2006 Evidence History

Chapter Seventeen - History of Events: Year #17 – 2006

[535] January 10 2006
EFX History - 15 De Champlain of CTN for EFX letter to RNC – Re: transcript evidence missing and if RNC appeal perfection will be ready by February

[536] January 16 2006
RNC History - 604: RNC faxes letter to ENIO and ZEP demanding copies of the listed correspondence that ENIO has suppressed from RNC.
To Enio Zeppieri of Zeppieri and Associates
I, Robert Neil Clark, have “not received” any correspondence from any of these dates listed below.
I will need ”ALL” of these documents for investigation and possible submission as evidence.
Please have copies of these documents delivered by next day courier.
Please have these couriered to Robert Neil Clark’s home address.
Please, please, please send these documents A.S.A.P.
Thank You, Robert Neil Clark
Dec. 7 2001: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Dec. 11 2001: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Dec. 13 2001: Correspondence from Stephen Schwartz (EFX).
Dec. 18 2001: Information or notes from telephone conversation with Bernadette (__?) of Martin Sclisizzi’s office (BNS).
Dec. 18 2001: Information or notes from telephone conversation with Doris (__?) of Stephen Schwartz’s office (EFX).
Dec. 18 2001: Information or notes from telephone conversation with Martin Buhler (BNS).
Dec. 20 2001: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Jan. 7 2002: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Jan. 11 2002: Information or notes from telephone conversation with Doris (____?) of Stephen Schwartz office (EFX).
Jan. 11 2002: Information or notes from telephone conversation with Martin Buhler (BNS).
Jan. 14 2002: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Feb. 4 2002: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Feb. 19 2002: Correspondence to Martin Buhler (BNS).
Feb. 20 2002: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Feb. 22 2002: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Feb. 25 2002: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Feb. 25 2002: Correspondence from Stephen Schwartz (EFX).
Feb. 28 2002: Information or notes from telephone conversation with Martin Buhler (BNS).
Feb. 28 2002: Information or notes from telephone conversation with Nartub Byekkers (?)
Feb. 28 2002: Correspondence to Martin Buhler (BNS).
Feb. 28 2002: Correspondence to Stephen Schwartz (EFX).
Mar. 1 2002: Information or notes from telephone conversation with Stephen Schwartz (EFX).
Mar. 4 2002: Correspondence to Martin Buhler (BNS).
Mar. 4 2002: Correspondence to Stephen Schwartz (EFX).
Mar. 6 2002: Information or notes from authorizations.
Mar. 6 2002: Information or notes from instructions to law clerk.
Mar. 14 2002: Information or notes from telephone conversation with Equifax office.
Mar. 27 2002: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Mar. 28 2002: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
Mar. 28 2002: Information or notes from telephone conversation with Martin Buhler (BNS).
Apr. 5 2002: Correspondence from Martin Buhler (BNS).
RNC History - 605: RNC faxes a letter to Kowalski of LSUC about the demand for copies of correspondence that ENIO has suppressed from RNC.
Attention Jessica Kowalski - File #05-3139
I, Robert Neil Clark, have just faxed the following letter below: (at 11:30 am Monday January 16th 2006)
I need these documents A.S.A.P. I will hopefully received these within the next few days. If I do not receive these documents by Wednesday evening, I will be calling you for your assistance.
NONE OF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE SHOWN OR FORWARDED TO ME ---- EVER!
Thank you, Robert Neil Clark
Zeppieri & Associates letter was sent by Fax:

[537] January 17 2006
RNC History - 606: RNC leaves voice message for Theresa Morris (Court Reporter from December 15-19 2003 Super Court Trial) at 10:30 am.
RNC History - 607: Morris returns RNC’s telephone call at 12:30 pm and leaves message with ROC to have RNC call at 3:40 pm sharp.
RNC History - 608: ROC asks Morris to call RNC but Morris told ROC to “Have him (RNC) call her (Morris) at 3:40 pm”.
RNC History - 609: RNC calls Morris at 3:38 pm, 3:39, 3:40, 3:41, 3:42, 3:44, 3:46, 3:48 and leaves message at 3:50, 3:54, 3:58, 4:00, 4:10 and 4:20 pm.
RNC History - 610: RNC leaves message for Morris to call Wednesday January 18 2006 before 11:30 am and after 1:05pm.
RNC Medical - 105 RNC and ROC Medical: Social Service Dept. Family Services Durham Counseling with Joni Vegotsky at 1:00 pm. [Last Appointment]

[538] January 18 2006
RNC History - 611: RNC receives call from Morris
RNC History - 612: RNC reads July 11 2005 correspondence to Morris from Schwartz of CTN for EFX written to ENIO of ZEP about cancelling transcripts
EFX History - 16 “I (Schwartz) was informed by her (Morris) that your (ENIO) client (RNC) had ordered the evidence from the trial and had cancelled the order upon learning that the reporter required a deposit prior to proceeding to transcribe evidence”.
RNC History - 613: RNC explains to Morris that RNC did not cancel the transcripts and ENIO of ZEP has told an untruth to Morris to sabotage the appeal.

[539] January 23 2006
EFX History - 17 Schwartz of CTN for EFX sends RNC - Affidavit of Stephen Schwartz – commissioned by Debra-Anne Loomis (BLG Student-at-Law)
EFX History - 18 Schwartz of CTN for EFX sends RNC – Motion Record of the Defendant – EFX.
EFX History - 19 Schwartz of CTN for EFX sends RNC – Notice of Motion to Abridge Time and Extension for EFX.
BNS History - 07 Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS sends RNC - Affidavit of Martin Sclisizzi – commissioned by Elissa Goodman of BLG for BNS.
BNS History - 08 Goodman of BLG for BNS sends RNC – Motion Record of the Defendant – BNS.

[540] January 24 2006
RNC History - 614: RNC receives Affidavit of Schwartz, Motion Record and Notice of Motion to Abridge Time from Schwartz of CTN for EFX.
RNC History - 615: RNC receives Affidavit of Sclisizzi and Motion Record from Sclisizzi of CTN for EFX sends RNC.

[541] January 25 2006
RNC History - 616: RNC attends Legal Aid Oshawa begging for legal help to protect RNC’s innocence from the injustices throughout the litigations.
RNC History - 617: RNC signs Factum, Appeal Book and Exhibit Book and setups arrival to Schwartz of CTN for EFX for January 27 2006 by courier.
RNC History - 618: RNC signs Factum, Appeal Book and Exhibit Book and setups arrival to Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS for January 27 2006 by courier.
RNC History - 619: RNC signs Certificate Respecting Evidence – RNC wants all exhibits, all case evidence and all case transcripts in the court of appeal.

[542] January 27 2006
ONT Courts - 44: Court of Appeal Hearing with Justice Lang - Endorsement Order granting RNC until February 28 2006 to perfect his appeal.
ONT Courts - 45: Court of Appeal Hearing with Justice Lang – Endorsement grant EFX and BNS 30 days to perfect their appeal after RNC files appeal.
RNC History - 620: RNC serves BNS and EFX via courier - an appeal Factum #1, Appeal Book #1 and Exhibit Book #1.
RNC History - 621: RNC believes he is ready to go to Appeals and requests an immediate date in February 2006.
BNS History - 09 BNS requests for 30 days to perfect BNS’s Cross-Appeal after RNC delivers his perfected appeal.
EFX History - 20 EFX requests for 30 days after the February 28 2006 deadline for RNC to perfect his appeal to perfect EFX’s cross-appeal.
RNC History - 622: BNS should not have a Cross-Appeal because Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS did not show up August 9 2005 to request needed extension.
The Canadian Judicial Council updates RNC on the progress of RNC’s judicial complaints.
2006-01-27 - Equifax Stephen Schwartz Chaitons LLP - Factum
2006-01-27 - Notice of Motion - Scotiabank - Martin Sclisizzi - Borden Ladner Gervais
2006-01-27 - Scotiabank Martin Sclisizzi Borden Ladner Gervais LLP - Factum

[543] January 29 2006
RNC History - 623: Equifax History of Errors on RNC Credit Report

[544] January 30 2006
ZEP History - 506: ENIO and Serino of ZEP reply to RNC fax dated January 16 2006 – ENIO will not release RNC’s lawsuit files without an explanations.

