Internet Fraud

You know what they say, if a deal sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Frankly, I think “probably” is an understatement.

IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, IT ALMOST DEFINITELY IS!

There’s a heck of a lot of scammers out there. Police forces have whole task groups devoted to combating those who use the phone and the internet to rip people off, and I get to see some of the emotional and financial wreckage these creeps leave behind.

One scam making the rounds lately is an internet work-at-home “opportunity” that preys upon unsophisticated job-seekers looking to make some extra money.

Here’s how it works. The scammer uses the internet to find the victim through resume-posting websites. He then sends the victim an email posing as a prospective employer. Often he uses the name of a real company (without their knowledge, of course). He says that he represents a foreign company that needs a local representative to process cheque payments from the victim’s area, and forward the proceeds to the company’s home country. The victim is told that he or she gets to keep a percentage of the payments, usually five or ten percent.

Five or ten percent of thousands of dollars to cash cheques? Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it?

The victim receives what appears to be a valid cashier’s cheque, maybe about $15,000. In accordance with the scammer’s instructions, the victim deposits it in his or her bank account, keeps 10% for him or herself, and transfers 90% percent of it by a wire transfer service, such as Western Union, to location chosen by the scammer.

So far so good, but then a few days later, the victim gets a call from his or her bank, who has by now figured out that the cheque is a forgery. The bank has reduced the victim’s account balance to zero in order to recover its losses. Not only that, but both the bank and the police want to ask some questions about how and why he or she passed a forged cheque.

Awkward, eh? Generally, the victim can convince the bank and the police that he or she wasn’t in on the scam, but even so, the bank may garnish any account the victim has with them, and may also sue to recover the balance.

Most people could probably spot this scam, not because they know anything about international finance (I certainly don’t), but simply by stopping for a minute and asking themselves: does it really make sense that a legitimate international business would pay me, a person they have never met, thousands of dollars just to cash a few cheques?

Unfortunately, a scammer usually has a way with words and gets some people so excited about the money that they forget about common sense. So just remember:

IF IT SOUNDS TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE, IT ALMOST DEFINITELY IS!

And if someone approaches you with a suspicious scheme, check it out with the police before you get involved. You can contact your local police department, or “Phonebusters,” a Canada-wide law enforcement task force dedicated to combating internet and telephone fraud. Their toll-free number is 1-888-495-8501. You can also get in touch with them through their website at: http://www.phonebusters.com, which also has much more information on how to stop protect yourself and others from fraudulent schemes like this one.

Read More

Legal Aid Expands Coverage in Family Cases

My first call of the day is from 33 year-old woman named Beverly who lives in a small northern community.

Two weeks ago, Beverly left her husband, Kevin, after ten years of marriage, and now lives in a rented apartment. They do not have any children. While Kevin was not physically or verbally abusive of her, Beverly is worried that he may try to take financial advantage of her.
She has two main concerns. First, the two of them bought a house during their marriage, but the legal title to the house is Kevin’s name alone. Beverly has overheard him talking about selling the house several times, and she has heard rumours in town that he’s planning to do so very soon. She is worried that he will sell the house without her knowledge and just take off with the money. She’s also concerned that Kevin is moving money around between bank accounts, trying to hide money and investments he had, to make it look like there is less property to divide between the two of them.

What can she do to protect herself?

As for the house, I confirm that since she is not “on title” to the house, Kevin could sell the property without her knowledge or consent. However, there is a straightforward, and very affordable, step that Beverly can take to prevent this from happening, and she should do it as soon as possible.

Beverly can file an application under section 2 of the Land (Spousal Protection) Act. (The full text of this act is available at http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/L/96246_01.htm.) The application is made to the Land Title Office, not to a court. She does not need to hire a lawyer to make this application, but she will need to meet briefly with a lawyer, notary or commissioner of oaths to swear an affidavit. Once the application is filed, it will act as a sort of lien against the house, and prevent Kevin from selling the house without her permission.

