Law Society of Upper Canada - (LSUC)

THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR ONTARIO

Claim No. 07-CV-331812 PD3

AMENDED STATEMENT OF DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM

COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT: FORM 27B

B E T W E E N :

CIBC TRUST CORPORATION, (Trustee, for Mr. Toby Ezer (“CIBC”)
Plaintiff of Statement of Claim

- and -

CLARK, ROBERT NEIL and BRUNET-CLARK, ROXANE (“RNC”) (“RBC”)
Defendants, Statement of Claim (“Clark’s”)

A N D B E T W E E N :

CLARK, ROBERT NEIL and BRUNET-CLARK, ROXANE (“RNC”) (“RBC”)
Plaintiffs, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim (“Clark’s”)

- and -

CIBC TRUST CORPORATION, (Trustee, for Mr. Toby Ezer) (“CIBC”)
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

- and -

MR. AND MRS. TOBY EZER, AND MS. EZER (“EZER”)
Defendants, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

- and -

THE LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA (“LSUC”)
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

- and -

ZEPPIERI & ASSOCIATES, LLP (“Zeppieri”)
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

- and -

ZEPPIERI, Enio, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP (“Enio Zeppieri”)
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

- and -

GRYGUC, Gregory, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP (“Gryguc”)
SERINO, Rose, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP (“Serino”)
HASSELFIELD, Avril, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP (“Hasselfield”)
OLSTHOORN, Lora, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP (“Olstrhoorn”)
HAMID, Theresa, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP (“Hamid”)
ROMBIS, Pearl, (Zeppieri), Dutton Brock, LLP (“Rombis”)
Defendants, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

TO: Plaintiffs, Statement of Claim

AND TO: Defendants, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

A LEGAL PROCEEDING has been commenced against you by the way of a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim in an action in the Superior Court for Justice for Ontario.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS COUNTERCLAIM, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a defence to counterclaim in Form 27C prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff by counterclaim’s lawyer or, where the plaintiff by counterclaim does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff by counterclaim, and file it, with proof of service, in this court, within Mr. Graham’s deadline set as October 26, 2007 from all parties, after this statement of defence and counterclaim is served to you (listed above in case title) on or before September 28, 2007.

If you are not already a party to the main action and you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your defence is forty (40) days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty (60) days.

If you are not already a party to the main action, instead of serving and filing a defence to counterclaim, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten (10) more days within which to serve and file your defence to counterclaim.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS COUNTERCLAIM, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

IF YOU PAY THE AMOUNT OF THE COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST YOU, and $1.00 for costs, within the time for serving and filing your defence to counterclaim, you may move to have the counterclaim against you dismissed by the court. If you believe the amount claimed for costs is excessive, you may pay the amount of the counterclaim and $400 for costs and have the costs assessed by the court.

Date: September 24th 2007 Issued By: Superior Court Registrar

DATE: September 24th 2007, Served by: Robert Neil Clark and Roxane Brunet-Clark, Defendants, Statement of Claim

SERVED TO: Plaintiff, Statement of Claim

SERVED TO: Defendants, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

TO: Ron Palleschi, Barrister & Solicitor, for CIBC Trust Corporation
Trustee for Mr. Toby Ezer
155 Rexdale Blvd., Suite 602, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M9V 5Z8
Tel: 416-745-7313 / Fax: 416-745-1533

c.c.: Mr. and Mrs. Toby Ezer, and Ms. Ezer

TO: The Law Society of Upper Canada
c/o Avram Herschel Gross
130 Queen Street West, Osgoode Hall, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 2N6
Tel: 1-800-668-7380 or 416-947-3300 / Fax: 416-947-5263 / Email: lawsociety@lsuc.on.ca

TO: Pearl Rombis
Dutton Brock LLP
438 University Avenue, Suite 1700, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5G 2L9
Tel: 416-593-4411 / Fax: 416-593-5922 / Email: prombis@duttonbrock.com

TO: Zeppieri & Associates, LLP
851 Wilson Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3K 1E6
Tel: 416-631-9811 / Fax: 416-631-6170
c.c: Enio Zeppieri, Rose Serino, Theresa Hamid, Avril Hasselfield, Lora Olsthoorn, Greg Gryguc

This Statement of Defence and Counterclaim is comprehensive thus it includes brief definitions of laws and rules, the Defendants of Claim, Plaintiffs of Counterclaim will rely on. This is to benefit the Defendants understandings of the laws and rules for representation by unrepresented Defendants to the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario.

Case Reference No. 04-CV-274206 SR - Zeppieri & Associates, LLP -v- Robert Neil Clark and Roxane Brunet-Clark

Case Reference No. 01-CV-211325 – Robert Neil Clark -v- Equifax Canada Inc. and the Bank of Nova Scotia (“Equifax”) (“Scotiabank”) = (“original Defendants”)

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

WE, ROBERT NEIL CLARK AND ROXANE BRUNET-CLARK, MAKE OATH AND SAY:

[1] The Clark’s dispute paragraphs 1 and 5. The Clark’s did not receive 2nd mortgage funds as granted by the CIBC in order to pay off their creditors as it was arranged at a meeting with Zeppieri on August 12, 2002.

[2] The Clark’s dispute paragraph 2. The Clark’s did not receive information regarding Mr. and/or Mrs. Toby Ezer and/or Ms. Ezer and did not know that a Mr. and/or Mrs. Toby Ezer and/or Ms. Ezer were involved.

[3] The Clark’s dispute paragraph 3. The Clark’s do not reside in the Municipality of York.

[4] The Clark’s dispute paragraphs 4, 6 and 7. The Clark’s did not receive a copy of the mortgage documents; thus, did not know the particulars of the mortgage granted by the CIBC. The Clark’s received these documents from the LSUC, 56 ½ months later, August 2002 to May 2007 (9 months after the mortgage default). LSUC’s investigation should have been completed in late 2005 (within a timely and open manner).

[5] The Clark’s do not dispute paragraph 5. The principle was paid down to $24,000.00 in December 2004.

[6] The Clark’s do not dispute paragraph 8. The Clark’s unjustly received the Notice of Sale under Mortgage.

[7] The Clark’s do not dispute paragraph 9. The Clark’s could not return mortgage funds they did not receive.