[545] February 6 2006
RNC History - 624: Affidavit of RNC - Page 1.jpg

[546] February 7 2006
BNS History - 10 Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS sends letter to RNC – Re: Failure of RNC submission attempts and required copies of evidence.

[547] February 10 2006
RNC History - 625: RNC emails Renée Maria Tremblay of Canadian Judicial Council - Robert Neil Clark -v- Equifax and Scotiabank -v- Justice Day
Justice Day was blind-sided by the twist and turns and lack of evidence provided by the defense in this litigation and the defendants led Justice Day into confusion leading to imcompetence to help in the defendants victory. - Appellant Factum - Part 1.doc, Appellant Factum - Part 2.doc, Appellant Factum - Part 3.doc, Appellant Factum - Part 4.doc, Appellant Factum - Part 5.doc
Part 3 is is divided intio 2 sections A and B (Section B is not ready) - Part 3 A - Year 1990 – 1999 - Part 3 B - Year 2000 - 2006

[548] February 8 2006
EFX History - 21 De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Re: Judgment against EFX and BNS for $5k each and respect to cost issues.

[549] February 27 2006
CJC Investigation - 03 Canadian Judicial Council - Norman Sabourin - Chief Justice Scott - Admits Errors Redirection and Delays

[550] March 3 2006
RNC History - 626: RNC filed Notice of Motion – Relief from Rules of a Factum submission or an order for extension for 30 more days to perfect appeal.
ONT Courts - 46: Court of Appeal Hearing - Justice Blair – Endorsement grants RNC to submit a 45 page factum #3 from Factum #2. (over 200 pages)
ONT Courts - 47: Court of Appeal Hearing - Justice Blair – Endorsement grants Schwartz permission to prepare RNC’s appeal book. [Not completed]
ONT Courts - 48: Court of Appeal Hearing - Justice Blair – Endorsement grants Sclisizzi permission to prepare RNC’s exhibit book. [It was scrambled!]
ONT Courts - 49: Court of Appeal Hearing - Justice Blair – Endorsement grants Sclisizzi release of trial exhibits. [Unsupervised – RNC is concerned!]

[551] March 21 2006
ONT Courts - 50: Court of Appeal - Registrar Manager Huguette Thomson files RNC’s Appeal book and Compendium as per Justice Blair endorsement.
ONT Courts - 51: Court of Appeal - Registrar Manager Huguette Thomson returns to RNC – Factum, Transcripts and exhibit book as per Justice Blair.

[552] March 29 2006
RNC History - 627: Affidavit of Service - Plaintiff - Appellant

[553] March 31 2006
RNC History - 628: Affidavit of Service - Plaintiff - Appellant

[554] April 4 2006
RNC History - 629: Court of Appeal - RNC - Certificate of Perfection
This 3rd factum was written, assembled and filed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario by ________ _________
Part I (A) The Honourable Justice Day (Learned Judge) and Superior Court (Ontario) failed! - It was no wonder Learned Judge appeared bewildered because counsel did not present the facts entirely clear. Learned Judge seemed to have no idea what Equifax Canada Inc. (EFX) was and what an important role EFX plays in the financial community. Plaintiff’s counsel should have requested the removal of Learned Judge as Learned Judge’s knowledge was limited in this area d e to the extensive and intricate facts of this case. RNC expected Learned Judge to be knowledgeable, use more investigative skills and have compassion for the twelve-plus years that it has taken RNC to try to clear his name enduring: (i) the multiple failed investigations (ii) the episodes of discrimination (iii) the verbal defamations of RNC’s character r (iv) the libelous and defamatory information displayed on countless credit reports (v) and the ongoing invasions of privacy of RNC and family.

Part I (B) Learned Judge’s verdict (Superior Court (Ontario File No. 01-CV-211325) left RNC: (i) shocked (at the verdict and then at the costs) (ii) belittled (lack of compassion) (iii) humiliated (some of the comments) (iv) confused (errors/omissions) (v) exploited (counsel) (vi) frustrated (Defendants untrue facts) (vii) angered (invasion of privacy) (viii) stressed (misrepresentation of the case, costs incurred and timeline) (ix) embarrassed (socially, financially) and (x) disappointed (outcome). This case has mentally, emotionally and physically battered RNC and family since Nov 2000 to the present by episodes which include the following: (a) misrepresentation (b) discrimination (c) defamation of character (d) credit reporting errors (errors) which have plagued RNC’s credit reports and reporting history from Jan 1994-Dec 2000 (e) errors that resulted from the carelessness of Scotiabank\The Bank of Nova Scotia (BNS) (f) erroneous documentation of these errors by EFX (g) the invasion of privacy (h) many unanswered questions (i) incorrect reporting due to ongoing bad loan and credit information (j) faulty investigations in an attempt to correct the faulty errors (k) all of the associated errors which belong to (l) Robert James Clark (RJC) and not RNC as purported to by (m) BNS and/or (n) EFX.

Part I (C) Learned Judge failed to see through the Defendants’ smoke screen (untruth evasions, collusion, conspiracy and cover-ups) that evaded the truth of EFX’s 1994/1995 “so-called” (quoting BNS) investigations, their failure to correct all the errors accordingly with their communications with a Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) employee. Another episode began with EFX’s 1996 investigation and subsequent correction failure with their communication with a Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) employee. Another episode began in 1998 with the discovery of more errors by a Canada Trust (CT) employee. Up to this point, RNC was not told the reason behind his credit rating or the errors shown. RNC begged the CT employee to see the computer screen (which displayed the sources of the errors) because neither EFX, RBC nor CIBC would give RNC any information about these errors. In the office of CT, RNC communicated with EFX about the ongoing errors and EFX promised RNC that they would fix the errors immediately. RNC told EFX that BNS was the now known suspected creator and major source of RNC’s credit reporting history (history) errors. On Jan 12, 1999, EFX communicated with BNS and investigated RNC’s claim b apparently, they were faulty in their investigation(s) and they disagreed with RNC’s plea of innocence. How could RNC protect himself without EFX’s corrections and without EFX’s acknowledgement that there re long over-due errors to be corrected and that EFX was the displayer of these errors that served as false pretences to several counts of discrimination by RBC/CIBC towards RNC? This included the errors that EFX created on RNC�� Public Records which are accessible for anyone who requires to see them. How could any errors be eliminated if they can mysteriously mismerge again?