I explain to Beverly that she will need to fill out two forms, both of which are available online. I refer Beverly to the Forms Regulation under the Land (Spousal Protection) Act, available at http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/reg/L/85_97.htm She will need to fill out an application in Form B, and an affidavit in Form A, and file them with the Land Title Office. In these forms she will need to provide the full legal description of the family home. She can get this from her local city hall by giving the street address to the staff there, who can then give her the official legal description. Also, Beverly should attach a copy of her marriage certificate to her form B application, if possible.

Once the forms are completed, Beverly can file them directly with the local Land Title Office or the local Government Agent’s office, or she can hire a land title search agent to file the documents for her. There is a filing fee payable to the Land Title Office, but it’s only $2.50.

As for Beverly’s concern about Kevin trying to hide money and other assets, I explain that the B.C. Supreme Court can make orders restraining him from doing that, but the Provincial Court cannot make orders concerning property in family cases.

Since Beverly lives on a low income, I suggest that she consider applying for legal aid. As of November 1, 2006, the Legal Services Society, a.k.a. legal aid, made some changes to its family law coverage policy. These changes allow legal aid staff more discretion to refer someone to a lawyer in cases where there are no concerns with domestic violence, abduction or child safety. If Beverly is financially eligible for a legal aid assistance, then her application will be reviewed to see if her case has enough priority to be referred to a lawyer.

I explain that for legal aid to help with property division issues, there must be at least $50 000 of equity in the family assets. If there is, and there is a clear threat that Kevin may hide or sell assets, legal aid may agree to pay for a lawyer to apply to Supreme Court on her behalf for a court order preventing Kevin from selling or hiding assets. Legal aid may also authorize that lawyer to take other steps on her behalf.

Also, legal aid may issue Beverly a “dispute resolution referral.” To decide whether Beverly is eligible for such a referral, legal aid would consider several factors, including whether she is able to resolve her legal problem using other resources such as family duty counsel, whether there would be a significant injustice to her if legal assistance were not available to her, and whether resolving her legal problem would make a significant difference to her ability to be self-supporting. Legal aid would also consider whether she has any particular barriers to trying to resolve her legal problem without a lawyer’s help. Such barriers could include language or cultural barriers or a physical or mental health condition that affect her capacity to resolve her legal problem without a lawyer.

If legal aid does issue Beverly a dispute resolution referral, it will pay a lawyer to try to mediate or negotiate with Kevin to see if the ex-couple can to an agreement on how to divide the property. If an agreement can’t be reached, the lawyer can also help Beverly by preparing court documents for filing in the Supreme Court, advising her about her options, and attending a judicial case conference with her, if needed. Furthermore, if the lawyer needs to appear in court to resolve her issues, the lawyer can ask legal aid if they will approve that service as well.

Beverly thanks me for my help and we agree that she can call us again if she has any more questions in the future.

Read More

Seize or Sue

I pause for a moment and then type the final sentence of my letter. “Accordingly, we consider this matter concluded, and trust that Ms. Wong will not be contacted again.”

That’s lawyer talk for “get lost.”

Yesterday Linda Wong contacted us because some lawyer, from Ontario of all places, had sent her a letter about a car loan. It seems that in happier times Linda and her husband, Randy, went to a car dealership in Victoria and purchased a big shiny SUV which they could just barely afford, thanks to vendor financing. They signed a “Conditional Sales Agreement” which was filed against the vehicle in the provincial government’s Personal Property Registry.

Then, about six months ago Linda and Randy separated, and found that they could no longer afford the payments. Linda took the bull by the horns and contacted the dealership to explain the situation, and by agreement the dealership repossessed the vehicle. Linda and Randy weren’t happy about it, but they were nonetheless relieved to the matter put behind them.

So or they thought. A few days ago, Linda got a letter from “Mr. Ronald Jaggers, Esq.,” a lawyer from Toronto, telling her that after the SUV was resold and various fees and penalties were taken into account, there was $15,000 still owing on the purchase agreement. Mr. Jaggers’ letter went on to threaten to file a lawsuit unless “satisfactory arrangements for payment” were made within 14 days.

