide Ms. Albert with significant financial support for a period of three years commencing on the date that she was granted landed immigrant status.

16     Mr. Petruzziello gave evidence that between October 2003 and December 2003, he visited Ms. Albert and Ed Jr. in Hungary twice, and then went on a Caribbean cruise with Ms. Albert in December 2003. He stated that Ms. Albert needed a visa to go on the cruise and when the visa was issued to her, authorities had made a clerical error such that it did not expire for 13 years. As a result, he was able to make arrangements to move Ms. Albert and Ed Jr. to the United States and by April/May 2004 had set Ms. Albert up in rental accommodation in Indian Rock Beach, Florida. In this way, Mr. Petruzziello was able to join Ms. Albert and Ed Jr. every two to three weeks for three to four days. He even registered Ed Jr. in private school while in Florida. Mr. Petruzziello stated that it was at this time that he and Ms. Albert agreed that as soon as she got back to Canada they would start working on a cohabitation agreement.

17     Mr. Petruzziello testified that Ms. Albert received her landed immigrant status, returned to Canada, and resumed living with him on October 1, 2005. I find that it was on this date that the three-year limitation period set out in the sponsorship agreement commenced to run, such that the contractual obligations imposed on Mr. Petruzziello by virtue of the sponsorship agreement were subsisting and relevant to the negotiations of both the Contract and the Minutes.

18     I do not find that there was any breakdown of the relationship between Mr. Petruzziello and Ms. Albert in October 2003, as originally alleged by Mr. Petruzziello in this action. On the contrary, I find that their physical separation was completely involuntary and solely the result of the untimely expiry of her visa. Further, I find that Mr. Petruzziello did everything he could to reunite with Ms. Albert and Ed Jr., as quickly as possible by commencing and diligently pursuing the sponsorship application and by moving Ms. Albert closer to Canada (Florida) as soon as that option was available. As set out at paragraphs 38 and 39 of the statement of agreed facts, jointly filed by the parties in this action, Mr. Petruzziello supported Ms. Albert completely while she was in Hungary and Florida, which further corroborates the ongoing nature of their relationship.

19     I reject Mr. Petruzziello's argument that he did all this for his son, and with little or no interest in Ms. Albert, as self-serving. If he was not interested in continuing their relationship, he would not have been talking about starting the process of obtaining a cohabitation agreement. I further find that Mr. Petruzziello is not above misleading the court; initially his evidence was that he was found not guilty at trial in December 2003 of the assault on Ms. Albert in February 2003, and it was not until he was confronted by the fact that she was in Hungary in December 2003, as a result of her expired visa, that he admitted that the charges were dismissed because she was unavailable to testify.

20     Based on the evidence presented by Mr. Petruzziello, I find that the applicant and the respondent commenced cohabitation on or about April 4, 2001, as argued at trial by Ms. Albert, and that there was no intention on the part of Mr. Petruzziello to separate from Ms. Albert until May 1, 2007, as stated in his application. Ms. Albert agrees that the date of separation was May 1, 2007.



·       B. Should the Cohabitation/Marriage Contract of the parties dated April 25, 2006, be set aside as invalid and unenforceable?

21     Subsection 56(4) of the Family Law Act contains the criteria to be applied when considering the discretionary power to set aside a domestic contract:1



·       SETTING ASIDE DOMESTIC CONTRACT -- A court may, on application, set aside a domestic contract or a provision in it, 



·       (a) if a party failed to disclose to the other significant assets, or significant debts or other liabilities, existing when the domestic contract was made; 

·       (b) if a party did not understand the nature and consequence of the domestic contract; or 

·       (c) otherwise in accordance with the law of contract. 

22     The onus is on the party seeking to set aside the domestic contract to demonstrate that at least one of the circumstances set out in subsection 56(4) has been met; then the court must determine whether the circumstances complained of justified the exercise of the court's discretion in favour of setting aside the contract. See LeVan v. LeVan2.

23     The respondent advanced a number of grounds in support of her argument that the Contract should be set aside. In reaching my conclusion, it was necessary to deal with evidence that fell within all three clauses of subsection 56(4): (a), (b), and (c).3

Subsection 56(4) clause (a): Failure to Disclose

24     The failure to make disclosure under this clause does not necessarily render a domestic contract a nullity; the nondisclosure must be "significant". See LeVan, supra and Currey v. Currey.4

25     I agree with Justice Quinn where in Bruni v. Bruni, at paragraph [101], he states that, "Use of the word 'failure' in clause 56(4)(a) implies that proof of intent or mala fides is unnecessary" and further at paragraph [102], "A breach of s. 56(4)(a) should not be considered in isolation from all of the surrounding circumstances."5

26     In the case at hand, Mr. Petruzziello did not disclose his income in the Contract, or produce his income tax returns; nor did he include his vehicles and their value in his list of assets attached to the Contract. However, Ms. Albert gave evidence that he had informed her that his income was approximately $180,000.00 to $200,000.00 per year, and she knew the nature of the vehicles he owned. When Mr. Petruzziello's income tax returns were ultimately produced in the course of this litigation, they confirmed that the information he had provided to Ms. Albert as to his income was reasonably accurate, given the nature of his employment. As Ms. Albert was aware of this information at the time the Contract was being negotiated, I do not consider Mr. Petruzziello's failures to provide a precise annual income figure, to attach his actual income tax returns, or to include his vehicles in his list of assets to the Contract, material failures that would engage clause 56(4)(a).

