RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Cancel Xmas PartiesUnder the rules of Civil Procedure, in order to make a valid claim for fraud, you need to file a Sworn Affidavit from a Certified Fraud Examiner stating that based on their examination of the relevant documents it is their expert opinion that they fraudulently altered the document prior to the hearing which caused you material damages; otherwise, it's just your word against theirs and the judge will toss out the allegation. I didn't see any sworn affidavit anywhere. I don't see a police detective's statement stating they thought fraud occured either. All I saw was an email threatening them, which holds no weight in court, especially if the guy you claim committed the fraud skipped the province and won't show up in court or will deny the allegations in court. You need expert testimony in court to prove this guy committed fraud for it to stick. So, SOX's claim that this point is frivolous is what the judge will most likely rule.
As far as shoddy work, if SOX is claiming "deficiencies and rework", that's usually words that come from an Electrical Safety Authority Inspector employed by the province after applying for a permit. All SOX has to do is show their deficiency report from an ESA inspector to prove the deficiencies. The judge is not going to allow you to debate the merits of a deficiency report issued from a government agency. SOX also has a paper trail that they paid another company to redo the work as they claim in their SOD. Why would a judge think it's unreasonable for SOX to hire another company to redo the work if the first company didn't do it right and a deficiency report was issued? Not only that, CEO LeMay is a licensed electrician so his opinion is also relevant as to why SOX needed to switch electrical subcontractors.
While I don't know exactly what the deficiencies are, I have seen virtually blind electricians try to connect 12 gauge and 14 gauge armored cable to the same circuit only to have an inspector point it out, so I know how aggravating it can be to not want to have the same electrician rework bad work. Not saying it happened here because I haven't seen the report, but if there were enough deficiencies it would sound reasonable for the CEO who is also a licensed electrician to want to switch subcontractors.
If I go to SOX's website and look at all the projects they've completed, my first impression is that SOX has more credibility in claiming the lawsuit is frivolous than you claiming it has merit. And without seeing any sworn affidavits from experts suggesting SOX is in the wrong here or rulings against SOX by a judge or even criminal charges laid, I find it hard to reach a conclusion that SOX would loose this lawsuit.
Doggedness wrote: Amazing you're only taking verbatim from their defence, not my claim. Secret profit means taking my document, changing the date, the description, and the dollar amount and then submitting to the client. This document has my signature on it and letterhead. This was written in my claim but I see you didn't read it.
as far as shoddy work, they're going to have to prove it.
In my statement of claim, I mention there are many alterations. That is fact! And I'm not talking chump change. There is so much more than what's written in the documents. 6 years of document exchange will do that.
The guy that forged my document should've been fired on the spot. He was kept on with the company for many months! SICK!
now ask yourself why this is taking so long?