This sent Linda into overdrive. She had been assured by the dealership that everything was resolved and she and Randy could walk away from the deal. Intimidated by the fact that there was a lawyer now involved, she figured she’d better get some legal advice before responding to the letter, so she went to the legal aid website where she found our number.

In our phone conversation, I confirmed with Linda that this was indeed a purchase agreement, not a leasing arrangement, and asked her to fax us a copy of it, along with a copy of Mr. Jaggers’ letter. After reviewing these, I phoned her back, and explained to her that the part of the problem here may be the fact that Mr. Jaggers does not understand BC law.

In BC, a seller who repossesses a vehicle because the buyer doesn’t make the payments cannot also sue the buyer for any balance owing under the purchase agreement. The seller can either repossess the vehicle or let the purchaser keep the vehicle and sue him or her for payment. In other words, the seller must “seize or sue.” Maybe in Ontario things are different. But the dealership took the vehicle, and that’s the end of the matter.

Linda gratefully accepted my offer to write to Mr. Jaggers to explain all this, so I did, and that should be the end of the matter.

Read More

"We're Being Evicted!"

“We’re being evicted!” Olga exclaims indignantly.

Sometimes they get right to the point. I quickly get a thumbnail sketch of the caller’s situation, both the background and the current crisis point she’s facing.

About five years ago, Olga and her husband, Nigel, moved into their cozy, one-bedroom apartment in the West End of Vancouver. At first things were pretty good. It’s a nice quiet building, and they made friends with many of the neighbours. The live-in caretaker, Dick, seemed a little odd, but pleasant enough.

Dick’s attitude towards them seemed to change, though, soon after their three-month old son, Aidan, was born. Since then Dick has been hassling them about Aidan’s crying, which is supposedly bothering him and some of the other tenants. This puzzled them because Aidan is a good-tempered boy, and no one else has ever raised such a concern with them. Dick commented that perhaps they should think about moving to a more “family-oriented place,” which also puzzled them as there are other families with children in the building.

Then earlier today while Nigel was at work, Dick came to the door and handed her an eviction notice. Strangely, this document, entitled “One Month Notice to End Tenancy for Cause,” doesn’t mention anything about crying or noise. Instead it states the cause for eviction as “tenant has allowed an unreasonable number of occupants in the suite.” “Your lease says just two people,” said Dick over his shoulder as he walked away.

Olga hasn’t even been able to talk to Nigel yet. She saw that the Notice gave a website address for Residential Tenancy Office (www.rto.gov.bc.ca), and had a look at the site. She understands that she can dispute the eviction by filing an “Application for Dispute Resolution” no later than ten days from now. But she wonders if there is any point in doing so. She checked the lease, and it does say that the number of occupants is “under no circumstances to exceed two.”

She absolutely should dispute the eviction notice, I say.

Just because the lease stipulates a two-person limit doesn’t mean that having a higher number is necessarily unreasonable and therefore grounds for eviction. In the case of Olga and her family, having two adults and one baby in a one bedroom apartment is probably fine. We’re aware of cases where tenants have succeeded on having eviction notices cancelled in similar circumstances.
Also, I add, the family may want to consider filing a complaint under the B.C. Human Rights Code, as it is illegal for a landlord (or a landlord’s agent) to discriminate against a tenant on the basis of family status. A person must file his or her complaint within six months of the alleged contravention, and can ask for various remedies, including a cease and desist order and monetary compensation.

This is all a lot to absorb, she says.

Mainly, she’s concerned about not being evicted; she’s not sure if she wants to get into something like a lawsuit. She’ll talk it over with Nigel this evening. Would it be possible for her to call me back? Will she have to wait in the phone queue again, or can she get my direct line?

We don’t give out direct locals, but I arrange to call her back tomorrow to see where they want to go with the human rights issue. In the meantime, I remind her of the ten day deadline for filing the application to dispute the eviction.