27     However, Mr. Petruzziello also failed to disclose the details of the sponsorship agreement which he had entered into in 2003, in order that Ms. Albert and Ed Jr. could rejoin him in Canada, the particulars of which read as follows:



·       The sponsor ... must, before a sponsorship undertaking can be approved, enter into a written agreement with the person to be sponsored ... if this person is 22 years of age or older or ... is the sponsor's spouse, common-law partner, or conjugal partner. 



·       This agreement lists the obligations and responsibilities that fall onto the sponsor ... As sponsor I promise to provide for the sponsored person and his or her family members basic requirements ... Basic requirements include food, shelter, clothing, fuel, utilities, household supplies, personal requirements and health care not provided by public health, including dental care and eye care. 

28     I find that this obligation, in accordance with the terms of the sponsorship agreement, was in force for a period of three years; from the date Ms. Albert arrived back in Canada on October 1, 2005 until its expiry on September 30, 2008. I find that the sponsorship agreement was relevant and material to the negotiations of the Contract in April 2006 and to the negotiations of the Minutes in October 2007.

29     Ms. Albert was in Hungary on November 30, 2003, when Mr. Petruzziello signed the sponsorship agreement and she did not become aware of the particulars of the sponsorship agreement until the immigration file was produced in the course of this litigation.

30     I find the failure of Mr. Petruzziello to disclose this liability, which was an ongoing obligation to Ms. Albert, was a significant and material failure and thereby engages clause 56(4)(a).



·       Subsection 56(4) clause (b): Understanding the nature or consequences of the contract.

31     It is necessary to consider the circumstances leading up to the signing of the Contract and the individual circumstances of the parties.

32     By the time Ed Jr. was born to Mr. Petruzziello and Ms. Albert in March 2002, Mr. Petruzziello had been married and divorced twice, once to Christina Bernachi, a marriage that lasted from May 2, 1987 until separation in March 1988, once to Retha Dykes, a marriage that lasted from April 13, 1999 until separation in April 2000; he had five children by five different mothers. He was a hardworking, successful businessman; both as a nightclub owner/manager and as a mortgage broker. Mr. Petruzziello stated that he wanted a cohabitation/marriage contract to protect his assets for his five children, and to clearly set out Ms. Albert's entitlement in the event of a breakdown in the relationship. He also wanted to specify in the contract her obligation to educate herself and equip herself with the skills necessary to support herself and their child. He expressed his concern for their age difference and what would become of her and Ed Jr. if anything happened to him. I find it probable, given Mr. Petruzziello's past experience in resolving issues which arise when a relationship breaks down, that he would be aware of the factors to be considered when determining child and spousal support, including, as it relates to spousal support, the duration of the relationship, the roles assumed during the cohabitation, and the economic impact on the parties in the event of a breakdown in the relationship. This may explain his eagerness to reduce Ms. Albert's economic dependency on him.

33     Mr. Pomer, a lawyer retained by Mr. Petruzziello, gave evidence that Mr. Petruzziello instructed him to prepare a cohabitation/marriage contract and he did so. Mr. Pomer believed that the parties had commenced their relationship on October 1, 2005, as this was the information provided by Mr. Petruzziello and he had no reason to question it. He was unaware of Mr. Petruzziello's ongoing and subsisting contractual obligations pursuant to the sponsorship agreement or that Ms. Albert had given up a $1,500.00 per week job at Mr. Petruzziello's request. Mr. Pomer confirmed that he had given Mr. Petruzziello instructions to disclose all of his assets, less his debts, and that this disclosure was necessary; otherwise, there would be problems enforcing the contract. Mr. Pomer did not verify the information Mr. Petruzziello provided in this regard and he stated he was never requested by Ms. Albert or any of her lawyers at any time to obtain verification.