[8] The Clark’s dispute paragraph 10. The Clark’s can not afford to defend themselves in the City of Toronto as they reside with their children at the mortgaged property, 40 Hewitt Crescent, Ajax. The Region of Durham’s Superior Court is located in the Town of Whitby (which has free parking and is only a ten-minute drive from the Clark’s home). The Clark’s can not afford the transportation nor parking costs that would be incurred in the City of Toronto should this trial become a lengthy one. The Clark’s request that all actions be tried at the Superior Court in Whitby, in the Region of Durham, Ontario, Canada.

[9] The Statement of Claim, dated April 25, 2007, refers to CIBC as being the Plaintiff on the title but the back page refers to Ron Palleschi as being the counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Toby Ezer. The Clark’s were told by Linda Tran of CIBC that “the CIBC would not litigate this matter against you and that any litigation would be up to Toby Ezer.” The Clark’s request the precise naming of the plaintiff(s) and the counsel(s) to be listed on the Statement of Claim. The Clark’s do not know a Mr. Toby Ezer or his full connection with this case and the Clark’s did not know the name Toby Ezer until Nov 18 2002 when it was discovered in a CIBC letter.

[10] The Clark’s anticipate this to be a lengthy litigation in order for them to explain the long, complex history and the mishandling of the Clark’s and their 2nd mortgage funds being held by Zeppieri This apparent misappropriation of the Clark’s’ funds was seemingly used to financially bind the RNC and then RBC to Zeppieri. The Clark’s’ funds ended up in the possession of, and for the benefit, of Zeppieri. The Clark’s believe that they have suffered grievous damages at the hands of Zeppieri and Enio Zeppieri, particularly, through words, actions, in-actions and errors in the handling of their original lawsuit (see Clark v. Equifax and Scotiabank, Case 01-CV-211325). (i.e. identity theft, invasion of privacy, defamation of character, discrimination, negligence and lack of fiduciary duty) with Equifax, Scotiabank (and others who were not listed as defendants and/or witnesses). Zeppieri, was retained in January 2001 and had full use of payments and the Clark’s 2nd mortgage funds since August 12 2002.

[10.1] Enio Zeppieri/Zeppieri underwrote, mishandled and distorted the presentation of the Statement of Claim.

[10.2] Enio Zeppieri allowed or promoted the creation of delays in civil procedures;
(i.e. The original claim, their Defences, the Discoveries, the November Trial, the Cost meeting and Appeal)

[10.3] Enio Zeppieri assigned the preparation and attendance of Discoveries to a newly-hired associate, Rombis who left Zeppieri after only 5-6 months employment. Rombis was hired in February 2002 and Rombis disappeared in July 2002 with the Discoveries held just before leaving, on June 3rd, 4th and then 10th 2002.

[10.4] Enio Zeppieri only allowed his help with the Clark’s 1st mortgage renewal to finance legal costs seeking justice if the Clark’s signed a $40,631.00 Consented Judgement, stating that it be shown in cost meeting.

[11] The Clark’s were very disappointed and felt betrayed by the breach of contract and trust with Zeppieri and Enio Zeppieri, particularly. RNC reluctantly had to continue to be represented by Zeppieri, as he could not afford to “hire” a new lawyer and law firm to represent them and to “fire” Zeppieri without losing all their funds/monies paid to Zeppieri including: (a) a $400.00 (cash) retainer paid in January 2001; (b) $5,998.92 (credit card) paid between May 23, 2001 and June 7, 2002; and (c) $21,000.00 taken directly by Zeppieri from the CIBC 2nd mortgage funds; and (d) the $26,000.00 mortgage held by the CIBC that RNC is stuck with. The total amount is $53,398.92 for the “services rendered” from April 16, 2001 to August 12, 2002. The Clark’s have no money left to retain another lawyer or law firm to represent them in all three lawsuits.

[12] At the first meeting in January 2001 between the Defendant (RNC) and Enio Zeppieri, Mr. Zeppieri told the Defendant, “I will take on your case pro bono, but, I would need a few thousand dollars to pay for disbursements, so that they do not come directly out of my pocket!” Enio Zeppieri also said that he would, “litigate the case personally due to the nature of the litigation and in order to keep the costs down” as told by Enio Zeppieri, related to a family member of RNC, thus giving RNC thoughts of a trust. Enio Zeppieri assured RNC that he “had a big case” and that he would, “win the case for him and for them”. RNC thought that Enio Zeppieri’s verbal contract seemed fair and so RNC agreed to retain Enio Zeppieri to represent him against Equifax and Scotiabank (as RNC had no more money to take or fight case in Court). RNC left that initial January 2001 meeting feeling a bond of trust had been established with Enio Zeppieri.

[13] Enio Zeppieri requested $3,000.00 by June 2001 (RNC thought that this amount would be all that would be needed) but Mr. Zeppieri requested another $3,000.00 by June 2002 (RNC, once again thought that this amount would be all that would be needed). Two months later, Enio Zeppieri had apparently misdirected $21,000 from the 2nd mortgage funds in August 2002. And, for continued help with lawsuit, Enio Zeppieri forced the Clark’s to sign a consented $40,631.00 Judgement against themselves in July 2004. Zeppieri’s created $94,029.92 in legal costs for the unexplained, undocumented, unjustified legal fees, disbursements.

[14] The Clark’s allege that CIBC Trust Corporation (CIBC) has performed the following:

[14.1] Fundamental Breach of Contract Contract Law; and

[14.2] Breach of Fiduciary Duty Negligence.

The CIBC mortgage was under contract between the Clark’s and the Ezer's, thus, when the Clark’s requested a closure of the mortgage because of apparent misappropriation of funds, CIBC had a fiduciary duty to close the mortgage and start an investigation to protect the mortgagor(s) and the mortgagee(s) from litigation. CIBC should have closed the mortgage and retracted the funds from Zeppieri after the CIBC was told the mortgage funds were diverted and used by Zeppieri instead of the purposes of the 2nd mortgage that was previously arranged. RNC informed Linda Tran and Giai Tran, of CIBC, in several phone calls and in a letter, to inform the Ezer’s of the circumstances. An investigation should have (and it would have) been completed before the mortgage was defaulted and before this Statement of Claim nuisance.

[15] The Clark’s allege that Mr. and Mrs. Toby Ezer and Ms. Ezer (EZER’s) have performed a:

[15.1] Fundamental Breach of Contract Contract Law; and

[15.2] Breach of Fiduciary Duty Negligence.