Part I (D) RNC hoped that the Defendants’ years of conspiracy had not conscripted Learn Judge in this litigation in any way because the verdict was based on inaccurate and incomplete testimonies by both BNS/EFX. If it did not, then RNC alludes to the fact that Learned Judge appeared incompetent showing his lack of understanding of what had transpired during RNC’s credit history repeated errors, identity theft, discrimination and defamation of character suffered at the hands of BNS/EFX. RNC’s situation was exacerbated with three years for a trial (Dec 2000 to Dec 2003); then six months for a verdict (in Jun 2004); then three months for a meeting on costs (in Oct 2004) which RNC was not allowed to attend; and another six-plus months for the verdict on the aforementioned costs (in Apr 2005). Learned Judge seemed to belittle this whole situation and referred to everything as “just an error and lack duty to correct the error” instead of deciding that there were ma other issues to consider (multiple compounding errors, invasion of privacy, defamation of character, discrimination, untruths, conspiracy, cover-ups and collusion by both BNS/EFX). Learned Judge had no idea how important this case was (i.e. Bill No. 38 - An Act to Amend the Consumer Reporting Act) and how it can now be used as a precedent for many cases involving common ordinary consumers with similar errors. Learned Judge seemingly belittled the seriousness of RNC’s case as punishment for RNC taking this matter to court a wasting the court’s time. RNC also questions the cost decision delivered by Learned Judge. RNC WON his case in which RNC spent 12 years of his life endeavoring to have his history corrected - but even now there are still errors showing up on his credit report. RNC is victim and has sought relief through the court and through the justice system and still RNC has no satisfaction with his case or the justice system. Which appears vulnerable to understanding the truth as shown by the way the Defendants’ counsel fought and schemed to hide so many details of t involvement in case history of BNS/EFX/RJC/RNC.

Part I (E) Several times throughout the five-day trial, Learned Judge stated that he was ‘suffering from a senior’s moment” This made RNC/Roxane Odette Brunet-Clark (ROC) quite nervous, as RNC now had absolutely no confidence left in the court’s ability to listen and to comprehend all the facts and to see through the Defendants evasive tactics. RNC was shocked how the evidence was loosely presented and/or omitted from questioning in court by all the parties’ counsel. Learn Judge had no chance to complete a fair investigation that would accurately portray the full grasp of the discrimination and defamation of character created by the errors on RNC’s credit report. Learned Judge would not able to determine: what the problems were; where the problems originated (traveled to/from); how the problems repeated themselves; when the problems occurred; who made the errors that kept repeating on RNC’s credit report and why they were not being corrected (from the multiple “fault investigations throughout the lengthy, segmented timeline). Why did Enio Zeppieri (ENIO) tell RNC that he was “not allowed to state his case investigation fully as Learned Judge d not need all the details”. RNC thought this was strange but always felt that justice would prevail by demanding the truth and that Learned Judge would see RNC’s evidence through the Defendants’ evasion and smoke screen.

Part I (F) There is much evidence that was not submitted, was incorrectly submitted and/or was purposely omitted by the Defendants. The counsel for the Defendants were Martin Sclisizzi for BNS (Sclisizzi) and Stephen Schwartz for EFX (Schwartz). ENIO and Zeppieri & Associates (ZEP) was the former lawyer (and law office) for the Plaintiff. RNC questions the verdict and the costs as rendered as there were so many errors, untruths and omissions that needed addressing. It seemed that Learned Judge did not know who or what EFX was, nor what an important role EFX plays in people’s financial lives, in mo business ventures and in the granting of credit in the lending industry. Even after an explanation about EFX by the Defendants’ counsel, Learned Jud e had a puzzled look on his face. This puzzled look grew more common as the trial moved forward (with Learned Judge becoming completely confused and blindsided by the Defendants’ misleading positions, the lack of evidence submitted the multiple reporting inaccuracies and the faulty corrections, the many “twists and turns” away from their explanations - followed their unfounded attacks on the Plaintiff and lifestyle).

Part I (G) RNC waited six months to hear Learned Judge's verdict (that contained factual errors, many omissions of facts and did not accurately portray the entire litigation). RNC waited another four months just to have a meeting on costs (which RNC was not allowed to attend) and another six months to lose the cost endorsements and be blamed for bringing this case to court by Learned Judge who seemingly belittled the whole situation and referred to all the errors as “an error” instead of making a decision on each claim (multiple invasions of privacy, multiple episodes of discrimination, multiple episodes of defamation of character, evasive tactics and/or selective cover ups used to conspire to aid and abet the multiple negligences, ultra vires collusion (bad faith), followed by the verbal harassment by BNS’s counsel and now mental harassment EFX’s counsel.

Part I (H) RNC did not win cost as an innocent victim seeking answers to the many faults. Learned Judge was also hesitant about giving RNC the costs of the Defendants. So, did RNC really WIN or lose? Because RNC�� case was belittled and pushed aside, everyone will eventually lose, because now there is no precedent set to put the onus on the financial institutions to make accurate reporting of customers’ credit ratings/histories. If you find error in your own credit rating/history ~ unless you have lots of money and time (like the 12 years it took RNC) ~ good luck in trying to correct it! To quote Sclisizzi, “it would be easier to change your name!

Part I (I) The erroneous timeline of the defendants, BNS, EFX and the owner of the bad credit ratings, RJC, added to the timeline of episodes of discrimination by RBC, CIBC and TD, (with praise to CT for difference) carries a very big role in placing all events with all information in a display of 16 years of this case. There is a lot of evidential dates among the past 16 years that need careful piecing together of submitted evidence by BNS and EFX. A careful review and investigation is what the original trial lacked coming to its conclusion. This was the result of the lack of verbal investigative discussion (in the discoveries and in the trial) about most evidences of EFX’s recording and BNS’s reporting; loans, ratings, submissions, errors, investigations, untruths, evasions, disappearances, reappearances and total of affects compounding with many discriminatory actions against RNC.

Part I (J) RNC would expect the court of appeal to complete a full examination of the originally scheduled court dates of Nov 3-10 2003 (i) What day was this trial scheduled? (ii) Why was trial postponed (to choice of Dec 2003 or Mar 2004) immediately after ~ RNC refused Oct 29 2003 settlement offer? (iii) Why were choices given by ENIO just before Christmas Break and March Break? (iv) Who postponed the trial? (v) Who was not ready for trial? (vi) Who was the sitting judge? (vii) What happened in court on Nov [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] 2003, if anything? (viii) Why was Nov 12 2003 necessary? (ix) What was said among counsel in Learned Judge chambers just after starting trial? (x) How does RNC continue his fight when ENIO will not give RNC his files?