34     Mr. Pomer testified that he specifically advised Mr. Petruzziello that a paralegal was not sufficient, that Ms. Albert would have to see a lawyer who could explain the proposed terms of the contract to her. On March 2, 2006, Mr. Petruzziello took Ms. Albert to see Peter A. Grunwald for independent legal advice related to the contract drafted by Mr. Pomer. Mr. Grunwald was a well-seasoned family lawyer and fluent in Ms. Albert's mother tongue which was Hungarian. Mr. Grunwald gave evidence that he would not permit Ms. Albert to sign the contract because, in his words, "it was so one-sided I thought I would be negligent to do so." He also advised that the contract had already been signed by Mr. Petruzziello. Mr. Grunwald handwrote a list of amendments that were necessary before he would permit Ms. Albert to sign the contract and provided the list to Mr. Petruzziello. It was clear from the affidavit prepared by Mr. Grunwald for Ms. Albert, just a few days later on March 9, 2006, that Mr. Grunwald was aware of the length of the relationship despite what was stated on the face of the contract, that Mr. Petruzziello had obligations to Ms. Albert arising as a result of the immigration sponsorship agreement, and that she had given up lucrative employment as a result of Mr. Petruzziello's demand that she do so. There was no evidence, however, that Mr. Grunwald had actually explained to Ms. Albert what she would be giving up by signing the contract in the form that had already been signed by Mr. Petruzziello.

35     Some of the changes -- but not all of them -- demanded by Mr. Grunwald were consented to by Mr. Petruzziello and incorporated into the Contract by Mr. Pomer. When questioned on the amendments sought by Mr. Grunwald, Mr. Petruzziello responded, "Mr. Grunwald was not God; he was not the final say." Mr. Grunwald was never given the opportunity to review the amended Contract with Ms. Albert.

36     Instead, the following month, Mr. Petruzziello took Ms. Albert to see Rahul Kesarwani for independent legal advice on the Contract. It was the evidence of Mr. Kesarwani, Ms. Albert, and Mr. Petruzziello that Mr. Petruzziello waited in the reception area of Mr. Kesarwani's open concept office, while Mr. Kesarwani and Ms. Albert reviewed the Contract; there were no walls dividing Mr. Kesarwani's office from the workspace or from the reception area where Mr. Petruzziello awaited the conclusion of the meeting. Further, the invoice for Mr. Kesarwani's services was made out to Mr. Petruzziello and paid for by Mr. Petruzziello. When Mr. Kesarwani met Ms. Albert on April 25, 2006, he was a relatively new lawyer (called to the bar in 2004) and was an associate in a storefront location, where he was practicing one-third corporate, one-third real estate, and one-third family law. He was certainly not as experienced as Mr. Grunwald and was not fluent in Hungarian. In addition, it was clear he was unaware of the obligations Mr. Petruzziello had to Ms. Albert pursuant to the sponsorship agreement or that the relationship between the parties had in fact commenced April 2001 and not October 2005, as recited on the face of the Contract. It also appears that it was never communicated to Mr. Kesarwani that Ms. Albert had given up her employment at the request of Mr. Petruzziello, where she had been earning approximately $1,500.00 per week.

37     Without this information I find that it was impossible for Mr. Kesarwani to evaluate the adequacy of the spousal support provisions contained in the Contract or to properly advise Ms. Albert on what she was giving up by signing the Contract; he could not reasonably assess her entitlement to compensatory support, support based on dependency, or contractual support pursuant to the sponsorship agreement, although, it appears now that she may have been entitled to all three. It was all within Mr. Petruzziello's knowledge and he was the one insisting on execution of the Contract and intending to rely on the Contract. He had an obligation to disclose information necessary to Mr. Kesarwani's evaluation. Otherwise, Ms. Albert had no chance of understanding what she was giving up when she signed the Contract.

38     It is not enough to say that this information was all within Ms. Albert's knowledge, and I find that she did not understand the significance of this information, or was not able to communicate this information to Mr. Kesarwani for purposes of his review of the Contract.

39     Ms. Albert did not have the same experience with family law as Mr. Petruzziello had, and I find that she was not likely aware of the factors relevant when considering a reasonable amount and duration of spousal support. Further, she had a language barrier to contend with; these were complex concepts and contractual language -- not the everyday language she had been learning since her arrival in Canada from Hungary. In contrast, she had been able to make Mr. Grunwald, who was fluent in her first language, aware of this information; no doubt Mr. Grunwald, being an experienced family law lawyer, knew what questions to ask, and was able to do so in Ms. Albert's mother tongue.

40     I find that Mr. Petruzziello effectively changed Ms. Albert's legal representation in the middle of negotiations because he did not approve of all the changes requested by Mr. Grunwald in order to make the Contract "fair" to Ms. Albert.

41     I find Mr. Petruzziello's behaviour was calculated, he was intent on getting the Contract signed without further concessions and with terms that would minimize his exposure to a spousal support claim.

42     I find that by his conduct, Mr. Petruzziello made it impossible for Ms. Albert to obtain meaningful independent legal advice, such that she did not understand the nature or consequences of the Contract, which thereby engages clause 56(4)(b).



·       Subsection 56(4) clause (c): Otherwise in accordance with the Law of Contract.

43     Under the law of contract, domestic contracts require the utmost good faith on the part of the parties negotiating. See Saul v. Himel.6 Justice Sachs has said in D'Andrade v. Schrage, at paragraph [82]:7



·       ... When negotiating such a contact couples have an absolute obligation to disclose anything that would be relevant to the purpose of the contract. ... 