If and when the CIBC informed Mr. and Mrs. Toby Ezer, and/or Ms. Ezer, as RNC had insisted in several telephone calls to Linda Tran and Giai Tran of the CIBC, that the 2nd mortgage funds were apparently misappropriated by Zeppieri and that the funds were not being applied for the original purpose for which the mortgage had been taken out. The 2nd mortgage was under a contract between the Clark’s and the Ezer’s, therefore, if the Clark’s requested the closure of their mortgage, The Ezer’s had a fiduciary duty to close mortgage and request that CIBC to investigate the apparent misappropriation of the mortgage funds.

[16] The Clark’s allege that the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) has performed:

[16.1] Breach of Contract Contract Law;

[16.2] Anticipatory Breach of Contract (Promise) Contract Law;

[16.3] Fundamental Breach of Contract (Distress) Contract Law;

[16.4] Breach of Fiduciary Duty Negligence;

[16.5] Deception Criminal Law;

[16.6] Conspiracy Criminal Law;

[16.7] Perverting the Course of Justice Criminal Law;

[16.8] Abuse of Process Dignitary Torts;

[16.9] Breach of the Law Society Act Rule 4.1 - Function of the Society…

…it is a function of the Society to ensure that, (a) all persons who practise law in Ontario or provide legal services in Ontario meet standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct that are appropriate for the legal services they provide; and (b) the standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct for the provision of a particular legal service in a particular area of law apply equally to persons who practise law in Ontario and persons who provide legal services in Ontario. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 7…; and

[16.10] Breach of the Law Society Act Rule 4.2 - Principles to be applied…

…in carrying out its functions, duties and powers under this Act, the Society shall have regard to the following principles:

1. The Society has a duty to maintain and advance the cause of justice and the rule of law.

2. The Society has a duty to act so as to facilitate access to justice for the people of Ontario.

3. The Society has a duty to protect the public interest.

4. The Society has a duty to act in a timely, open and efficient manner.

5. Standards of learning, professional competence and professional conduct for licensees and restrictions on who may provide particular legal services should be proportionate to the significance of the regulatory objectives sought to be realized. 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 7…

The LSUC received numerous telephone complaints about Zeppieri from RNC on May 4, 2005, and others at times, thereafter, regarding: (a) Enio Zeppieri’s and Serino’s cancelling of transcripts and appeal; (b) past events regarding the case; (c) actions and in-actions on the part of Enio Zeppieri and his six associates throughout the case; (d) Rombis’ handling of the Discoveries (and its subsequent interruption when she left Zeppieri’s employment); (e) an unexplained interruption when Hasselfield joined and left the case; (f) the abandonment by Olsthoorn on the actual Trial day; (g) Gryguc’s reappearance at Trial from day one; (h) the apparent misappropriation of the Clark’s’ mortgage funds; (i) the many falsehoods and deceptions by Enio Zeppieri, Serino and Hamid (including prior knowledge that the mortgage funds would be in their possession, available for unapproved benefit, of Zeppieri; (j) Serino/Zeppieri’s deflection of the Clark’s’ complaints and having to deal with and retell the case history to so many associates assigned to the case by Enio Zeppieri”.

The LSUC acknowledged the complaints regarding Enio Zeppieri’s apparent neglect of fiduciary duty and other misappropriate behaviours (but not about his associates) on May 19, 2005 and then assigned that complaint case with the Martin Sclisizzi (Scotiabank lawyer) complaint case to Jessica Kowalski (LSUC) of the LSUC Complaints Department on May 25, 2005. The Clark’s naively expected to receive the truth from the results obtained by LSUC’s open investigation within in a “timely, open and efficient manner”. On several occasions, Kowalski stalled RNC and then RBC, to not bring the matter of the apparent misappropriation of the 2nd mortgage funds to the attention of the police and she made, and broke - several promises to have the investigation “completed” before the Clark’s went to the police themselves. The Clark’s never received an investigation report from the 19 month LSUC investigation as Jessica Kowalski left the LSUC in November 2006. Caroline Feeley, LSUC, took over the investigation on November 28, 2006 and “closed” the now 26 month LSUC investigation on June 29, 2007 after the Clark’s had to defend themselves against this Claim and subsequently forced to submit the original (rejected) Statement of Defence and Counterclaim for this case. If the LSUC completed their investigation in a “timely, open and efficient manner”, the Clark’s would have had many recognizable instances of evidence that would have helped their case (i.e. proof of multiple professional misconducts) before the Appeal date of original case and would have allowed RNC to call for a retrial of the Case 01-CV-211325 and subsequently the Clark’s untruly Consented Judgement 04-CV-274206 SR annulled.

[17] The Clark’s allege that Zeppieri is individually named in title and also performed as one single entity:

[17.1] By means of Contract Law: (Grounds for allegations in Part [18] Breach of the Law Society Act and [20] Rules of Professional Misconducts): Breach of Contract; Anticipatory Breach of Contract; Fundamental Breach of Contract (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc, Rombis).

[17.2] By means of Negligence: (Grounds for allegations in Part [18] Breach of the Law Society Act and [20] Rules of Professional Misconducts): Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Breach of Standard of Care, Infliction of Emotional Distress, Gross Negligence and Eggshell Skull Rule (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc, Rombis).

[17.3] By means of Criminal Law: (Grounds for allegations in Part [18] Breach of the Law Society Act and [20] Rules of Professional Misconducts): Deceptions and Frauds (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc, Rombis); Thefts and Extortion (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid); Conspiracy (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc, Rombis); Perjury (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri); Perverting the Course of Justice (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc, Rombis); Obstruction of Justice (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Gryguc, Rombis).

[17.4] By means of Trust Law: (Grounds for allegations in Part [18] Breach of the Law Society Act and [20] Rules of Professional Misconducts): Breach of Resulting Trust and Breach of Constructive Trust (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc, Rombis).

[17.5] By means of Tort Law: (Grounds for allegations in Part [18] Breach of the Law Society Act and [20] Rules of Professional Misconducts): Detinue sur Trover and Detinue sur Bailment (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri).