Read More

Disability Trust Fund

Frank’s going to be getting a tidy sum of cash soon – or will he?

He received a letter from a lawyer in Ontario informing him that in a few months he will receive a cheque for about $20,000 from the estate of his old Uncle Donald, who passed away earlier this year.

That’s more money than Frank’s ever had at one time, so naturally he’s pretty excited. But he’s also a little worried.

“You see,” he says, “I’m on disability income assistance, and my financial worker says that when I get the money I’ll be bumped off assistance because I’ll have too much in assets to qualify.”

Since Frank has chronic fatigue syndrome and is legally blind, his employment prospects are extremely limited, so he would have to use the inheritance money to live on. Assuming that he lives on the same budget as he does now, the money will be gone in about two years. Then he’ll have to apply to go on income assistance again, according to his financial worker. When Frank thinks about it, he figures the net result is the same as if he never got an inheritance at all. “It’s like the government just takes the money! Uncle Donald never would have wanted that!”

Frank called the estate lawyer, who couldn’t help him, but suggested that he call legal aid here in B.C. Frank called Legal Aid’s general number, and the receptionist gave him the LawLINE number.

So, is his financial worker right? Can they bump him off income assistance?

“Yes,” I say, “they can and they will. But there may be a way to avoid that and still get the benefit of your inheritance. Tell me, Frank, are you getting benefits under the ‘persons with disabilities’ class, or the lower, ‘persons with persistent multiple barriers’ class?”

“Persons with disabilities,” he says.

“In that case,” I say “I have a solution for you. It’s called a ‘disability trust.’”

I explain that a “trust” is a legal arrangement in which legal control of money or other property is given to one or more “trustees” who must use the money or property for purposes that benefit one or more ”beneficiaries.” Frank can set up a trust with the inheritance money, which then can be used for certain education, medical and care expenses, and various other things that promote his independence. All this while still receiving monthly income assistance.

However, I caution him, the rules and procedures that must be followed to set up and run a trust are too complicated for me to explain over the phone. I recommend that he see a lawyer that specializes in trusts. How can he afford to hire a lawyer? Simple. The legal fees can come out of the inheritance money.

To find a lawyer, he can ask family and friends for recommendations, check the phone book, or use the Canadian Bar Association’s lawyer referral service. To use the referral service, he simply contacts them at a toll-free number, tells them he wants to see a trusts lawyer, and they will give him the name and contact information for one or more trust lawyers in his area with whom he can make an appointment. The charge is $25 for a half an hour meeting. At the end of the meeting, he can hire the lawyer or not, as he chooses.

Finally, I advise him to get started on this right away so that the disability trust is ready when the inheritance money comes, and there is no interruption of his income assistance payments.

Read More

Property Division After Separation

“Good afternoon, this is LawLINE. My name is Ted; I’m a Law LINE lawyer. Who’s calling, please?”

It’s a woman with an accent I don’t recognize. She introduces herself as “Aysi”, and she’s originally from a country in the Middle East. She has some questions about getting separated from her husband. She is articulate, but has no understanding of how to start the separation process and what the laws are in Canada regarding such matters.

They have been married twelve years, and have a five-year old child. She did not work outside the home, but as a step to independence from a marriage that was not working, she recently did some training and took steps to get a part-time job in office administration.

Aysi is especially interested in property division on separation. The family home, a two bedroom condo, is in her husband’s name solely, and her understanding is that if she leaves her husband, she will get nothing.

Not true, I tell her.

As she and her husband are legally married, the law states that each of them is presumed to have a one-half interest in every family asset, regardless of who is the registered owner. Furthermore, if she starts a divorce lawsuit, she could obtain a court order to give her temporarily the exclusive right to occupy the house with the children.

In the meantime, as she is not “on title,” she should consider protecting her interest in the home by filing a lien under the Land Spouse Protection Act.

We go on to discuss the potential role of women’s centres in helping her plan to separate and be independent. She is very relieved to understand her rights better and have a community contact at a women’s centre where she could meet other women who can help her plan her future.