44     The reason the law demands open and honest disclosure during these negotiations is to ensure that parties know what they are giving up if they decide to compromise their positions in a domestic contract; full disclosure must be given for it to be an informed choice.

45     I find that Mr. Petruzziello failed in his obligation to negotiate in good faith by not disclosing everything relevant to the purpose of the Contract; particularly the true nature of the relationship between the parties, and his contractual support obligations pursuant to the sponsorship agreement. I find that this non-disclosure was deliberate and intended to mislead Ms. Albert and the lawyers involved in both the negotiation of the Contract and the Minutes, and on whom Ms. Albert relied. This failure on the part of Mr. Petruzziello to negotiate in good faith engages clause 56(4)(c).

46     In addition, however, clause 56(4)(c) includes the common-law grounds for setting aside contracts, such as fraud, duress, undue influence, material misrepresentation, and unconscionability.

47     Although Ms. Albert argued duress and undue influence as grounds for setting aside the Contract, I find it unnecessary to deal with the conflicting evidence on those points, because I find the spousal support provisions/special provisions of the Contract to be such an extreme departure from Ms. Albert's statutory entitlement (see Family Law Act, sections 30, 33, and the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines), as to be unconscionable.8 More specifically, the payment of $100,000.00 contemplated in paragraph 7.8 of the Contract related to business start-up costs, is at Mr. Petruzziello's complete discretion, and therefore cannot be considered spousal support at all. Further, paragraph 7.7 obligates Ms. Albert to be in full-time school as a condition of "obtaining any form of spousal support". This, despite the fact that at the time she signed the Contract she had given up lucrative employment at Mr. Petruzziello's request, thereby becoming completely financially dependent on him for over five years, and had a child with him for whom she provided primary care.

48     Again, clause 56(4)(c) has been engaged. Based on my findings as previously set out herein, I find that Ms. Albert has met the evidentiary onus imposed on her, and I find it appropriate based on the particular facts of this case, to exercise the court's discretion set out at subsection 56(4) of the Family Law Act and I hereby set aside the Contract as invalid and unenforceable.



·       C. Should the Minutes of Settlement incorporated into the consent order of Mr. Justice Nelson dated October 26, 2007, be set aside as invalid and unenforceable?

49     Following the final separation of the parties on May 1, 2007, Mr. Petruzziello, with the assistance of his lawyer, David Pomer, issued an application dated June 13, 2007, in which he sought access to their son, and other relief related to the parenting issues. Ms. Albert in turn retained her own counsel, Jeremy Dolgin, and on or about August 31, 2007, her answer and claim in the proceeding were served and filed with the court.

50     The parties and their counsel attended court for a case conference on October 26, 2007, and on that date the Minutes of Settlement were signed by Mr. Petruzziello and Ms. Albert, and witnessed by their respective lawyers. The Minutes and attached schedule, as they relate to spousal support, read as follows:



·       [Preamble] The parties agree that spousal support shall be in full compliance with the Cohabitation/Marriage Contract. The parties acknowledge their rights and responsibilities with respect to the sections concerning spousal support including sections 7.1, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8. This acknowledgment premises that the schedule of payments is followed and clears the bank. 



·       1. $5,000.00 per week to be deposited by the applicant in the respondent's solicitor's bank account at CIBC Account Number 7600917, Transit Number 00006, Bank 010, at Sparks Street. 

·       2. The first weekly amount of $5,000.00 shall commence on the week of the 29th October 2007 and thereafter the $5,000.00 weekly payment shall continue to the cover the agreed upon amount of $22,150.00. [sic



·       The paid $22,150.00 shall be in full and final satisfaction of paragraphs 7.1, 7.3, 7.5, 7.6 of the Cohab./Marriage Agreement. Ed acknowledges that he is still responsible for paragraphs 7.7 only and no other payments. [sic ] and are declared to be final. As previously stated herein, these Minutes formed the basis for the consent order of Mr. Justice Nelson dated October 26, 2007. 

51     Ms. Albert has similar complaints with regard to the Minutes as she had regarding the Contract: Mr. Petruzziello failed to make the financial disclosure required by law, she did not understand the nature and consequence of the Minutes, and Mr. Petruzziello negotiated in bad faith. However, I find that the situation regarding the negotiation and execution of the Minutes is very different from the circumstances regarding the negotiations and execution of the Contract.