[17.6] By means of Dignitary Tort: (Grounds for allegations in Part [18] Breach of the Law Society Act and [20] Rules of Professional Misconducts): Breach of Confidence (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc, Rombis); Abuse of Process (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc, Rombis); Malicious Prosecution (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc); and Intentional Emotional Distress (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc, Rombis).

[17.7] By means of Economic Tort: Grounds for allegations in Part [18] Breach of the Law Society Act and [20] Rules of Professional Misconducts): Fraud and Conspiracy (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid).

[17.8] By means of numerous apparent violations of the Law Society Act and Law Society Rules of Professional Misconducts: (Zeppieri, Enio Zeppieri, Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc, Rombis).

[18] The Clark’s alleges Enio Zeppieri and Zeppieri’s professional competence and conduct had become a:

[18.1] Breach of the LSUC Act – Rule 33 - A licensee shall not engage in professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a licensee… 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 29.

Enio Zeppieri: (a) did not communicate appropriately and told many untruths in his words (which opposed his actions); (b) kept 30, or more, law suit correspondences secret from RNC (from December 6, 2001 to February 28, 2002); (c) told the Clark’s to lie to Jack Rosati on August 12, 2002 about the title search; (d) apparently misdirected, misapplied and/or misappropriated the CIBC 2nd mortgage funds; (e) did not submit the Clark’s signed Settlement Offer from original Defendants during original Trial on December 17, 2003; (f) apparently misdirected, misapplied and/or misappropriated the Maple Trust Corporation 1st mortgage funds; (g) required the Clark’s to initial several of Enio Zeppieri “illegible” and “backdated” notes; (h) cancelled the Appeal and the transcripts telling the Clark’s an untruth about “it being too late to appeal”; (i) tampered a letter written by RNC and submitted said tampered letter to the Court of Appeal on November 23, 2006; (j) submitted a letter referring to his tampering of RNC’s letter to LSUC; and (k) did not organize evidence given by RNC into a precise timeline of events for the Court which would have provided crucial aid for understanding RNC’s 13+ years of complex history with Equifax and Scotiabank.

[18.2] Breach of the Law Society Act – Rule 41 (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (b) - A licensee fails to meet standards of professional competence for the purposes of this Act… 2006, c. 21, Sched. C, s. 37.

Enio Zeppieri: (a) kept correspondence and legal documents secret from defendant (b) kept the November 12, 2003 courtroom appearance with Justice Kimmel secret from RNC); (c) did not communicate and not appropriately at times (telling many untruths with his words opposing his actions); and (d) would not release original case files to RNC so that RNC could continue the course of that litigation to obtain justice. (e) kept original case files and made it difficult for RNC to win appeal to pay true costs of Zeppieri, if any. (f) Zeppieri lacked fiduciary duty in obtaining key evidence and (g) in subpoenaing key witnesses; (h) Gryguc witnessed the Clark’s sign a Settlement Offer and Enio Zeppieri refused to submit said Offer; (i) Olsthoorn breached professional competence by appearing at the Pre-Trial and then by not appearing at the Trial; (j) Hasselfield breached professional competence by appearing and then leaving the case and/or Zeppieri’s employ eight months later; (k) Hamid would not release the August 2002 mortgage documents that showed an apparent misappropriation of mortgage funds; (l) Serino constantly deflected most of the communications and complaints from the Clark’s away from Enio Zeppieri; (m) Rombis breached her professional competence by her handling of Discoveries during her seven-month employment at Zeppieri.

[19] The Clark’s allege much professional misconducts committed by Enio Zeppieri and his associates, and therefore, the Clark’s rely upon the Law Society’s Rules of Professional Conduct and will acclaim the:

[19.1] Law Society Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 1.01 – Citation;

[19.2] Law Society Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 1.02 – Definitions;

[19.3] Law Society Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 1.03 (1) - Standards of the Legal Profession; and

[19.4] Law Society Rules of Professional Conduct - Rule 1.03 (2) - General Principles.

[20] The Clark’s allege that Zeppieri and his associates, individually and/or collectively have performed a:

[20.1] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.01 (1) (d) - communicating at all stages of a matter in a timely and effective manner that is appropriate to the age and abilities of the client:

Enio Zeppieri: (a) kept 30, or more, lawsuit correspondences secret from RNC from December 6, 2001 to February 28, 2002; (b) did not release the August 2002 mortgage documents (an apparent misdirected misappropriation of funds from the mortgage monies); (c) did not communicate appropriately (telling many untruths with his words opposed his actions or his writing); (d) did not release the December 17, 2004, 1st mortgage correspondence and documents until February 18, 2005 (thereby giving himself the opportunity to apparently misdirect, misappropriate and/or misapply additional mortgage funds); (e) was shielded by Serino from questions regarding evidence, strategies, morals and ethics and the complaints about the associates involved in case and about most phone calls with him making communications erratic and sparse; (f) wrote untruths in letters to Clark’s before and after being “fired” by RNC on May 4 2005.

RNC was not asked if Rombis, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn or Gryguc could join the case and then were not told that Rombis, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn had left the case and/or Zeppieri. The Clark’s were told untruths about the Court absences or presences of the associates at Discoveries, Pre-Trial and Trial. The Clark’s were misled by Enio Zeppieri into signing a Consent to a Judgment (falsely against themselves) and believed Enio Zeppieri that the Appeal of the original Trial was continuing - when it was not - and that the transcripts would be ordered with the 1st mortgage funds. The Clark’s were misled by Enio Zeppieri and Hamid into believing that both mortgages funds were being properly allocated to whom throughout case.

[20.2] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.01 (1) (f) - applying intellectual capacity, judgment, and deliberation to all functions:

Enio Zeppieri: (a) failed to argue the correct spelling of RNC’s name (which is a long time error in present its form in Equifax database); (b) did not submit financial records or key evidence of financial losses; (c) did not present evidence as shown in the timeline of events which tracked the mounting negligences; (d) caused the Clark’s a great deal of mental distress, physical ill-health and unnecessary hardship; (e) ignored key evidence from The Royal Bank and CIBC Bank and ignored obtaining existing evidence; (f) ignored Equifax’s history of poor credit reporting and the witnesses involved with the bad credit ratings since 1994; (g) ignored Equifax’s duty of care and responsibilities to the Consumer Reporting Act (the “Act”); (h) ignored Equifax’s liability for the multiple defamations on RNC’s credit reports; (i) ignored Equifax’s / CBC’s liability for the defamations found on RNC’s public records; (j) ignored Equifax’s vicariously liability for discriminations and defamations of RNC by the Royal Bank, CIBC Bank, Future Shop and Zellers Inc.; (k) failed to argue Scotiabank’s liability for the multiple defamations of RNC that were sent to Equifax; and (l) ignored the history of bad loans and the witnesses involved with the bad loans since 1991; (m) ignored Scotiabank’s vicariously liability for multiple discriminations and defamations of RNC by Equifax, CIBC Bank, Royal Bank, Future Shop and Zellers Inc. (n) failed to put forth a steadfast case with an offensive strategy arguing the full claims to their extent; (o) ignored many communication about the evidence and the witnesses involved with the evidence; (p) ignored many communications about the defamations and discriminations from the witnesses involved in the case history since, as early as 1991.