Part II (A) This is an extraordinary case and a difficult one to condense into 45 pages (propia persona) by Robert Neil Clark (RNC) (pro se) given the complexities of obtaining and coordinating all the prima facie facts from over the past 16 years and organizing them into a factum that is able to show how each item is related to RNC’s credit history reports. This factum will attempt to evidence the following provide a chronological timeframe among all parties; all financial institutions; and all persons involved; put together a (prima facie) case history; to re-investigate the number of dates; the reasons; the types; the number of times these credit reporting errors appeared or were repeated; who was the original owner(s); who created and submitted these errors (res ipsa loquitur); find proof that was used to support these errors (“as a simple mistake”); as there re multiple attempts to clear RJC from his bad credit reporting history; with only the transfer of RJC’s bad credit ratings being attached to RNC � credit report; record RNC’s ongoing discovery of even more errors; record any libelous or defamatory written remarks or complaints; any false statements damaging or discrediting RNC’s reputation record; any implied contracts; show any ongoing (breaches of trust) through the years 1994, 1995 and 1996 (EFX claims “missing records”) in 1996 and 2000 directly creating and indirectly causing punitive damages with several episodes of malicious, false and injurious slanderous statements which cast aspersions on RNC; misrepresentations; verbal and mental discrimination of RNC (defamation of character); multiple (invasions of privacy); bad ratings appearing and reappearing; bad Public Records errors; embarrassment of RNC/ROC and family (at financial institutions/retail facilities); being unknowingly a victim of (identity theft); Defendants fraudulent, unexplained lack of evidence; incomplete and/or unreleased investigations which obstructed justice; inadequate Counsel for Plaintiff in failure to adequately represent and/or advise client with resulting lack of faith, gross negligence and a complete disregard to (fiduciary duty); BNS�� Ombudsman’s lack of efforts (misfeasance) in revealing a full investigative report into the errors; unfounded conduct (aggravated damages); cover-up of several previous investigation failures (breach of contract); investigations with The Royal Bank (RBC) in 1994/1995, with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) in 1996/2000 and with Canada Trust (CT) in 1998; RNC’s defense of s reputation in an ever-growing history of multiple errors made by BNS/EFX (jointly and severally); errors being displayed at other financial/retail institutes; an ever-growing history with RBC, CIBC, CT and TD with several episodes of unfounded discrimination (contributory negligence); attempts to find someone at EFX with the authority to acknowledge the complaints (Jan 1994, Jul 1995, Aug-Oct 1996, Nov 1998, Sep-Dec 2000, Nov 20, 1998 Discovery, Nov 30, 1998 complaint to BNS followed by Oct-Dec 2000 complaints about the errors due to both Defendants); repeated episodes of negligence committed by EFX, BNS, their staffs/officers (lack of duty with disregard to fiduciary duty) and their attempted inadequate corrections of the errors (strict liability); (nonfeasance) incomplete and/or fully unreleased investigations as demonstrated by the ongoing repetition of the multiple types of errors over the past 12 years; not correcting RNC’s legal name (rebuttable presumption) by EFX; the nuisance, vexatious, malice and harassment (out of spite) at this precedent litigation by the BNS Counsel, Sclisizzi (made at Discovery and his comment ”Why don’t you change your name to match what Equifax has on file” and his Courtroom comment “Make it easier on all of us and change your name”); Discovery “trickery and the Court; and finally, the rebuttable presumption of nuisance, vexatious, malice and harassment (out of spite) for this precedent litigation to protect the consumers.

Part II (B) The key to this Factum lies in the many unanswered questions regarding the entire history of RJC and his association with BNS/EFX which has affected RNC’s credit history. RNC has many unanswered questions that should have been answered by the Defendants or through documentation, using documented investigative word written by BNS, or by the “so-called no comment” answers: [1994 with EFX/RBC], [1995 with EFX/RBC], [1996 with EFX/RBC�� Discrimination/CIBC], [1998 with EFX, BNS, CIBC�� Discrimination and CT], [2000 with EFX, Mrs. Laporta, Mrs. Normandeau, Mrs. Moukas; EFX Director/National Consumer Relations Jean Pierre Chabot; BNS, Office of the President, Marie Meschino, BNS Director Charlie Dougall; BNS Ombudsman William Bailey (for lack of full investigation); Government Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations (MCCR), Frances Abergel (for lack of requested involvement); and several CIBC employees for their discriminations]. A thorough investigation was needed to fully understand the details of the problems with RNC’s history. An examination of ea available date was necessary in order to discover the following: (i) When exactly did these bad ratings first attach themselves to RNC’s report? (ii) How many different bad ratings were attached to RNC’s report? (iii) How many times did each bad credit rating appear on RNC’s report? (iv) Why did the bad ratings re-appear after their “so-called” correction(s)? (v) Why has obtaining the evidence to seek the truth from BNS, EFX, RBC and CIBC been so difficult? RNC claims, “it’s a conspiracy to hide the truth of their conduct, severally and jointly”. A conspiracy followed by collusion among the Defendants not to tell the entire story behind BNS’s/EFX’s involvement since he first bad credit rating created by RJC and somehow attached to RNC’s report. The evidence dates RJC’s payment delinquencies to RJC’s original BNS lo that was opened in Jan 1991. RJC’s BNS loan payments became delinquent, were pa sporadically (eventually abandoned) until RJC’s loan at BNS w transferred to another BNS branch and then re-opened in Feb 1993. At least since then, RJC’s bad ratings seem to have re-appeared, disappeared and then re-appeared on RNC’s report. RNC claims that his report has be adversely affected by RJC’s bad ratings even before RNC’s first complaint with EFX in Jan 1994. RNC was told that he had bad credit once or twice? before but RNC never complained until Jan 1994 when a RBC loan officer said “you should correct this problem before it comes back to haunt you”. Since then RNC has tried to fix the errors starting with his first complaint to EFX. Now, more then 12 years later, RNC is still trying to rectify this problem and clear his name from all past errors which have been displayed to financial lending institutions and retail industries involved in this case in any way. RNC’s begs Learned Judge a the Court’s indulgence and asks the Court of Appeals for Ontario f protection from any further harassment and embarrassment, to help to prevent any future such errors from occurring and to secure costs and a sincere apology for RNC and family from both BNS/EFX for their harmful errors, untruths, evasions, collusion, conspiracy, cover-ups and harassing nuisance which have ultimately deprived RNC and his family from leading normal lives over the past 12 years. RNC firmly states that he felt forced to take this case to trial to get answers!

Part II (C) The Credit Reporting Industry’s new phrase - merging of reports - brings the following questions: How did only RJC’s bad ratings - not RJC’s good ratings attach themselves to RNC’s report? Why did RNC’s good ratings ot attach themselves to RJC’s report? This seems like a “one ay street” with only RJC’s bad ratings being the only credit items merging transferring from RJC’s history to RNC’s history. The mismerge of bad ratings can not be blamed on computer system error alone as the information regarding the delinquent accounts would have needed to required manual submission/input by a BNS employee into the BNS system and then that information electronically submitted to and updated by EFX or any other credit reporting agency. How was RJC’s information overlooked (i.e. full name, S.I.N DOB, address, employment, etc.) when the bad ratings were applied/submitted as RNC’s BNS credit history update – or was all the correct information purposely ignored when transferred? How would the BNS system update and/or attach the merging credit histories from two individual RC’s from two different provinces? Unless the bad credit rating ownerships were manually changed and then applied randomly and/or by purpose to another R_C? Who at BNS submitted the bad credit rating information into the BNS system to be dispersed to EFX? This person manually submitted the bad information into the BNS system without questioning the many differences in RJC’s and RNC’s personal information and without regard to the correct ownership of the information. Why does this so-call accidental merging of credit histories not seem so “accidental” with all the over-looked pieces of information failing to catch and stop the bad ratings from merging? [My Theory: Someone from BNS “wrote off” some of RJC’s bad debts by transferring them elsewhere without regards to accuracy. [Allegation]: Could have been a new person who made a genuine mistake which got carried on, except the evidence leads towards knowledge and authority.]



Part II (D) This case involves identity theft as created by BNS/EFX after their first investigation failure in Jan 1994/Mar 1994 [EFX-PB-01] and if not earlier (as later discussed in this factum [BNS-PB-05] [BNS-PB-06] [BNS-PB-07] [BNS-PB-08]). Unknown to RNC at this time, was EFX’s active communication(s) with BNS the search [BNS-PB-09] for RJC begins. Since Mar 7, 1994, BNS/EFX failed in their several investigations to completely clear RNC�� name (with apologies to all who are or were affected) and repair RNC�� erroneous history from any of BNS’s/EFX’s repetitive an or associated errors [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08] [BNS-PB-11] [BNS-PB-13] [BNS-PB-14] (severally and combined). In failing to do so, the errors compounded and impacted RNC and family’s lives dramatically (being denied loans for personal or business ventures, stealing RNC’s name a identity, causing discrimination from other lending institutions, defamation of character, invading RNC’s privacy, causing great personal embarrassment to RNC/ROC and family, causing great financial hardship (i.e. loss of past, present and future income), causing worry and stress with the resulting loss of health and causing a severe loss of lifestyle over the lengthy passage of time of 12 years. This included (unknown to RNC throughout this case) the mounting losses that compounded daily which included financial losses created with former business partners. RNC fought for his innocence many times but ultimately, failed to remove the discrimination and the guilty presumption when the credit report history of errors kept reappearing.