52     As a general rule, settlements of pending litigation between counsel acting within the scope of their retainer will be upheld by the court in order to maintain the integrity of the settlement process, regardless of whether the agreement meets the formal requirements under the local domestic contract legislation.9 It would have been helpful to the court had counsel submitted authority on this point. In Geropoulos v. Geropoulos,10 the Ontario Court of Appeal held that if litigation has been commenced, then compliance with subsection 55(1) of the Family Law Act is not required and minutes of settlement, freely and properly entered into by parties assisted by independent legal advice, are enforceable pursuant to the principles established in Scherer v. Paletta,11 also a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal. The ratio in Scherer v. Paletta is set out in the reasons of Evans, J.A. at page 526 to 527 as follows:



·       The authority of a solicitor arises from his retainer and as far as his client is concerned it is confined to transacting the business to which the retainer extends and is subject to the restrictions set out in the retainer. The same situation, however, does not exist with respect to others with whom the solicitor may deal. The authority of a solicitor to compromise may be implied from a retainer to conduct litigation unless a limitation of authority is communicated to the opposite party. A client, having retained a solicitor in a particular matter, holds that solicitor out as his agent to conduct the matter in which the solicitor is retained. In general, the solicitor is the client's authorized agent in all matters that may reasonably be expected to rise for a decision in the particular proceedings for which he has been retained. Where a principal gives an agent general authority to conduct any business on his behalf, he is bound as regards third persons by every act done by the agent which is incidental to the ordinary course of such business or which falls within the apparent scope of the agent's authority. As between principal and agent, the authority may be limited by agreement or special instructions but as regards third parties the authority which the agent has is that which he is reasonably believed to have, having regard to all the circumstances, and which is reasonably to be gathered from the nature of his employment and duties ... 



·       A solicitor whose retainer is established in the particular proceedings may bind his client by a compromise of those proceedings unless his client has limited his authority and the opposing side has knowledge of the limitation, subject always to the discretionary power of the Court, if its intervention by the making of an order is required, to enquire into the circumstances and grant or withhold its intervention if it sees fit; and, subject also to the disability of the client. It follows accordingly, that while a solicitor or counsel may have apparent authority to bind and contract his client to a particular compromise, neither solicitor nor counsel have power to bind the Court to act in a particular way, so that, if the compromise is one that involves the Court in making an order, the want of authority may be brought to the notice of the Court at any time before the grant of its intervention is perfected and the Court may refuse to permit the order to be perfected. If, however, the parties are of full age and capacity, the Court, in practice, where there is no dispute as to the fact that a retainer exists, and no dispute as to the terms agreed upon between the solicitors, does not embark upon any enquiry as to the limitation of authority imposed by the client upon the solicitor. 

Succinctly put, where a lawyer is retained in the face of pending litigation, as in the case at bar, that lawyer has apparent authority to bind his client. The case law establishes a policy of encouraging the settlement of disputed claims by recognizing and preserving the validity of settlements freely and properly entered into with legal advice.

53     For the reasons set out below I find that, vis-à-vis Mr. Pomer and Mr. Petruzziello, Mr. Dolgin's actions in negotiating a final resolution of the spousal support issue were wholly within the scope of his retainer, and therefore, the Minutes are valid and enforceable. In addition, I find that Ms. Albert has failed to meet the onus imposed on her by subsection 56(4) of the Family Law Act to demonstrate that at least one of the circumstances set out in that subsection has been engaged, and as a result, I find that the court has no jurisdiction to exercise its discretion in favour of setting aside the Minutes.

The Scope of Mr. Dolgin's Retainer

54     To understand the scope of Mr. Dolgin's retainer from Mr. Pomer and Mr. Petruzziello's perspective, it is necessary to review the documents he assisted Ms. Albert in filing with the court prior to the Minutes being negotiated and executed on October 26, 2007; her answer and claim in the proceeding, which was served and filed on or about August 31, 2007, and her case conference brief served and filed prior to the conference held on October 26, 2007.

55     From these documents, Mr. Pomer and Mr. Petruzziello would be able to determine what Ms. Albert's demands were, and what information she was relying on to form the basis of those demands.

The Answer and Claim

56     In Ms. Albert's answer and claim she sought the following order from the court [her demands]:



·       1. An order for spousal support in the amount of $7,500.00 per month for a period of five years; and 

·       2. In the alternative, an order that the applicant comply with the support provisions as provided for in the Cohabitation Agreement signed by the parties on April 25, 2006, in a manner whereby he provides the respondent, one lump-sum payment, all amounts owing under that agreement. 

57     Nowhere in her answer and claim does Ms. Albert seek to set aside the Contract or challenge its validity.

58     As set out on page 4 of her answer under, "Important Facts Supporting My Claims" it is clear that Mr. Dolgin was aware of the following information and would be taking it into account in determining how to proceed with Ms. Albert's case:



·       1.That Mr. Petruzziello and Ms. Albert had been a couple for a period of approximately five years, during which she had been financially dependent on him; 

·       2. That they had lived together for two years immediately preceding the separation, during which time Mr. Petruzziello provided the family income and Ms. Albert was the homemaker and provided childcare to their son, Ed Jr., and 

·       3. That Ms. Albert was unemployed, had limited employment skills, and planned on returning to school. 