[20.3] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.01 (1) (g) - complying in letter and in spirit with the Rules of Professional Conduct:

Zeppieri heard the Clark’s complaints regarding Enio Zeppieri’s abandonment of the Discoveries (to Rombis). Zeppieri heard the Clark’s complaints regarding the many instances of professional misconducts of “deception, theft and fraud” of Hamid and Enio Zeppieri. Hasselfield, Olsthoorn and eventually Gryguc (after trial) heard the Clark’s complaints regarding the many professional misconducts of Enio Zeppieri and his associates unjustly assigned to the case. Enio Zeppieri heard through Serino’s interception of the Clark’s numerous angered complaints regarding the instances of professional misconducts during the case.

[20.4] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.01 (2) - A lawyer shall perform any legal services undertaken on a client's behalf to the standard of a competent lawyer:

Zeppieri’s nonfeasance, representation and arguments against the negligence and liabilities of Equifax and Scotiabank needed to comply with the Act. Zeppieri did not diligently argue the correct spelling of Robert Neil Clark’s name to its legal form, thus, the Superior court has allowed Equifax to use any non legal name.

Enio Zeppieri, Serino and Hamid knew about the apparent misappropriation of the 2nd mortgage funds (wrongfully misdirected from original purposes as arranged by Clark’s with Enio Zeppieri and Hamid).

Rombis, Hasselfield and Olsthoorn were the first three associates assigned by Enio Zeppieri to deal with RNC’s case (rather than Enio Zeppieri dealing with case himself that had been previously arranged with RNC at the first meeting). RNC and then RBC had to establish a bond of trust with each of the above-named Zeppieri associates and explain the entire history of the case to each one. Rombis, Hasselfield and Olsthoorn all left the case and/or employment at Zeppieri leaving RNC to carry on without the consistent legal assistance and guidance and without being notified of a change in associate assigned to the case. Gryguc was the fourth associate that was assigned to handle the case and RNC was forced to establish a quick bond of trust and RNC was not given time to repeat the entire history of the case in order for Gryguc to represent them on the first day of Trial. The defendant did not trust Gryguc but was forced to have him sit through day 1 of trial and wait for Olsthoorn to show up on Day 2 of trial, as promised by Olsthoorn, who claimed a sickness to RNC in the early morning on the 1st day of the trial. Olsthoorn never did return.

[20.5] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.02 (1) - When advising clients, a lawyer shall be honest and candid:

Enio Zeppieri: (a) was untruthful from the very first meeting saying to RNC, “I will take on your case pro bono but, I would need a few thousand dollars to pay for disbursements, so that they do not come directly out of my pocket!”; (b) told an untruth to RNC, “I will take this case on personally because of the depth and scope of the case and to keep the costs down”; (c) assigned four unwarranted associates to the case and thereby weakened the lawsuit by “scattering” the correspondence of the case history; (d) told RNC, “we could have the case heard in Superior Court in Whitby” as RNC had previously requested; (e) told RNC that, “We can not have a jury in a civil trial” - which is an untrue statement; (f) wrongly worded documentation to Jack Rosati explained by the Clark’s before he signed; (g) was not honest about the direction of 2nd mortgage funds agreed with the Clark’s; (h) was not honest about the appeal of original case verdict and cost verdict by His Honourable Justice Day; and (i) was not honest about the use of Zeppieri’s lawsuit filed against the Clark’s; (j) the direction of 1st mortgage funds agreed with the Clark’s; (k) not ordering transcripts and using funds from 1st mortgage monies held in trust and (l) untruths about relationships between Clark’s, Enio Zeppieri, Zeppieri, Serino, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn, Gryguc and Rombis.

[20.6] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.02 (6) - When a client's ability to make decisions is impaired because of minority, mental disability, or for some other reason, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal lawyer and client relationship.

Enio Zeppieri: (a) did not maintain a normal lawyer/client relationship with RNC and Clark’s which caused them great mental distress and physical ill-health (due to the misleadings about having legal strategies and full arguments against Equifax and Scotiabank); (b) allowed RNC to believe that most of the evidence and witnesses were unnecessary; (c) apparently misappropriated mortgage funds from the agreed directions for the two mortgages; and (d) counselled the Clark’s into signing a Consented Judgement against themselves. (e) The defendant, RBC never met Rombis and did not meet Enio Zeppieri, Hamid and Serino until the August 12 2002 signing of 2nd mortgage. Until tricked, RBC was not even a client of Zeppieri in original lawsuit and only attended meetings with RNC as witness for plaintiff after an apparent discovery sabotage.

[20.7] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.02 (10) - A lawyer shall assess all reasonable options to assure title when advising a client about a real estate conveyance and shall advise the client that title insurance is not mandatory and is not the only option available to protect the client’s interests in a real estate transaction. - The Clark’s refer to above paragraph 4: (a) the Clark’s did not receive any copies of the mortgage documents or documents explaining the mortgage, and therefore, did not know the particulars of the CIBC mortgage; and (b) that they received the documents from LSUC, fifty-six and one-half months later, in May 2007 and 9 months after the Clark’s purposely defaulted the mortgage contract.

[20.8] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.04 (4) - A lawyer who has acted for a client in a matter shall not thereafter act against the client or against persons who were involved in or associated
with the client in that matter: (b) in any related matter, or (c) save as provided by subrule (5), in any new matter, if the lawyer has obtained from the other retainer relevant confidential information unless the client and those involved in or associated with the client consent.
Now 2004, The Clark’s needed to refinance their 1st mortgage to cover the legal costs of original lawsuit.