Part II (E) This case is a trail of evasive answers, untruths and cover-ups (EFX not admitting to the 1994 and 1995 investigations with evasive answers when questioned about the time period). RNC accidentally found out some truth about BNS’s involvement on Nov 20, 19 (58 months after the first EFX investigation in Jan 1994 [EFX-PB-01] and 39 months after the second EFX investigation in July 1995 [EFX-PB-01]). RNC set up a meeting with BNS (Ajax Branch) for the first time with Anne Spelchuk (BNS) on Nov 30, 1998 (10 days after the discovery of BNS’s involvement) and this time R thought that the errors would finally be corrected once and for all - but that did not happen - BNS has not admitted to the poor conduct displayed in the handling of their investigation (unknown to RNC, the Mar 7, 1994 investigation failure early in this case after RNC’s first complaint to EFX (Jan 199 ) [EFX-PB-01]): BNS searched for RJC in Mar 1994 [BNS-PB-09]; BNS pulled RJC’s loan card in M 1994 [BNS-PB-10]; and sent RJC’s accounts collections again sometime before Feb 1995 [BNS-PB-11]). [NOTE: This is Page 3. Where are Page 1 and Page 2? This suggests a conspiracy to cover-up evidence. Then after RNC’s second complaint to EFX in Jul 1995 [EFX-PB-01], BNS pull another one of RJC’s loan cards in Aug 1995 [BNS-PB-12] which show EFX’s collection of some of the monies and a $200 returned (NF) cheque from RJC.] One year later (with no submitted evidence presented by BNS) EFX applied and displayed a $106.73 unpaid collection debt to RNC�� Public Record on the DLA of Aug 1996, again on Nov 20, 1998 [EFX-PB-01] and again on Nov 13, 2000 [EFX-PB-03], After the third complaint on Nov 20, 1998 [EFX-PB-01] and the fourth complaint on Nov 24, 1998 [EFX-PB-03], Sylvie Miserere (EFX) faxed Credit Experience of BNS [BNS-PB-13] and spoke to Mrs. Darlene of Collections Network. [BNS-PB-02] [NOTE: The Defendants have (i) not produced all documents (ie Collections Network) as evidence (ii) BNS has not admitted to the several delinquent accounts (iii) several accounts oddities (iv) to certain BNS staff members and/or about RJC’s “mother” [BNS-PB-05] [BNS-PB-07] including (v) RJC’s own involvement [BNS-PB-05] [BNS-PB-06] with bad rating [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08] belonging to RJC and associated to original delinquent BNS loans back in Feb 1991.] RNC tried to settle this matter with BNS/EFX with letters on Nov 6, 2000 and on Nov 23, 2000 (“ the President of Scotia Bank, Maria Meschino, Bill Bailey, Mrs. Abergel and Dale [sic] Goldhawk”). RNC did not send letter to Mr. Goldhawk, thinking that it would not be necessary as BNS/EFX would finally admit to their many errors created during the first 7 years of discrimination, at that point. RNC never thought this would need to go to trial believing that somewhere in EFX’s/BNS’s files were all answers to the mismerge of RJC’s bad credit rating histories of into RNC’s history.

Part II (F) There seems to be collusion among EFX as evidenced by their evasive answers, lack of submission tactics, not providing evidence, evading the BNS facts of the history of errors in their creation, reporting, recording and displaying of the errors throughout the financial institutions. The Defendants knew that they both made reporting errors, so each Defendant took turns trying to deflect the majority of guilt away from them self. [BNS-PB-11] [EFX-PB-02] They belittled RNC�� claims and rejected to making all the necessary corrections to the errors that the Defendants created. BNS/EFX even tried blaming RNC for having common first and last name - with Sclisizzi going so far as to suggest twice, that RNC change his name! BNS/EFX blamed RNC for past and present personal finances. RNC’s credit history was excellent (all I1 or R1 ratings). When none that worked, BNS/EFX blamed each other for all the errors that kept re-appearing on RNC’s history. BNS, EFX and then Learned Judge all seem to blame RNC for bringing this claim to Court - when RNC was simply looking for the truth for all the years that RNC was challenged and re-challenged to prove his innocence from the errors. Only after seven years, did RNC seek to get justice to obtain the truth. Learned Judge and the Superior Court for Ontario were blind-sided as the truth between BNS/EFX did not come out in Court due to a carefully crafted plan among the Counsel (collusion) and reversal of the defence (full of excuses as they fought with each other during the Discovery) and turning the trial into an evasive offence that skipped over the 1994/1995/1996 timeline similarities, the multiple loans, bad debts, accounts numbers, BNS branch transit numbers, proven credit rating errors, identification errors, multiple Public Record errors and faulty investigations or the non preformed investigations by defendants). [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [BNS-PB-04] [BNS-PB-13] [EFX-PB-04]

Part II (G) This case involves a conspiracy between BNS/EFX to cover-up the truth of their faulty multiple investigations in which EFX will not talk about or release or submit documentation with regards to the two investigations started by RNC’s first two complaints to EFX in [1994 SPECL 481AA488 Consumer Interview] and [1995 SPECL 481AA96 Consumer Interview]. [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-07] [EFX-PB-08] [EFX-PB-09] EFX is hiding the truth by not releasing all requested evidence proving RNC’s report complain follow the same timeline as RJC’s bad report (soon-to-follow bad history submitted by BNS). Throughout the Discovery, BNS accused EFX for taking the bad history information from BNS and for recording the bad ratings on RNC’s report t and throughout the Discovery EFX accused BNS of feeding the bad credit reporting to EFX (the errors would be all BNS’s responsibility). RNC’s history contained repetitive errors from BNS and repetitive errors from EFX proving that both Defendants equally were at fault multiple times (but no-one taking the blame) and that is what RNC expected to see at trial - but did not - with the Defendants’ answer of “not being adversarial” to Learned Judge [Trial Transcript, Page 7] and the continuance of the collusion to cover up their conspiracy of the credit report history of errors and those errors repeating invasion of RNC’s privacy.
Part II (H) When RNC took this case to Enio Zeppieri (ENIO) in Jan 2001, RNC decided that it would be best to take both Defendants through Court at the same time because BNS/EFX would have to tell the whole truth of RNC’s history errors as it applied to each of them. BNS/EFX should have been upset with each other because of RNC’s claim of the re-occurring and compounding error RNC expected to, and did WIN! However, RNC was not fairly nor appropriately awarded including the issue of costs - given the facts of the case (which RNC insists should be paid directly to him by both Defendants). RNC was unable (due to faulty legal representation) to clearly tell how the errors have impacted and disrupted the lives of RNC/ROC and family caused by both BNS/EFX through their faulty credit reporting. Both Defendants’ lawyers walked into court arm-in-arm. Learned Judge asked if the Defendants were adversarial, and the Defendants’ lawyers replied that they were not. RNC was complete shocked. RNC expected the trial to be different with someone(s) taking the responsibility for all their errors. RNC expected to see the Defendants lawyers engage in the professional mudslinging that had been displayed during the Discovery each blaming the other for the errors. BSN/EFX cannot afford to lose this trial because major changes are now being sought in the Ontario Legislation [see Bill 38 - An Act to Amend the Consumer Reporting Act]. There is no doubt that the joining together of the Defendants, misleading representation of the errors and missing evidence, suggests that the Defendants continue to cover-up for each other suggesting: collusion; conspiracy (in order to hide the credit history errors mismerge; involvement by both EFX/BNS; involvement by RJC (and others); denial of all earlier complaints; and belittlement of RNC�� s claim.