59     A review of Ms. Albert's case conference brief confirms that Mr. Dolgin was also aware of the following:



·       1. That Mr. Petruzziello claimed to Ms. Albert that he earned approximately $200,000.00 per year; and 

·       2. Ms. Albert's immigration status which is mentioned, as is her employment history in Canada as an exotic dancer, and her current state of unemployment. 

60     Finally, in her brief, Ms. Albert recites that the parties entered into a cohabitation agreement which sets out a specific spousal support agreement. She goes on in the brief to complain that, "to date [Mr. Petruzziello] has failed to comply with that agreement".

61     Nowhere in her case conference brief does Ms. Albert seek to set aside the Contract or challenge its validity.

62     It was the evidence of Mr. Pomer and Mr. Dolgin that in negotiating the spousal support terms of the Minutes, they basically went through the Contract and calculated on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis the amounts owed by Mr. Petruzziello to Ms. Albert in accordance with the terms of the Contract. A comparison of the Contract to the Minutes corroborates that this was the approach taken. It appears then that Mr. Petruzziello gave in to the demand of Ms. Albert, as set out at paragraph 2 in her answer and claim, that Mr. Petruzziello comply with the Contract by providing her with a lump-sum payment of all amounts owing under the Contract.

63     There was no evidence before the court that information was imparted to Mr. Pomer and Mr. Petruzziello by Ms. Albert, or anyone else, that Mr. Dolgin did not have her authorization to negotiate and resolve the issue of spousal support, on a final basis. I find as a fact that Mr. Dolgin did indeed have that authorization. I accept Mr. Dolgin's evidence that he and Ms. Albert had discussed in detail the risks and benefits of trying to set aside or vary the spousal support provisions of the Contract, including without limitation, the following concerns:



·       1. It would be time consuming and expensive to attempt to set aside the Contract, particularly given that Ms. Albert had received independent legal advice, and at least some financial disclosure before she signed it. 

·       2. There were no guarantees; even if she were successful in setting aside the Contract, she might not be entitled to significantly more spousal support, given her particular circumstances and the unusual history of the relationship. And, if she were unsuccessful there could be significant costs consequences. 

·       3. Even if she was successful, there could be significant problems collecting on a periodic spousal support order, particularly if Mr. Petruzziello went to jail as a result of the outstanding assault charges, which had been laid as a result of her complaint. This would have appeared at that time to be a real probability given that Mr. Petruzziello had previously been convicted of domestic assault on another intimate partner and had served time in jail as a result of those charges. 

64     It was also the evidence of Ms. Albert that Mr. Petruzziello was involved in illegal activities, including the trafficking of cocaine and that the nature of his employment was such that he could easily manipulate his income. All these factors would make enforcement of periodic spousal support a challenge.

65     Although, it was not mentioned by Mr. Dolgin as a consideration, paragraph 17 of the parties' statement of agreed facts states:



·       The parties agree as of August 29, 2008, the applicant [Mr. Petruzziello] financially supported four of his five children including Ed Jr. and I find it probable that Ms. Albert was also concerned that Mr. Petruzziello's pre-existing child support obligations would take priority over her claim to periodic spousal support. 

66     Mr. Pomer, being an experienced family lawyer would be aware in a general sense that these would be the risks being assessed by Mr. Dolgin and his client in negotiating a settlement of the litigation.

67     I find that Mr. Petruzziello and Mr. Pomer reasonably believed that Mr. Dolgin had authority to negotiate the spousal support entitlement on a final basis; that is sufficient to make the Minutes binding, whether or not Ms. Albert actually gave him those instructions. As such I find the Minutes of Settlement dated October 26, 2007, are valid and enforceable as is the consent order of Mr. Justice Nelson dated October 26, 2007. Any complaint Ms. Albert may have with regard to Mr. Dolgin acting outside the scope of his retainer is strictly between Ms. Albert and Mr. Dolgin.

68     If I am wrong on this point, then for the reasons set out below I find the Minutes meet the formal requirements of section 55 of the Family Law Act and that Ms. Albert has failed in her attempt to set them aside pursuant to subsection 56(4) of the Family Law Act.



·       The Formal Requirements under Domestic Contract Legislation -- Subsection 56(4) of the Family Law Act

69     As previously stated at paragraph [20] herein, subsection 56(4) contains the criteria to be applied when considering the discretionary power to set aside a domestic contract or agreement such as the Minutes:


·       SETTING ASIDE DOMESTIC CONTRACT -- A court may, on application, set aside a domestic contract or a provision in it, 


·       (a) if a party failed to disclose to the other significant assets, or significant debts or other liabilities, existing when the domestic contract was made; 

·       (b) if a party did not understand the nature and consequence of the domestic contract; or 

·       (c) 

otherwise in accordance with the law of contract. 

And the onus is on Ms. Albert, who wishes to set the Minutes aside, to demonstrate that at least one of the circumstances set out in subsection 56(4) has been engaged and that her grievance justifies the court's exercise of its discretion in favour of setting aside the Minutes.

Subsection 56(4) clause (a): Failure to disclose.