Zeppieri counselled the Clark’s into signing a Consented Judgment against them. Enio Zeppieri said that the Consent Judgment was for His Honourable Justice Day’s review during the cost meeting. When Joe DeValle (CIBC mortgage broker) arranged for a 1st mortgage for the Clark’s, he found the “unexpected” Consented Judgment against RNC on his credit report. DeValle reported his findings to RNC, (#1) a new 1st mortgage and (#2) the Consented Judgment. DeValle would have had the mortgage approved if Enio Zeppieri lifted the Consented Judgment. Enio Zeppieri added RBC as a consenting defendant and she was not even a client in the original lawsuit when Enio Zeppieri stated that he was submitting the Consented Judgement to His Honourable Justice Day at the October 17, 2004 cost meeting (to show Justice Day that if the plaintiff(s) did not win costs, they? would be sued by Zeppieri) and that what the Clark’s consented.

[20.9] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.08 (1) - A lawyer shall not charge or accept any amount for a fee or disbursement unless it is fair and reasonable and has been disclosed in a timely fashion.

Zeppieri has not acknowledged a $400.00 cash retainer in January 2001 (as told to bring by Enio Zeppieri) as there is no record and no letter of retainer accompanied by a receipt. Zeppieri did not disclose precise amounts for mortgage fees, legal fees and disbursements or in a timely manner, or if released at all.

[20.10] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.08 (4) - In a statement of an account delivered to a client, a lawyer shall clearly and separately detail the amounts charged as fees and as disbursements.

Zeppieri did not disclose accurate detailed statements of accounts and disbursements or accurately state costs of services (in obtaining 2nd and 1st mortgages) and charged unreasonable amounts for services rendered.

[20.11] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 2.08 (10) - The lawyer shall not appropriate any funds of the client held in trust or otherwise under the lawyer's control for or on account of fees except as permitted by the by-laws under the Law Society Act.

Zeppieri apparently misdirected, misapplied and misappropriated some of the 1st mortgage and all of the 2nd mortgage funds until the Clark’s’ argued with Zeppieri and only receiving $5k of $26k held in trust.

[20.12] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 4.01 (1) - When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall represent the client resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law while treating the tribunal with candor, fairness, courtesy, and respect.

Zeppieri knew that RNC was seeking changes to the Act because there is a problem with the Act (this was one of the reasons why Equifax was in Court) and that this legislated change would eliminate bad credit ratings from being applied to the wrong person’s credit history (Enio Zeppieri’s failed to represent the addition needed to amend the Act). Zeppieri reversed the Defendants in case title, thereby, distorting the jest of the litigation against Equifax and their vicarious liabilities of discriminations and defamations.

[20.13] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct - Rule 4.01 (2) - When acting as an advocate, a lawyer shall not: (e) knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct; (f) knowingly misstate the contents of a document, the testimony of a witness, the substance of an argument, or the provisions of a statute or like authority; (h) deliberately refrain from informing the tribunal of any binding authority that the lawyer considers to be directly on point and that has not been mentioned by an opponent; (i) dissuade a witness from giving evidence or advise a witness to be absent; (j) knowingly permit a witness or party to be presented in a false or misleading way or to impersonate another; (k) needlessly abuse, hector, or harass a witness;

Zeppieri: (a) reversed the Defendants in case title, thereby, distorting the jest of the litigation against Equifax; (b) underwrote the Statement of Claim (omitted and/or whitewashed many of the claims); (c) mishandled the Discoveries; (d) failed to request and/or obtain many key undertakings; and (e) lacked fiduciary duty in obtaining, assembling and submitting key evidence and subpoenaing witnesses to the histories of defamations and discriminations. (f) Zeppieri knew RNC was seeking a change to the Act because of a problem with the Act and this was one of the reasons why Equifax is in court. (g) This legislated change would abolish bad credit ratings from being applied to the wrong person’s credit history.

[20.14] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 4.01 (4) - Where the rules of a tribunal require the parties to produce documents or attend on examinations for discovery, a lawyer, when acting as an advocate (a) shall explain to his or her client: the necessity of making full disclosure of all documents relating to any matter in issue; and (ii) the duty to answer to the best of his or her knowledge, information, and belief, any proper question relating to any issue in the action or made discoverable by the rules of court or the rules of the tribunal; (b) shall assist the client in fulfilling his or her obligations to make full disclosure; and (c) shall not make frivolous requests for the production of documents or make frivolous demands for information at the examination for discovery.

On May 30, 2002, Enio Zeppieri told RNC, “it was not necessary for me (Enio) to attend the Discoveries!” on June 3 and 4, 2002 and, “Just answer a yes or no to the questions and don’t elaborate on the answers!” Zeppieri and Rombis lacked fiduciary duty in obtaining and assembling and submitting key evidences and subpoenaing witnesses to the history of defamations and discriminations and Rombis wilfully omitted the many important questions to ask at the Discoveries assisting in the mishandling of the Discoveries while demonstrating professional misconducts with her behaviour, character, and her posture on June 4th 2002.

[20.15] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 4.01 (6) - A lawyer shall be courteous, civil, and act in good faith to the tribunal and with all persons with whom the lawyer has dealings in the course of litigation.

Enio Zeppieri was not courteous or civil to the Clark’s (using vulgar words, telling untruths, saying one thing then writing down another and using legal trickery and jargon) thereby repeatedly disappointing the Clark’s from the 1st meeting and throughout entire relationship. Enio Zeppieri did not act in good faith and used his knowledge of the legal system to gain advantages over RNC and the Clark’s, who were lament people to the legal system and as presented by Zeppieri. Rombis was uncivil and uncooperative during her brief employment at Zeppieri and in her work at Discoveries. Hamid led the Clark’s to believe that the mortgage funds are being applied (as agreed on August 12, 2002). Serino consistently told untruths during telephone calls shielding Enio Zeppieri from taking most telephone calls from the angered Defendant(s). Hasselfield told an untruth, “I will be taking over the case for Pearl Rombis” and then soon leaves the case and/or employment at Zeppieri. Olsthoorn told an untruth, “I will be taking over your case and seeing the case through trial” and then also soon left the case and/or employment at Zeppieri. Gryguc tells RNC an untruth, “I will be in court today for the ailing Lora Olsthoorn”. Olsthoorn was absent for the entire trial.