Part II (I) RNC has made several claims against RNC’s ex-counsel and law office (ENIO and ZEP). RNC was totally betrayed and completely let down by the efforts and/or lack of efforts by the errors and omissions of RNC’s legal representatives. ENIO/ZEP did not treat RN ROC, the case, the legal system or Learned Judge with the respect that they deserved. RNC was badly misrepresented and mistreated by ENIO/ZEP that it has distorted the case and RNC was treated unfairly and unprofessionally (to properly piece together all the timelines and evidence in order to prove the multiple compounding errors and to show defamation of character, discrimination, untruths, conspiracy, cover-up and collusion). Investigations were withheld when it came to and evidence from the Court and from RNC. RNC faced many roadblocks throughout the 12-plus years because ENIO/ZEP did very little investigation of the facts in order to gain any supportive evidence that would have been needed or available. ENIO did not pay attention nor care to know most of the facts of evidence that were discovered throughout RNC�� investigation. [See Exhibits 4 and 5] Therefore, BNS and EFX escaped from paying for the errors and for the repeated identity theft of RNC caused by their mistakes. Learned Judge was not fully apprised of the entire case history nor did he seem to know how it had affected and impacted RNC’s life and the lives of ROC and family. ENIO/ZEP did more harm then good to RNC. RNC’s case was sabotaged attributable ENIO’s/ZEP’s misrepresentation. ENIO was untruthful from their first meeting saying, “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!” RNC trusted ENIO and believed this would be the case. RNC paid ENIO/ZEP $5,998.92 (from May 23, 2001-Jun 7, 2002) for any costs that might have already been incurred. ENIO told RNC that he “would take on this case on personally because of the depth and scope of the case - and to keep the costs down”. ENIO agreed to file the claim immediately; however, it was not filed until five months later, with the excuse that he was, “waiting for the results of another court case”. That Decision was on Dec 13, 2001 and the Appeal Court Decision was on Mar 6, 2003. RNC’s claim was completed on May 2 2001 (which happened to coincide with the first payment asked by and given to ENIO/ZEP by RNC). ENIO also stated that RNC “could not have a jury in a civil case”. RNC found out later that civil cases could have jury in special circumstances. RNC believed that this case had extenuating circumstances and merited a trial by jury. By Mar 2002, EFX would not release RNC’s credit report when requested to do so (Feb to Mar 2002) by B Pinkney, The Toronto Dominion Bank (TD) nor would EFX give a copy to RNC (see a letter received from Adrianna Moukas, EFX). RNC could not get his credit report and this affected his application for a TD second mortgage. RNC pleaded with ENIO to expedite a 2nd mortgage, but it took ENIO almost five more months before ENIO set up RNC’s and ROC’s second mortgage Aug 2002). ENIO agreed to pay off creditors, in the amount of $24,000, leaving a balance of $2,000 to go towards costs. On Aug 12, 2002, ENIO misappropriated all of the $26,000 from the second mortgage monies and no creditors were cleared. Both RNC/ROC argued for a week with Theresa H. of ZEP (Theresa) and Rose Serino of ZEP (Serino) and finally with ENIO about the misdirection of these funds. ENIO returned $5,000 to RNC, and said “take this money and pay off your creditors”. At this point in time, RNC was forced to accept anything that was offered in order to satisfy his outstanding debts (even though this amount was insufficient). RNC felt financially “like a hostage ROC should sign the documents so that just in case something happened to RNC, ROC would still be entitled to any costs awarded by Learned Judge”. ENIO told RNC/ROC that ENIO would hand in the judgment and consent form to Learned Judge on Oct 14, 2004 at a scheduled meeting that would be held on costs. ENIO also said to RNC/ROC that this was his plan to show Learned Judge that if RNC did not win anything for legal costs, then ENIO would file a $40,631 claim against RNC. ROC’s attendance at the meetings with RNC was because RNC could not trust what ENIO/ZEP said and does due to the past dealings with ENIO/ZEP. The next day, Aug 23, 2004, ENIO (or a ZEP associate), filed the $40,631 claim and a consent for judgment. This was done without RNC’s knowledge - and this was not according to the pl as had been stated previously to RNC/ROC at the meeting with ENIO the day before. RNC/ROC did not believe that ENIO would keep on deceiving RNC/ROC even after they caught ENIO in lies (eg. the misappropriation of their second mortgage funds and RNC’s/ROC’s creditors monies). Throughout he period that RNC retained ENIO/ZEP, he talked with Serino to let her know how unhappy he was with ENIO/ZEP – citing the Pearl Rombis (ZEP) Discovery disaster and two months later, the misdirection of RNC’s and ROC � second mortgage funds. ENIO’s/ZEP’s deceptions continue to this ay as RNC has not received any missing and/or requested files, letters and notes from correspondence to/from the Defendants. ENIO had his own agenda throughout this case and ENIO did not respect his client, RNC, nor the Law Society of Upper Canada Rules of Professional Conduct of a Lawyer, nor the Superior Court for Ontario. RNC firmly states the Nonfeasance and Malfeasance efforts by ex-counsel � Was a set-up for a case disaster!

Part II (J) After being passed back and forth, RNC insisted that Pearl Rombis of ZEP (Rombis) take ownership of all the documents regarding RNC’s loss of business and the loss of a new business venture with RNC’s business partners. These documents contained evidence of the three businesses: RnR-Online.com, ProlineSportsbook.com and Proline Inc., the activities of businesses, the documents from the new business and the financial records of the original business, RnR-Online.com, showing the previous earnings for 1999 and 2000, the past five years of losses and the projected potential losses and RNC’s personal income for those years which a still mounting. RNC could not figure out why it was such a challenge to submit documents to ENIO/ZEP. A few weeks later, RNC received the same bundle of documents back with a yellow sticky note asking, “is this [sic] relevent?”. RNC was confused a wondered why ENIO/ZEP did not think that the financial structure of the business was not relevant when they clearly showed how the lack of funding affected all three businesses. RNC claims that Rombis without the knowledge or consent of RNC made several crucial mistakes during her sudden unprepared appearance on behalf of RNC’s litigation, on or about Mar 15, 200 Rombis was obviously unprepared and made a number of mistakes during Discoveries that were held Jun 3, 4 and 10, 2002. Rombis was suddenly gone (sometime after Jul 2, 2002) without any notice given to RNC. During the Discoveries, Rombis allowed Sclisizzi and Schwartz to “trick” RNC into giving them ix extra days to prepare (before the originally non-scheduled Day 3 of Discovery). Rombis permitted Sclisizzi to restart with more questions on Day 3 of Discovery (Sclisizzi stated, “Mrs. Rombis did not officially close my end of the discovery”. Even though, at 4: p.m. on Day 2 of Discovery, Sclisizzi claimed that he would be finished by 5 p.m. and that Schwartz would start Day 3 of Discovery. Sclisizzi finished at 5:10 p.m. - therefore, Sclisizzi should have been finished and Rombis should have ended Sclisizzi’s Discovery at that point. RNC thought he w finished. It seems now, Rombis had become the brunt of (ZEP’s) jokes a comments. RNC did not expect to see and hear that sort of behaviour from RNC’s Counsel or, in fact, from any legal associate or law office staff member. Such behaviour cemented just how badly distorted, misrepresented and trivialized RNC’s case was treated. ENIO promised to keep RNC fully apprised – RNC always felt unadvised and second class client!