Read More

Impaired Driving Charge and Driving Prohibtion

It’s Monday morning. Across the street a flag atop a neighboring office tower rolls languidly in the breeze. I log into our phone system.

The first caller is “Bob,” and it seems he got into a “situation” over the weekend. He went out to the local pub with a few buddies Saturday for a few brews. After last call, they decided that since he drank the least of all of them, he should be the one to drive everybody home.

This plan was working well until they got about three blocks from the pub. Long story short, he got pulled over by the police, and was taken to the station for a breathalyzer test. His readings were 0.12 and 0.14. The officer gave him a 90 day administrative driving prohibition and a Promise to Appear in court about one month from now.

He is mainly concerned about losing his license. His job doesn’t involve driving, but he lives in a small town area with no bus service, so it’s very awkward not to have a license. He’s not sure if he can afford a lawyer or if he stands a chance anyway. Can he get a prohibition that would still allow him to drive to and from work? What kind of penalty is he looking at if he pleads guilty? He has a clean driving record and no criminal convictions.

I inform him that the minimum penalty in B.C. is a $600 fine and a one-year driving prohibition. Unfortunately for him, there is no way to get any exceptions to the driving prohibition, whether for work or other purposes. If he is sentenced while the administrative prohibition is still in effect, the two prohibitions will overlap.

What are his chances of beating the charge? That’s not a question we can answer through this phone service. He would need to meet with a lawyer, review the fact with him or her, and inquire about fees. Only then can he do a cost / risk analysis. He can shop around a bit, as fees do vary. Since there is no realistic chance that he is facing going to jail, he would not qualify for having a lawyer paid for by Legal Aid, even if he did qualify financially.

If he doesn’t have a lawyer by the time of the court date, he should have Duty Counsel help him. Duty Counsel are lawyers who hired by Legal Aid to attend court to help people who don’t have their own lawyers. They can’t do trials for you, but they can appear with you at procedural appearances, review your case with you, give general advice, and arrange guilty pleas and appear with you on a sentencing.

As for the administrative prohibition, he is aware that he can apply for a review and possibly get it set aside. He must make his application within seven days from the date that the prohibition was issued. The grounds for review are very limited. For further details, I direct him to a fact sheet published on the website of the Office of the Superintendent of Motor Vehicles. Some lawyers handle these reviews for a fixed fee.

Bob thanks me, somewhat glumly, and we say good-bye.

Read More

Family Justice Counselors

It’s Joni calling again. I spoke to her a few weeks ago about a debt collection matter. That worked out fine, she says. She’s not getting hassled anymore about that, but now she has a new problem.

It seems that she and her former common law partner, Bruno, are not seeing eye to eye about their daughter, Roxanna, age eleven. Since they broke up about three months ago, Roxanna has been living with Joni, and Bruno has been having Roxanna over to his place every other weekend. Apparently, Bruno feels this should be increased to every weekend, since Joni has her all week. Joni thinks this is ridiculous, since during the week Joni’s at work and Roxanna’s in school. In the meantime, Bruno has been paying $250 per month child maintenance, though he did miss one month.

As it seems that Joni and Bruno can talk to each other, though they have their differences, I recommend that they take the Parenting After Separation course offered for free by the family justice department of the Ministry of the Attorney General. It’s a three-hour information session for separated parents who are dealing with child custody, guardianship, access and support issues. The idea is help parents make rational and informed decisions based on the best interests of their children.

I also recommend that they meet with a Family Justice Counselor. Family Justice Counselors are accredited mediators, and one of the things they do is to help separated parents come to agreements on custody, guardianship, access and support issues. Such agreements are legally binding and can be filed with the courts.

If they can’t work out an agreement, the other option is going to court. Hopefully this won’t be necessary, but if it starts to look like it is, she can give us a call back.

In the meantime I will mail her a booklet called “Living Common Law,” which has a section dealing with the legal issues when breaking up.

I also note that in addition to child support, she could claim spousal support. She is quite adamant that she does not want this from him, but just in case, I point out that if she changes her mind, she must file a court action within one year of the date they stopped living together.