70     Ms. Albert argues that because Mr. Petruzziello failed to provide to her a sworn financial statement (including the attachment of his income tax returns) prior to the Minutes being executed, that this clause is engaged, and the nondisclosure is so significant, that the court must exercise its discretion by setting aside the spousal support provisions set out in the Minutes.

71     As previously stated herein, a breach of clause 56(4)(a) should not be considered in isolation from all the surrounding circumstances, and I find the relevant surrounding circumstances in this case to be as follows:



·       1. Mr. Petruzziello disclosed his income in the Minutes to be $180,000.00. When his actual income tax returns were completed, his income was determined to be substantially less. As set out in paragraphs 56 and 57 of the statement of agreed facts, that information was relied on by Madam Justice Quinlan when she ordered a reduction in Mr. Petruzziello's monthly child support payment, in consideration of his evidence of reduced income. That order made on February 25, 2009, has neither been varied nor appealed to date. It appears therefore that in disclosing his income for purposes of negotiating the Minutes Mr. Petruzziello in fact overestimated his income. 

·       2. At paragraph 13 of Ms. Albert's case conference brief, she requests an order that Mr. Petruzziello provide a financial statement with all required attachments, within seven days. I take judicial notice of the fact that such disclosure orders are commonly made by the court at the case conference stage of family law proceedings. It should be noted that Mr. Petruzziello was not required to file a sworn financial statement at the time he issued his application, because his claim related to access and parenting issues only. 

·       3. As stated at paragraph 49 of the statement of agreed facts, the Minutes were not conditional on further disclosure from Mr. Petruzziello. Notwithstanding the request for further disclosure set out in her case conference brief, I find that Ms. Albert chose not to pursue further disclosure from Mr. Petruzziello prior to entering into the Minutes nor did she make the Minutes conditional on further disclosure from Mr. Petruzziello, despite having the benefit of independent legal advice throughout the negotiations. 

72     Although, Ms. Albert has now commenced an action against Mr. Dolgin, alleging, among other things, incompetence, I find that as between herself and Mr. Petruzziello, she chose to relieve him of any further disclosure obligations, as it related to her spousal support claim.

73     Further, there is nothing in section 56 of the Family Law Act that precludes a litigant from entering into a final and binding settlement where only partial financial disclosure has been made; where a litigant chooses to enter into a final and binding settlement, without seeking to compel further financial disclosure from the other party, that litigant cannot resile from the consequences of that decision unless that litigant can demonstrate that the other party's financial disclosure (partial though it may be) was inaccurate, misleading, or false. See Quinn v. Keiper.12

74     In the case at hand, it could be argued that Mr. Petruzziello's disclosure with regard to his income was inaccurate, misleading, and false. However, I find that Mr. Petruzziello's over estimation of his income during the negotiation and execution of the Minutes in this case, did not cause Ms. Albert to compromise, reduce, or limit her spousal support claim in any way, and accordingly, did not cause any prejudice to Ms. Albert.

75     As a result of my consideration of the surrounding circumstances, I do not find Mr. Petruzziello's failure to provide a sworn financial statement and supporting documents to Ms. Albert prior to the execution of the Minutes to be a material failure that would engage clause 56(4)(a) of the Family Law Act.



·       Subsection 56(4) clause (b): Understanding the nature and consequences of the contract.

76     Ms. Albert argues that she did not understand the nature and consequences of the Minutes; that the Minutes were negotiated privately between Mr. Petruzziello, his lawyer Mr. Pomer, and Mr. Dolgin, and that she was excluded from the negotiating room. She alleges that without reviewing the Minutes with her, Mr. Dolgin told her to execute the document and she did so, in the belief that the spousal support provisions were temporary and would be reviewed again on the next court date scheduled for January 16, 2008.

77     On that basis, Ms. Albert asked the court to exercise its discretion and set aside the spousal support provisions, as set out in the Minutes. However, I find that the evidence presented at trial does not support Ms. Albert's version of events. Firstly, Ms. Albert was free, following separation, to retain any lawyer she wished. If she had any concerns about understanding the process, the law, or her rights, because of language and literacy issues, she could have retained a lawyer fluent in Hungarian, but she did not do so. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that by October 2007 she had enough confidence in her English language fluency to proceed with the litigation without the assistance of a lawyer fluent in Hungarian or a Hungarian interpreter.

78     Secondly, when pressed in cross-examination regarding her allegation that she was excluded from the negotiating room, Ms. Albert acknowledged that Mr. Petruzziello's bail conditions precluded Mr. Petruzziello and Ms. Albert from being in the same room, and that in order to make any progress at the case conference, Mr. Dolgin and Mr. Pomer had to negotiate while keeping Mr. Petruzziello and Ms. Albert apart.