Part II (K) Avril Hasselfeild of ZEP (Hasselfeild) took over the case from Rombis on or before Dec 2, 2002. RNC was never given a choice of legal representation (ZEP) as it was ENIO’s decision who he would appoint besides himself, to take on this case. Hasselfeild was let go from the case seven months later (about June 2, 2003) shortly before the pre-trial on Oct 17, 2003. This was the second ZEP associate to have heard RNC’s case who originally, ENIO had stated that he would look after the case himself to keep costs to a minimum. There appeared to be some discrepancies in the signatures “purportedly” to be Hasselfeild’s signatures on three different documents supposedly signed signatures and on 2 unsigned documents. Who is releasing the 5 letters using Hasselfeild’s (ZEP) name on Dec 12 2002, Jan 28 200 May 23 2003, May 23 2003 and June 2 2003?

Part II (L) On Oct 17, 2003, at pre-trial, RNC was introduced to a third ZEP associate, Lora Olsthoorn of ZEP (Olsthoorn). RNC was told that Olsthoorn would be taking over from Hasselfeild and would be attending to RNC’s case throughout the court proceedings”. RNC/ROC only had t or three meetings with Olsthoorn leading up to the trial to be held during the week of Nov 3-10, 2003, which was later postponed until Dec 15-19, 2003. In the morning of the first day of trial, Olsthoorn telephoned RNC to say that she was sick and that she “would not be able to attend the trial today”. Olsthoorn also said that she “would be at court to continue on Tuesday”. Olsthoorn never showed up on the Tuesday or any of the days of trial, and in fact, RNC has not seen or heard from Olsthoorn since then. Another untruth told by ENIO/ZEP. RNC/ROC felt ZEP abandoned, again!

Part II (M) On Dec 15, 2003, upon arrival at the courthouse for the first day of trial, RNC was introduced to Gregory Gryguc of ZEP (Gryguc), another ZEP associate to represent RNC. RNC was told by ENIO that Gryguc would be filling in for the day for the sick Olsthoorn. RNC had only ever seen Gryguc once - very briefly - in ENIO's office (way back at the very first meeting held in Jan 2001). RNC did not want to have yet another unprepared associate represent him. Once again, RNC was extremely let down by being lied to and was very disappointed in ENIO/ZEP for the way they juggled associates throughout his case, pre-trial and trial. RNC was not given a fair chance to have proper legal counsel or to be represented entirely and consistently by ENIO which was exacerbated by the fact that RNC never got to discuss the entire case history in its entirety with just one lawyer. This ultimately destroyed RNC’s faith in obtaining t justice. RNC felt that he should never have retained ENIO/ZEP and regretted not being financially able to fire ENIO as Counsel much earlier, but RNC was held “financially hostage” with ENIO’s misdirections of monies. Was all this juggling – “a planned confusion”.

Part II (N) RNC holds Serino accountable for her participation, improper conduct toward himself and ROC, in that untruths, evasions, not wanting to reveal the submitted legal costs to RNC also, for her acting “stupid” and pleading ignorance to the many facts and questions, and when ZEP received the cost decision, her constant deflections of communications urgently needed by RNC/ROC during several crucial time periods. These conversations usually ended up with requests (and demands) to speak to ENIO immediately, but RNC was told that ENIO “would call RNC back”. ENIO did not return most of these requested telephone calls. Serino told this particular “untruth” many times. RNC asked Serino to “stop lying” to him when she would say that ENIO would call RNC back. This was a favourite ploy of Serino, therefore, Serino demonstrated herself to be untrustworthy and unprofessional. All of these frustrations added to the failure of ZEP to properly represent his client RNC. RNC firmly states Serino ignorance and evasions of or in communication as “a planned confusion”.

Part II (O) RNC holds Theresa accountable for conspiring with ENIO in the theft of RNC’s $26,000 (second mortgage money/funds to pay o debts). The plan, which was written, submitted and agreed upon by ENIO and RNC, was that $24,000 would go to pay off RNC’s outstanding debts and then $2,000 would go to ZEP to pay for costs. On Aug 12, 2002, ENIO misappropriated all of the $26,000 and gave RNC nothing for RNC’s outstanding debts. Bo RNC/ROC argued for a week with Theresa H ? (ZEP), Serino and, finally, with ENIO about this misappropriation of their second mortgage funds. RNC told Serino that RNC considered this to be “theft” and that ENIO was going against his own words, “taking the case on a pro bono basis” and “only needing a few thousand dollars for disbursements/costs” as was said in RNC’s first meeting with ENIO. RNC had no way to dismiss ENIO/ZEP without losing the entire $27,000 paid to ENIO/ZEP and the $26,000 second mortgage, for a total of $53,000. RNC could not afford to engage another lawyer and was put in the reluctant position of having to continue with ENIO/ZEP. Theresa knew that the misappropriation of funds was wrong and that it was not the agreed upon plan as discussed (re-financing of the second mortgage). Therefore, Theresa should be held accountable for her part in the misappropriation of funds. RNC firmly states that the misappropriation and misdirection of monies was a scheme to keep RNC financially bound to ENIO and ZEP!

Part II (P) Many people, having heard the credit reporting history of errors of RNC, have felt disgusted by the way both BNS and EFX have treated RNC/ROC. RNC had several telephone interviews (including a home visit and interview with Laura Zilke (“Zilke” of “Global News”, a few weeks before the trial). Zilke was shocked to hear the history of this case against BNS and EFX. RNC and Zilke stayed in contact until the first day of trial. For some reason that first day of trial was delayed. Unfortunately, it was delayed too long for Zilke to wait and she apologized to RNC for needing to move on to other news events. This delay left the Courtroom empty of media representation. The trial questioning put the onus on RNC and not on BNS’s/EFX’s involvement. Neither EFX nor NS wanted to talk about their role in RJC’s credit report history at tri which evidence was very crucial to RNC’s case. It became apparent [Exhibit-04] that the evidence showed the “loss of control over RJC’s multiple BNS accounts (from multiple BNS branches)”. In fact, most of BNS’s evidence presented in their production brief was about RJC. The trial did not dissect the evidence provided by BNS. RNC talked to Zilke a few weeks after the trial, asking how her story was coming along and she replied that it was a “very complex story with too many angles. It would be too confusing to the reader Another shock for RNC, because Zilke was, at one time, very sympathetic and anxious to have RNC’s story told. RNC gave Zilke some early incidents use for her story about the errors and the BNS branches involved and as far as RNC knows, they are still in her possession. What happened to Zilke news coverage? Was ENIO involved? ENIO was upset with RNC because he went behind ENIO’s back and ENIO did not want the media interviews to be held in h office. See correspondence of June 2, 2003, [but unsigned] by Hasselfield and typed by Serino who was ENIO’s assistant. Zilke knew about the grief a mistrust of ENIO and ZEP as told by RNC before the trial began. By Jan 2006, RNC contacted Zilke, who then confirmed her earlier feelings but told RNC that “she could not write her story because the Defendants would not talk to her, therefore, she could not write a one-sided story”. This hints at mo cover-ups by BNS/EFX: their ongoing negligence acts and lack of duty, their faulty credit reporting systems, the unreliable bank data reporting and the faulty or non-existent investigations by EFX and BNS.

