Bohdan Szewczyk v Real Estate Council of Ontario( RECO).
Defamation. Statute institution RECO in criminal co-operation with Re/Max
Defamation made by false statement, published by RECO was made on client’s Mr. Glanc false complaints which say :
a) B.Szewczyk charged him the commission of 2% - which is not true: Commission for Szewczyk was paid by Listing Broker.
b) Mr. Szewczyk offended ED GLANC name by donating to St Augene de Mazenod Church under construction $500. Mr. Ed Glanc lied to Mr. Szewczyk pretending to be Polish. Although the name Ed Glanc was immediately removed from this donation, Mr. Ed Glanc and RECO presented this non existing fact to Panel, Court of Law and published it.
c) In the Buyer Broker Agreement was a note which says that Mr. Szewczyk will pay a rebate of 1% or $4,290 to Mr. Glanc. This note is illegal: REBBA section 22 and Competition Act C 34 par. 50 and accordingly, Mr. Szewczyk refused to break the law.
Ed Glanc confirmed receiving the exclusive listing to sell his property with reduced price for real estate service to be made by Szewczyk – exactly as it was verbally agreed upon.
A commission reduction relating to the listing of a property is very normal when to state otherwise - rebate – would be the breach of Competition and REBBA Acts. After receiving the defence made by Bohdan Szewczyk, RECO fabricated its own false Statement- complaint. It was made to increase number of rules broken by Bohdan Szewczyk and by this to dupe him and Panel to make them believe they are true.
The proof of the falsity of the statement is in letter sent to RECO in answer to RECO’s lawyer Tim Snell’s letter – written by Ed Glanc on July 7, 2003
It presents obviously coaching the client Mr. Ed Glanc by RECO.
Mr. Ed Glanc repeating false complaint made by RECO -stated that he wanted to buy the property for $450,000 which is a lie. He asked for the property of ca 20 acres (AC) with the plane landing strip length of 2000 feet., for $400,000 of vacant land or with the buildings for $700,000. Mr. Ed Glanc bought is 88 AC for $429,000 – four times more land than he asked for. The land was to be horse farm so the river and already drilled well with confirmed good drinking water is a bonus. The market value of the property when bought was well over $550,000 and now is above $1,000,000. Neither Ed Glanc nor RECO complained about quality of Bohdan Szewczyk;s service in this transaction. Astonishingly, even though Ed Glanc investment of $429,000 made $1,000,000 in profit, RECO concluded that Bohdan Szewczyk did not act in his best interest! Mr. Ed Glanc and RECO (his new coach) together fabricated complaints, lied that he was not informed about disclosure of role in real estate. Client Ed Glanc refused to sign the Buyer Broker agreement.
RECO is and was well advised that the Purchaser’s Agency Agreement is and was used by large RE corporations to force unsuspected purchasers to pay huge commission when purchasers, dissatisfied with their agents - bought property privately or by use of other agent’s service. Consequently almost all solicitors of Ontario strongly advise their clients not to sign these Agreements. Privileged agents collect commission when other working with clients are getting nothing or have to pay share of their commission to buyers. (This is what was about to happen in this case) The Ontario Regulator’s Purchaser Agency Agreement has reputation among buyer’s solicitors in Ontario as been: ”HUGE CON JOB”.
Bohdan Szewczyk took a huge risk working with client without this agreement which he presented to Buyer/Ed Glanc at the initial meeting and Buyer flatly refused to sign - because of situation created by Regulators and offered to sign it when Bohdan Szewczyk will find the suitable property. The Buyer broker Agreement is the only protection RE agents have against dishonest clients. All the false complaints were defended by Mr. Szewczyk but the RECO fabricated next allegation statement totally ignoring the defence. The Panel was not told that the RECO lawyer, Tim Snell, coached and fabricated the complainant’s claim. The Panel was also not that that an Ontario Court ruled that Ed Glanc’s “Statement of Claim “ had absolutely no merit (Ed Glance v Bohdan Szewczyk 02 BN 10411, Brampton Nov. 6, 2002 case dismissed). It is clear that the RECO lawyer used the RECO statute as a vehicle to commit the fraud in the complainant’s Statement of Claim. RECO manipulated Bohdan Szewczyk, using it’s by-law allowing itself to continue the investigation and contradicted it in it’s letter presenting RECO’s limitation due to jurisdiction of the court of law. RECO and it’s lawyers, during both legal cases in Brampton and in Toronto also ignored and misused the estoppel law -did not stop investigation abusing entire justice system.