[20.16] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 4.01 (7) - A lawyer shall strictly and scrupulously carry out an undertaking given to the tribunal or to another licensee in the course of litigation.

Enio Zeppieri: (a) did not want himself to officially ask for undertakings as he said it was not necessary for him to attend at Discovery (he left Rombis to face the opposing 2 lead and 3 junior counsels); (b) and Rombis failed to request important undertakings to be used as evidence; (c) ignored undertakings that were requested by the Defendant; and (d) failed to obtain undertakings refused by the original Defendants.

[20.17] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 4.06 (2) - A lawyer who seeks legislative or administrative changes shall disclose the interest being advanced, whether the lawyer's interest, the client's interest, or the public interest.

Enio Zeppieri knew RNC was seeking changes to the Act (and this was one of the reasons why they took Equifax to Court). This change would eliminate bad R9, I9 and O9 credit ratings from being applied to the wrong person’s credit history. Zeppieri reversed the Defendants in the case title, thereby distorting the jest of the litigation against Equifax demonstrating nonfeasance representation of additions needed for the Act.

[20.18] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 5.01 (6) - In addition to the requirements of this rule and the commentaries there under, a lawyer in an affiliation shall not delegate to the affiliated entity or the affiliated entity's staff any tasks in connection with the provision of legal services without obtaining the client's informed consent.

Enio Zeppieri did not ask RNC for consent: (a) to add Rombis to the case; (b) to allow Rombis to replace Enio Zeppieri at Discoveries; (c) to add Hasselfield to the case; (d) to add Olsthoorn to the case; (e) to add Gryguc to act as co-counsel at Trial; (f) to allow Serino’s constant telephone call screening / interceptions (virtually shutting RNC and Clark’s out from obtaining or advising his/their legal counsel); (g) to allow Hamid’s involvement in their mortgages; and (h) for Serino to file a Notice of Intent to Act in Person.

[20.19] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 5.04 (2) - A lawyer shall ensure that no one is denied services or receives inferior service on the basis of the grounds set out in this rule.

Zeppieri: (a) reversed the Defendants in the case title, thereby distorting the jest of the litigation against Equifax; (b) underwrote the Statement of Claim and omitted and/or whitewashed many of the claims; (c) mishandled the Discoveries and failed to request and obtain many key undertakings; (d) displayed an apparent misappropriation (misdirected and misapplied) of the 2nd mortgage funds; (e) constantly changed the associates who appeared and disappeared before and after key events; (f) ordered telephone screening making it almost impossible for the Clark’s to communicate with Enio Zeppieri; (g) “extorted and tricked” the Clark’s into signing a Consented Judgment against themselves; (h) kept many secrets from the Clark’s (i.e. 30 or more correspondences, a Justice Kimmel hearing and all relevance and documents of the cost meeting); (i) apparently misappropriated, misapplied and mishandled some of the 1st and the 2nd mortgage funds; (j) canceled the Appeal and the transcripts order without RNC’s direction.

[20.20] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 6.01 (1) - A lawyer shall conduct himself or herself in such a way as to maintain the integrity of the profession.

Enio Zeppieri: (a) willfully miswrote a title search document signed by the Clark’s and Jack Rosati and instructed them to lie to Mr. Rosati about some of the context of the title search documents; (b) on May 30, 2002, Enio Zeppieri told RNC, “it was not necessary for me (him) to attend the Discoveries” on June 3 and 4, 2002; (c) Enio Zeppieri told RNC to, “Just answer a ‘yes’ or a ‘no’ to the questions and don’t elaborate on the answers”; (d) telephoned RNC about the postponement of the Trial on November 1, 2003 - one day after the Defendants’ Settlement Offer expired and just two days before the November 3, 2003 Trial was to begin; and (e) on July 30, 2004, Enio Zeppieri compelled the Clark’s to sign a false Statement of Claim which was filed by Zeppieri against the Clark’s while the meeting for costs was unjustly delayed.

[20.21] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 6.03 (1) - A lawyer shall be courteous, civil, and act in good faith with all persons with whom the lawyer has dealings in the course of his or her practice.

Enio Zeppieri: (a) willfully miswrote a title search document to be signed by the Clark’s and Jack Rosati (b) submitted a letter referring to their tampering of a document as evidence to the LSUC investigator, Ms. Kowalski on April 21, 2006; and (c) (by a sworn affidavit to Serino) tampered a document and submitted said tampered document in a motion record book to the Court of Appeal on November 23, 2006; and (d) was not forthcoming to the Clark’s about relevant events or associates’ actions and/or inactions in case.

[20.22] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 6.03 (5) - A lawyer shall not in the course of a professional practice send correspondence or otherwise communicate to a client, another licensee, or any other person in a manner that is abusive, offensive, or otherwise inconsistent with the proper tone of a professional communication from a lawyer.

Enio Zeppieri was highly abusive, offensive and inconsistent in his use of professional communication and demeanour and he even yelled at RNC during Trial, “What are you trying to do? Lose this case?”

[20.23] Breach of LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 6.09 (3) - When a claim of professional negligence is made against a lawyer, he or she shall assist and co-operate with the insurer or other indemnity to the extent necessary to enable the claim to be dealt with promptly...

RNC was told by Jessica Kowalski (LSUC) that, “Enio Zeppieri is a hard man to get a hold of!” Enio Zeppieri: (a) took 10 months (from May 25, 2005 until April 21, 2006) to respond to LSUC; (b) refused to release to the Clark’s and to the LSUC, the 30 plus “secret” but dated correspondences; (c) refused to release any case and/or court documents to the Clark’s so that they would be able to fight the Appeals with other counsel (or on their own – and without the case files – the defendant was forced to continue on his own); and (d) refused to release documents until after the LSUC became involved, then he offered to provide documents at $0.50 per page. (e) The Defendant(s) can not afford this unjust added cost. (f) RNC was told by Jessica Kowalski (LSUC) that the LSUC had 2 main concerns regarding the conduct of Enio Zeppieri. RNC believes the LSUC should have many more then 2 main concerns with what has evolved.

[20.24] Breach of the LSUC Rule of Professional Conduct – Rule 6.10 - A lawyer in a multi-discipline practice shall ensure that non-lawyer partners and associates comply with these rules and all ethical principles that govern a lawyer in the discharge of his or her professional obligations.