That seems to do it for now. She thanks me for my help, and I tell her she’s very welcome.

Read More

Unpaid Wages and Severance Pay

“Punjabi, please,” says the next caller.

I put him on hold as I arrange for an interpreter to join us by conference call. After getting the interpreter’s name and ID number, I confirm with her that the conversation is strictly confidential and protected by lawyer / client confidentiality. Then I complete the three-way connection, and the interpreter and the caller introduce each other.

Rupinder was laid off from his job with a restaurant where he had been working as a dishwasher for five months. It seems that business was slow, and the owner needed to trim costs. Rupinder wasn’t totally surprised, but he did not receive any advance notice.

That’s life, he figures, but he is concerned that he hasn’t been paid for the work he’s done since his last regular paycheque. Does he have to go to court? Also, he is wondering if he is eligible for EI.

As for E.I., I tell him he probably does qualify and should go ahead and apply. He has his Record of Employment (“R.O.E.”), which is good, because the E.I. people will need to get a copy of it. I also point out that E.I. does not pay any compensation for the first two weeks of a person’s unemployment.

As for his unpaid wages, although Rupinder could pursue a claim in court for unpaid wages and severance pay, it would probably not be worthwhile to pursue this option, since his potential claim is not that big, due to his short period of service and low wage rate.

Instead, it would be far more practical for him to enforce his rights under the Employment Standards Act, which states that in B.C., employees have must be paid all outstanding wages within 48 hours of being let go, including vacation pay. Also, the Act states that “wages” includes severance pay. Employees who have worked for an employer between three months to a year must be paid an extra week’s wages as severance pay.

It’s possible that the employer intends to pay him all of this at the end of the next pay period. However, if he isn’t paid or doesn’t want to wait, he will need to get a “Self-Help kit” from the Employment Standards Branch, the government agency responsible for enforcing the Act. He should fill out the kit and deliver the demand part of it to his employer. If he does not get paid within 15 days of delivery, he can then file a complaint with the Branch.

He can get the Self-Help Kit and the complaint form from the Branch’s website or one of their offices. If he needs help completing it, we can help, or he can contact MOSIAC, a non-profit immigrant assistance society.

If the matter isn’t settled after 15 days of delivering the demand for payment, he should contact us or MOSAIC for help with taking the next step of filing a complaint with the Branch.

Read More

Credit Card Collection Blues

The voice on the line is that of a young woman, and a bit shaky. She’s clearly relieved to talk to someone, and her story tumbles out in a jumble. She’s being harassed by a collections agency. After she says her piece, I go through the facts with her methodically, and the full picture unfolds.

Her name is Joni, and until about three months ago, she was living with a guy in a “common law” relationship. He had bought furniture for the apartment using his credit card. This account was in his name solely; she was not an additional card holder. Money was tight and when they split up, he took about half of the furniture. Apparently, he let his credit card account go delinquent, and for the last several weeks, she’s been getting several phone calls a day from a “very mean and ignorant” collections agent.

She is particularly concerned because this agent says that he could have her furniture repossessed and garnish her paycheque. He says it’s as easy as filing out a form.

I tell Joni she’s not alone, and I have good news for her.

Firstly, as she was not on the credit card account, she has no responsibility for any charges on the account, even if she has some of the items purchased on it.

Secondly, the only way the credit card company could touch her personal property or wages would be to be to serve her with a lawsuit, proceed successfully to judgment, and get a court order authorizing the seizure. As she has no responsibility for the debt, there is no reasonable likelihood of this happening.

That’s a relief, but what about this jerk of a collections agent calling her all the time? I explain that she can simply deliver a letter by fax or registered mail to the agency confirming that she disputes the “debt” and that she would like them to go to court if they think they have a case (which they don’t). Under BC’s consumer protection laws, the agency is then prohibited from communicating with her anymore.

We arrange to fax her a copy of our standard letter for these situations. She thanks me and we say goodbye.

Read More