79     Thirdly, although Ms. Albert's initial position was that Mr. Dolgin had directed her to sign the Minutes without reviewing the terms with her and she followed his direction, she went on to give evidence that during the negotiations she objected to the provision in the Minutes that she be required to submit to drug testing, without Mr. Petruzziello being subject to the same obligation. This flies in the face of her evidence that Mr. Dolgin did not review the specific terms of the Minutes with her, and I find it more probable that he reviewed all the terms, but that the drug testing was the only one she took exception to, at that time.

80     Finally, it was the evidence of both Mr. Pomer and Mr. Dolgin that from their arrival at court that day (October 26, 2007) detailed negotiations took place between the two lawyers and their respective clients, which were wholly authorized by Mr. Petruzziello and Ms. Albert. It was the evidence of Mr. Dolgin that he reviewed in detail, with Ms. Albert, each provision of the Minutes, that she understood that the spousal support provisions were final, and that the only issues coming back to court related to access, child support, and Mr. Petruzziello's financial disclosure as it related specifically to child support.

81     Indeed, Ms. Albert had no motion for spousal support before the court that was capable of being adjourned to January 16, 2008.

82     When Ms. Albert was cross-examined and directly asked about the truthfulness of Mr. Dolgin's evidence (given under oath at his questioning), she would not say that he was not telling the truth. To be clear, she would not swear under oath that Mr. Dolgin was lying when he said he reviewed all the terms of the Minutes with her.

83     Given this evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that Ms. Albert did understand the nature and consequence of the Minutes when she executed them on October 26, 2007.



·       Subsection 56(4) clause (c): Otherwise in accordance with the law of contract.

84     Again it is important to keep in mind that the circumstances surrounding the negotiations and execution of the Minutes were very different from the circumstances surrounding the negotiations and execution of the Contract. More specifically, Mr. Dolgin was aware of Ms. Albert's immigration status and makes specific reference to it in the court documents he prepared on her behalf. In addition, in negotiating the spousal support provisions set out in the Minutes, the parties' then counsel ignored paragraph 7.7 of the Contract, which obligated Ms. Albert to be in fulltime school as a condition of "obtaining any form of spousal support", (a provision that I found to be unconscionable) and preserved in the Minutes Mr. Petruzziello's obligation in paragraph 7.7 to pay the costs of Ms. Albert obtaining a post-secondary degree. In Rick v. Brandsema, Justice Abella, at paragraph 45, states that:13



·       Parties shall generally be free to decide for themselves what bargain they are prepared to make. 

85     Justice Abella expanded on that concept in paragraph 46, when she stated as follows:



·       This contractual autonomy, however, depends on the integrity of the bargaining process. Decisions about what constitutes an acceptable bargain can only authoritatively be made if both parties come to the negotiating table with the information needed to consider what concessions to accept or offer. 

86     In the case at hand, I find that both Mr. Petruzziello and Ms. Albert had effective independent legal advice, and that the Minutes reflect their genuine mutual desire to finalize the spousal support arrangements between them. I find there is no evidence of exploitation or material misinformation.

87     Finally, although I do not find the Minutes to be overly generous, I do not find them to be unconscionable. As set out at paragraph 42 of the statement of agreed facts, Mr. Petruzziello did pay Ms. Albert directly, or through her lawyer, or designated third party:


·       42. 

The parties agree that ... 


·       i. All of the $22,1580.00 [sic -- should read $22,150.00] under the terms of the said October 26, 2007 settlement. 

·       ii. Approximately $3,870.00 to the Respondent in compliance with the terms of the Immigration Sponsorship Agreement; 

·       iii. All of the Respondent's housing rent for the period of June 1, 2007 to May 31, 2008 in the amount of $1,290 per month, in compliance with the terms of the said Sponsorship Agreement. 

88     In addition to receiving the benefit of the Minutes, I accept the evidence of Ms. Albert that she also received $13,425.00 from a spousal RRSP contributed to by Mr. Petruzziello on her behalf.

89     Based on my findings, as previously set out herein, I find that Ms. Albert has failed to meet the evidentiary onus imposed on her, such that clause 56(4)(c) has not been engaged, nor has clause 56(4)(a) or (b).

90     As a result, I have no jurisdiction to set aside the Minutes entered into by Mr. Petruzziello and Ms. Albert on October 26, 2007. As a consequence I find the Minutes remain valid and enforceable.

COSTS

91     If the parties cannot agree on costs, costs may be spoken to by counsel. A date for oral submissions may be obtained from the trial coordinator.

ORDER

92     For the reasons set out above, order to go as follows.


·       1. The Cohabitation/Marriage Contract between the parties dated April 25, 2006, is hereby set aside as invalid and unenforceable; 

·       2. The Minutes of Settlement entered into by the parties on October 26, 2007, are valid and enforceable; 

·       3. The validity and enforceability of the consent order of Mr. Justice Nelson dated October 26, 2007, is hereby affirmed. 

J.E. HUGHES J.

Visalaw International CS CBA OBA-ABO AILA IPBA NYSRA ABA IBA