Enio Zeppieri knew it was wrong: (a) to use deception in verbal v. written correspondence; (b) to not obtain, subpoena, assemble and/or submit complete evidence of case; (c) to not subpoena witnesses to the “fraud, theft, collusion and conspiracies”; (d) to not subpoena witnesses to the libels, slanders and discriminations; (e) to wilfully ignore his fiduciary duty and diligence needed to put forth a legal argument (with evidence of various liabilities claimed against two large financial corporations); (f) to ignore the Clark’s complaints and arguments about his “solo” retainership; (g) to abandon and mishandle Discoveries (by handing the roles to the briefly assigned or employed associates); and (h) to order the misdirections of the mortgage(s) funds from the Clark’s creditors. Rombis knew the Discoveries had been poorly handled by Enio Zeppieri’s abandonment of them and by his abandoning his representation of RNC. Enio Zeppieri seemed to “disappear” from case without word, at times. Hamid knew it was wrong about the apparent misappropriation of the 1st and 2nd mortgage funds from their agreed upon allocations. Serino knew it was wrong to defend these misappropriations of mortgage funds and to tell untruths, such as, “Enio will give you a call!” (as Enio Zeppieri did not return calls). Hasselfield and Olsthroon both knew it was wrong to ignore the Clark’s’ complaints about Enio Zeppieri and his associates, to leave the case and/or abandon representing them at Trial without a word to the Clark’s. Gryguc knew it was wrong for him to act as counsel at Trial as RNC had only met him briefly and he did not know the history or complexity of the case. Gryguc knew it was wrong not to submit the Settlement Offer, dated December 17, 2003, and to ignore the Clark’s’ complaints about Enio Zeppieri and his associates including himself, Gryguc.

Enio Zeppieri: (a) knew it was wrong to not to submit the Settlement Offer, dated and signed on December 17, 2003; (b) to “whitewash” the liability claims against Equifax and Scotiabank; (c) to hold the original case files from the Clark’s in order to make it very difficult for them to win an appeal and damages in the original case (thereafter, proving Enio Zeppieri & Associates professional misconducts); (d) knew that if RNC won his case (as this was a “precedent-setting trial”), it would cause a uproar in both the financial and insurance industry. As RNC’s legal counsel or ex-counsel, Zeppieri made it difficult for RNC to win the Trial and the Appeal.

STATEMENT OF COUNTERCLAIM

[21] The Defendants thereby respectively request the following:

[21.1] the counterclaim be tried with the main action;

[21.2] the main action and counterclaim be tried by judge and jury;

[21.3] the main action and counterclaim be tried in the Superior Courthouse, Whitby, Durham Region, Ontario;

[21.4] the repeating and reliance of the above allegations and statements in the above Statement of Defence;

[21.5] all damages reduced to a nominal amount of $1.00 from CIBC and no costs awarded to claim defendants’;

[21.6] all damages reduced to a nominal amount of $1.00 from EZER and no costs awarded to claim defendants’;

[21.7] General Damages; Special Damages; Aggravated Damages; Punitive Damages; Statutory Damages; and Compensatory Damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, inclusive, from LSUC;

[21.8] all amounts paid or taken by Enio Zeppieri and Zeppieri (a) $400.00 (cash) retainer paid in January 2001;

(b) $5,998.92 (credit card) paid between May 23, 2001 and June 7, 2002 and the interest paid $4,485.24;

(c)$21,000 to be paid to CIBC.

(d) $8,400 interest paid (10% x 4 years) (August 2002 to August 2006) on $21,000 of the CIBC mortgage that was apparently misappropriated by Enio Zeppieri & Associates, LLP.

[21.9] General Damages; Special Damages; Aggravated Damages; Punitive Damages; Statutory Damages; Compensatory Damages; and Treble Damages in the amount of $30,000.00, inclusive, from each of the following parties: Serino, Hamid, Hasselfield, Olsthoorn and Rombis;

[21.10] General Damages; Special Damages; Aggravated Damages; Punitive Damages; Statutory Damages; Compensatory Damages; and Treble Damages in the amount of $3,000,000.00, inclusive, from each of the following parties: Gryguc; Enio Zeppieri and Zeppieri;

[21.11] the return of all the files for Case No. 01-CV-211325 being held by Enio Zeppieri and/or Zeppieri against the original defendants, Equifax and Scotiabank;

[21.12] the revoking of the Defendants’ Statement of Claim No. 04-CV-274206 SR and falsely Consented Judgement rendered by His Honourable Justice Archibald, August 23, 2004;

[21.13] such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems fair and just in order to resurrect damaged Case No. 01-CV-211325;

[21.14] all Costs associated with defending this action and bringing this Counterclaim, including GST; and

[21.15] such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems fair and just.

CIBC TRUST CORPORATION,
Trustee for TOBY EZER
Plaintiff, Statement of Claim

ROBERT NEIL CLARK and ROXANE BRUNET-CLARK
Plaintiffs, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

Case Reference No. DC-04-000594-00 - Assunta Susan Piacente -v- Zeppieri & Associates, LLP

ROBERT NEIL CLARK and ROXANE BRUNET-CLARK
Defendants, Statement of Claim

ZEPPIERI & ASSOCIATES, LLP
Defendants, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

ENIO ZEPPIERI, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

GREGORY GRYGUC, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

PEARL ROMBIS, Dutton Brock, LLP
(formerly of Zeppieri & Associates, LLP)
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

LORA OLSTHOORN, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

AVRIL HASSELFIELD, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

ROSE SERINO , Zeppieri & Associates, LLP
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

THERESA HAMID, Zeppieri & Associates, LLP
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

LAW SOCIETY OF UPPER CANADA
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

CIBC TRUST CORPORATION, Trustee for Toby Ezer
Defendant, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

MR. AND MRS. TOBY EZER, AND Ms. EZER
Defendants, Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

Superior Court for Ontario

Claim No. 07-CV-331812 PD3

Statement of Defence and Counterclaim

September 24, 2007

From: Defendants of Statement of Claim

Robert Neil Clark / Roxane Brunet-Clark
40 Hewitt Crescent
Ajax, Ontario, Canada
L1S 7A4
Telephone/Fax: 905-619-6777
E-mail: Robert_Neil_Clark@creditreporterrors.info