Franchisor Re/Max and franchisee Re/Max Professionals Inc. considered by Judge of Appeal of Ontario as the same company. I was one of thousands of Ontario Real Estate Agents that was “cleverly “ bilked out of commission or removed from the market making the way for Re/Max; Regulators did nothing about that. It is necessary to add to this numbers clients’ trust funds that were bilked by Re/Max. When Bohdan Szewczyk complained to the Regulators (RECO, Toronto/Ontario Association Boards, Ministry), about the case (ca $ 10,000.00), he received a distinctively hostile reaction. Bohdan Szewczyk is one of very few Real Estate Brokers in Ontario, acting as whistle blower, who went public to try and prevent the franchisor Re/Max Atlantic Canada from bilking trust monies and agents commissions. To get the attention of regulators and commissioner for Agents, Bohdan Szewczyk published in NATIONAL POST an advertisement regarding class action against the franchisor, Re/Max, run a WHITE COLLAR SCAM for years (see letter of Ed Murphy to Re/Max ), using false accounting presented to the franchisees to force them out of business. Re/Max Franchisor was sued by Federal Government for criminal offence of Competition Act for fixing the price of RE agents’ services. The case was settled out of court. However, the Federal Government made no attempt to recover lost agents commissions or clients’ deposits. Prior to Bohdan Szewczyk’s discipline hearing, he was aware that he had been “Red Flagged” to be destroyed by the Regulators because of his numbers of court cases against Re/Max Professionals and especially because of the advertisement he ran in the National Post (Court File p1-CV-212133SR and Divisional Court File No.: 287/02, in Toronto and 01-BN-5451 in Brampton).
Many of most influential Regulators in RECO have been or are currently on the Re/Max franchisor payroll, as is the Director, DAVID ROSSI, and therefore RECO Regulators have at no time ever tried to prevent the Re/Max franchisor White Collar scams in Ontario, from acting similar way to the SARBONES-OXLEY I AVCT in USA. It is impossible in the Province of Ontario because of this collusion (conflict of interest). No regulator was willing or could stand behind these false Reasons for Decision in the Court of Law in Ontario.
RECO breached Bohdan Szewczyk’s human rights by refusing to respect a doctor’s opinion and postpone the hearing and instead carried on in pure execution-like style.
As a result, Bohdan Szewczyk was not allowed to defend himself during the hearing nor was he allowed to make the appeal. RECO acted in very vindictive way towards Bohdan Szewczyk. His penalty is from 4 to 10 times higher than agents associated with Re/Max. defamation made by RECO about Bohdan Szewczyk, has resulted in a completely destroyed business, “Bohdan Szewczyk Real Estate Broker”. Forty years of work, 20 years as Expert in engineering and 20 years in Real estate in Canada came to an end. His reputation is destroyed and the damage is beyond repair. The false statements are a vicious and vindictive attack on Bohdan Szewczyk. This was a very personal act, as his name was always used in publications located on internet (GOOGLE, YAHOO, ZOOMINFO). This placement on internet constituted the widest possible dissemination of grievous allegations of professional misconduct that were yet to be tested in a court of law – were the case against him was dismissed. Their comments were made in language that portrayed Bohdan Szewczyk in the worst possible way. This was neither necessary nor appropriate in the existing circumstances. Prior to the commencement of the hearing of the complaint in the pre – hearing meeting, RECO was aware of the falsity of the allegations.
Now watch it :
Bohdan Szewczyk v RECO - Court file No.: 05-CV-297852-PDI
Plaintiff Bohdan Szewczyk filed the statement of Claim on 3 October 2005
The Defendant’s lawyer, Stieber Berlach LLP, send the letter November 01, 2005 - and representing the INSURANCE COMPANY in defence of Defendant REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO (RECO) as IS INSURED and Bohdan Szewczyk as Claimant .
Defendant (RECO and Insurance Company – no name released by the lawyer) filed the Note of Intent to Defend - 1 November 2006
Defendant did not file The Statement of Defence in accordance to the Rules of Court Procedure - and is noted as being in default.
The Defendant / Lawyer after being Noted in Default – send and filed the letter dated 12 December 2005 – as the lawyer acting directly in the defence of RECO and promised to bring the MOTION TO STRIKE OUT THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM
The Plaintiff is filing The Motion for the Summary Judgment because the DEFENDANT is in Default
On the hearing on 13 day of January 2006, The Honourable Court postponed the hearing till 10 of April 2005.
