Law BC man ordered to pay PayPal $2,000 after fabricating human rights complaint

Destacado

BC man ordered to pay PayPal $2,000 after fabricating human rights complaint​

Bogus complaint costs man​

Colin Dacre - Dec 27, 2020 / 5:51 pm | Story: 320358
screen_shot_2020-12-27_at_5.47.51_pm_p3500995.jpg

Photo: The Canadian Press
A B.C. man has been ordered to pay PayPal Canada $2,000 after falsely accusing the company of racial discrimination in a human rights complaint.
In a complaint to the BC Human Rights Tribunal earlier this year, Sandeep Sull accused a PayPal customer service representative of racial discrimination during a phone call, claiming he was called a “damn Paki” by the agent.
PayPal, however, records its calls with customers. A recording of the call in question shows that no PayPal employee called Sull a slur or said “anything else that could be remotely connected to his race and colour,” according to a decision from the BC Human Rights Tribunal.
Emails Sull sent to PayPal lawyers would reveal his true motives for filing the human rights complaint.
“This has been fun,” Sull said in his email, gloating that the human rights complaint cost him nothing to file.
“By going this route first for 0$ cost I got to increase the fees on PayPal’s shoulders. Of course for any judgement not in my favour I would appeal and etc (sic) and keep milking costs on you before going to small claims."
The background of Sull’s dispute with PayPal was not discussed in the tribunal’s decision which ordered him to pay PayPal $2,000 for abusing the system.
Tribunal member Devyn Cousineau said it is clear that Sull did not file his complaint because he believed he was discriminated against.
“Rather, his intention was to take advantage of the tribunal’s low barrier process, with no filing fees and little financial risk, to increase the time and expense that PayPal had to incur in responding to his allegations,” Cousineau ruled. “He knew that small claims [court] was the proper forum for the dispute.”
Cousineau said the deliberate misuse of the tribunal’s “scarce resources is serious.”
PayPal sought $5,000 for the bogus complaint, the approximate cost of legal fees in the matter, but Cousineau instead ordered Sull to pay $2,000. The tribunal noted that the complaint was easily dismissed due to PayPal’s phone recordings, which minimized the waste of public resources.

---

This is the same court that threw out Yaniv's case a couple of years back.
 
Presiona para expandir...
It's not a court, it's a tribunal which has even less legal standing and to get a judgement like this you essentially need to abuse the system to the point of wasting everybody's time.
If he didn't brag about misusing the tribunal's resources and wasn't fabricating the entire thing, he likely wouldn't have even faced a fine.
It's not a "win" or anything logical, it's just some retard paying a fine for playing lawyer.
 
so paypal v. fraudster? I love it when no matter who loses, we win.
 
his intention was to take advantage of the tribunal’s low barrier process, with no filing fees and little financial risk
Presiona para expandir...

Almost like that's the problem in the first place. The Canuckistan "human rights" tribunal is designed to be abused.

PayPal sought $5,000 for the bogus complaint, the approximate cost of legal fees in the matter, but Cousineau instead ordered Sull to pay $2,000.
Presiona para expandir...

LOL. Of course the dumb Yaniv-pandering cunt didn't even make the guy pay real restitution.
 
It seems like Cousineau is realizing that having no financial barriers to filing complaints means her desk gets filled with vexatious time-wasting garbage like this and Yaniv. She's got to be eyeing retirement real hard.
 
While it never made the news I've had these customers before. Not complaining about racial slurs or anything, they tended to be overwhelmingly white, but demanding a certain amount in compensation because they know it's less than the cost of any actual legal processes and they confirm that's the reason for it either in emails or on recorded calls thinking there is no way for them to lose.
Most companies will take them to court at that point. Because if the customer does it once and get what they want they'll probably do it again or encourage others to do so to the same company at which point the savings gap is rather different. And when you have stated in a legally usable medium that you know you have no case for your demands most courts take one look at that and have the case out of the door fairly swiftly. Still a loss to the company but when people confirm they're blackmailing you it's probably best to take the monetary hit to get rid of utterly tactless grifters.

That said in this case not awarding more in terms of costs seems unreasonable but I do not know the finer details of how costs can be awarded by these tribunals. That he not only lied, confirmed he knew it was a lie and did it deliberately to cost the company more makes it seem like they should be throwing the book as hard as they can to discourage this sort of thing. Might be a limitation of the tribunal...ah there we go, link to the documents. First a quick bit of clarity about how Sull feels they could have avoided him lying about racism and taking that lie to the tribunal. Namely by the instant he threatened it giving him exactly what he wanted.

"PayPal argues that, by fabricating this allegation, Mr. Sull has engaged in improper conduct warranting an award of costs under s. 37(4) of the Human Rights Code . Mr. Sull opposes the application on the basis that PayPal could have avoided incurring any legal costs by simply releasing his funds to him and that he would not have filed a human rights complaint if he had known there was a prospect he would be required to pay costs."

And the reason they only gave $2000 appears to be "wah Covid";

"Mr. Sull says that he does not have the financial means to pay this amount. He explains that he is a small business owner who is struggling to support his family during the pandemic. He argues he should not be required to incur the legal fees of a large corporation which could have avoided incurring those fees by simply releasing his funds."
"In my view, an award of $2,000 is appropriate. As I have said, Mr. Sull’s conduct was flagrant and a serious abuse of this Tribunal’s process. I condemn it in the strongest possible terms. At the same time, I take into account that the complaint was dismissed at an early stage of the Tribunal’s process, based on evidence that was readily available to PayPal which proved that the allegation was untrue. This has minimized the waste of resources and distinguishes this case from those where the complaint has proceeded to a full hearing on the merits. I also accept Mr. Sull’s submission that he would struggle to pay a higher award. While I acknowledge that he has not submitted evidence to support this assertion, I take notice of the impact that COVID‐19 has had on small businesses and families. I accept that a large costs award would impose hardship on Mr. Sull. An award of $2,000 should signal this Tribunal’s condemnation of his conduct and deter him, and others, from engaging in similar misconduct in the future."[/Code]
 
Destacado
Debes iniciar sesión o registrarte para responder aquí.
Atrás
Top Abajo