The Defendant, RECO, filed the Motion to strike the Statement of Claim as disclosing no reasonable cause of action which has no Affidavit signed and sworn by RECO and as such is simply pure fiction. The defendant repeated the false information created by RECO during the administration process.
It was Bohdan Szewczyk’s intention to cross examine the member (staff) of RECO on the affidavit for the motion. However, no member of the staff from RECO was prepared to sign and be sworn on their allegation in affidavit.
The Plaintiff filed Respond to the Motion made by Defendant on 5th day of April 2006
On The 10 April 2006, the Registrar of the court established plan:
Plaintiff Bohdan Szewczyk will present his Motion for the Summary Judgment
During 20 min followed by 20 min presentation by defendant the Motion to strike out the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim (never presented in the court.)
Trial Proceeding: before The Honourable Jastice Madam H. SACHS
Justice ignored the plan of Registrar of the Court, did not allow Plaintiff to present his Motion for the Summary Judgment and order to start with Defendant Motion to Strike out the Statement of Claim allowing Plaintiff, Bohdan Szewczyk 10 min to respond to the defendant Motion. The Lawyer, Mr.Perreira, repeated all false statement published by RECO supporting it with huge number of law cases which all were disqualified by Justice SACHS as not relevant to the case. Justice SACHS said: “I think there is whole line of cases around that deal specifically with claims made against administrative tribunals who have sought to discipline individual members and those members have alleged that they suffered damages by virtue of the way in which their complaints were handled”. There are the cases and they support Mr. Szewczyk’s position. Mr. Perreira also made false statement accusing the Plaintiff’s claim as frivolous, vexatious, with no real reasonable cause of action and lack of particulars. He did not supported this statement by facts - but made its wording as copy of Rules of Legal: Rule No. 21 and Rule No. 25. He did not mention that the same case between the same parties was in the court In Brampton - Court File No 01-BN -5451 - and that the Statement of Claim made by client Ed Glanc was dismissed and Bohdan Szewczyk was found innocent of any wrongdoing. Although RECO admitted wrongdoings by not presenting the statement of defence and Madam Justice SACHS acknowledged that fact, she, however, stated in her endorsement that “RECO has immunity from actions against it for damages for any act, neglect or default completed in good faith in the performance of its duties or the exercise of its powers “. … “However, even if it could be read as doing so, the other reasons given justify granting the relief requested”. This endorsement was sent to Bohdan Szewczyk on 13 April 2006 – which is a anniversary date of crusifixon of Jezus- which is unmistaken gesture to pin point who Mr. Ed Glanc and Madam Justice Sachs are and that the civil and professional death penalty served to Bohdan Szewczyk was not made by accident.
Because Justice SACHS erred in law and fact in failing to find that the Defendant RECO was acting in this case beyond the boundary of the statute, and broke the statute itself by: a) breaking the law of Real Estate Business
b) committing forgery by fabricating false document,
c) coaching the client Ed Glanc,
d) placed the false statement on world wide internet (GOOGLE)– creating the biggest case of DEFAMATION in Canadian history,
e) Fabricating false complaint - by this forgery - has no immunity of statute.. (REBBA –sc. 22 and Competition Act par. 50 and 45, criminal code par 366)
Bohdan Szewczyk filed the Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeal for Ontario. Main body of appeal is Defamation caused by false statement and new creative activity of Organized Crime. In this case, one of the main player on the real estate market Re/Max created with RECO in fact is an undercover new organized corporation Re/Max/RECO, which is personalized by permanent director of RECO Mr. David Rossi who is also associated with Re/Max.
Serious doubt to the statute privileged institutions and persons were lately presented in Canadian media: UNTOUCHABLE
The book, “The Sixth Family” says that the Police in Quebec believe that the lawyers have been involved in money laundering, the setting up the shell companies, fraudulently obtaining official documents and accessing individual details.
Police also believe lawyers have offered their phone lines and opened cellphone accounts in their names, allowing crime associates to conduct business in their offices out of earshot of the police wiretaps.
Lawyer and former Crown attorney, Peter Shoniker (Untouchable) was sentenced in September 2006 for money laundering and theft over $5,000 – he got 15 months jail term.
Police have no alternative but to lunch sting operations like they made on Simon Rosenfeld, the only other Toronto lawyer to be convicted of money laundering. He told the uncovered RCMP officers that it was “20 times safer to be lawyer involved in this activity “ in Canada compared to the US because of lax rules and regulations. A former justice of peace, George Radjocic, 47, of Niagara Falls will serve two years less a day of house arrest after pleading guilty to money laundering. Toronto Star