Part II (Q) After ENIO filed the appeal July 2004, RNC was led to believe that transcripts would be ordered from some of 1st mortgage funds that was eventually setup by Dec 14 2004 to pay for transcripts. These funds
were again misdirected to pay litigation and not the agreed transcripts. RNC did not find this out that the transcripts were not ordered until May 3 2005. RNC fired ENIO the next day – May 4 2005. It took ENIO until July 18 2005 (75 days) to inform t courts, meanwhile, still in communication with the defendants counsel. I have requested all files regarding this case including a list of missing correspondence between counsels. ENIO will not release anything requested by RNC to continue his appeal. Why is ENIO hesitant on releasing material?

Part II (R) Combine all with now dishonest lawyer who sabotaged discoveries and then misdirected mortgage trust funds telling RNC not to admit and lie to another lawyer about a title search [instead RNC told the truth] - Followed by a change of ZEP [four] Associates involvement with lies and ignorance by ZEP support staff altogether misrepresenting the entire case facts through Enio Zeppieri secret agenda constantly breaking RNC�� trust while holding RNC financially hostage and ENIO not doing his do diligence - needed to acquire all concealed evidence with total lack of under-takings and no Subpoena's served for any evidence or to any persons crucial involvement in the case. [ENIO and ZEP filed a bogus claim against RNC with a false consent through more lies and trickery.] ENIO went so far as to lie to Learn Judge during the cost endorsement meeting.

Part III (A) - Damages: The case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) multiple types of errors (c) the multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) the multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court. [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08] [Exhibit - #4] [Exhibit - #5] - Similar Timelines
(3) Against EFX and BNS for indirect cause in discrimination and defamation of character towards RNC
by (i) RBC (ii) CIBC (iii) Canada Trust (iv) TD Bank (v) any other viewer.
[EFX-PB-01] - [EFX-PB-03] – [Exhibit - #4] - [Exhibit - #5Exhibit #8] - Similar Timelines
(4) Against EFX and BNS for their repeated negligence due to lack of duty proven in Supreme Court. The Lack
of Duty should also be ordered as Lack of Fiduciary Duty. [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03 - [EFX-PB-08]
(5) Against EFX for their Nonfeasance duty into correcting RNC’s identification to it’s legal form out of spite.
[EFX-PB-08] - [Exhibit #6] and RNC’s identification is still wrong causing problems to this day.

Part III (B) - Aggravated Damages: The case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) multiple types of errors (c) the multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) the multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court. [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08] [Exhibit - #4] [Exhibit - #5]
(3) Against EFX and BNS for indirect cause in discrimination and defamation of character towards RNC
by (i) RBC (ii) CIBC (iii) Canada Trust (iv) TD Bank (v) any other viewer.
[EFX-PB-01] - [EFX-PB-03] – [Exhibit - #4] - [Exhibit - #5Exhibit #8] - Similar Timelines
(4) Against EFX and BNS for their repeated negligence due to lack of duty proven in Supreme Court. The Lack
of Duty should also be ordered as Lack of Fiduciary Duty. [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03 - [EFX-PB-08]
(5) Against EFX for their Nonfeasance duty into correcting RNC’s identification to it’s legal form out of spite.
[EFX-PB-08] - [Exhibit #6] and RNC’s identification is still wrong causing problems to this day.
(6) Against BNS solicitor Martin Sclisizzi for his 2 harassing comments and his Discovery trickery in stalling.
(i) Trickery in gaining 5 extra days investigation in the middle of discoveries (June 3-4 and 10, 2002)
(ii) Discoveries Harassment “Why don’t you change your name to match what Equifax has on file”>
(iii) Courtroom Harassment “Make it easier on all of us and change your name”
(7) Against EFX solicitor Stephen Schwartz for his March 3 2006 Courtroom conduct of lengthy stares at RNC
(adjusting his chair in doing so) in an attempt to intimidate RNC before addressing motion Judge Blair.

Part III (C) - Punitive Damages: The case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) multiple types of errors (c) multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court. [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08] [Exhibit - #4] [Exhibit - #5] - Similar Timelines
(3) Against EFX for not submitting all evidence from: [EFX- PB-02] <Collection Network documents>
<Why is there no Collection Network documents to accurately pin point credit reporting errors?>
(4) Against BNS for not submitting all evidence from: [EFX-PB-11] <Equifax/CBC documents>
� < ere are the other pages and why is only Page 3 of (?) the documents submitted as evidence?>
(5) Against EFX for their Nonfeasance duty into correcting RNC’s identification to it’s legal form out of spite.
[EFX-PB-08] - [Exhibit #6] and RNC’s identification is still wrong causing problems to this day.
(6) Against BNS solicitor Martin Sclisizzi for his 2 harassing comments and his Discovery trickery in stalling
(i) Trickery in gaining 5 extra days investigation in the middle of discoveries (June 3-4 and 10, 2002)
(ii) Discoveries Harassment “Why don’t you change your name to match what Equifax has on file”>
(iii) Courtroom Harassment “Make it easier on all of us and change your name”
(7) Against EFX solicitor Stephen Schwartz for his March 3 2006 Courtroom conduct of lengthy stares at RNC
(adjusting his chair in doing so) in an attempt to intimidate RNC before addressing motion Judge Blair.

Part III (D) - Negligence: The case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) multiple types of errors (c) multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) the multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court. [EFX-PB-01][EFX-PB-03][EFX-PB-08][Exhibit - #4][Exhibit - #5] - Similar Timelines
(3) Against EFX for their Nonfeasance duty into correcting RNC’s identification to it’s legal form out of spite.
[EFX-PB-08] - [Exhibit #6] and RNC’s identification is still wrong causing problems to this day.
(4) Against BNS solicitor Martin Sclisizzi for his 2 harassing comments and his Discovery trickery in stalling
(i) Trickery in gaining 5 extra days investigation in the middle of discoveries (June 3-4 and 10, 2002)
(ii) Discoveries Harassment “Why don’t you change your name to match what Equifax has on file”>
(iii) Courtroom Harassment “Make it easier on all of us and change your name”
(5) Against EFX solicitor Stephen Schwartz for his March 3 2006 Courtroom conduct of lengthy stares at RNC
(adjusting his chair in doing so) in an attempt to intimidate RNC before addressing motion Judge Blair.

Part III (E) Gross Negligence: The case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) multiple types of errors (c) multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court. [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08] [Exhibit - #4] [Exhibit - #5] - Similar Timelines
(3) Against EFX for not submitting all evidence from: [EFX- PB-02] <Collection Network documents>
<Why is there no Collection Network documents to accurately pin point credit reporting errors?>
(4) Against BNS for not submitting all evidence from: [EFX-PB-11] <Equifax/CBC documents>
<Where are the other pages and why is only Page 3 of (?) the documents submitted as evidence?>
(5) Against EFX for their Nonfeasance duty into correcting RNC’s identification to it’s legal form out of spite.
[EFX-PB-08] - [Exhibit #6] and RNC’s identification is still wrong causing problems to this day.
(6) Against BNS solicitor Martin Sclisizzi for his 2 harassing comments and his Discovery trickery in stalling
(i) Trickery in gaining 5 extra days investigation in the middle of discoveries (June 3-4 and 10, 2002)
(ii) Discoveries Harassment “Why don’t you change your name to match what Equifax has on file”>
(iii) Courtroom Harassment “Make it easier on all of us and change your name”
(7) Against EFX solicitor Stephen Schwartz for his March 3 2006 Courtroom conduct of lengthy stares at RNC
(adjusting his chair in doing so) in an attempt to intimidate RNC before addressing motion Judge Blair.

Part III (F - A) - Contributory Negligence: The case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) multiple types of errors (c) multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court.[EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08] [Exhibit - #4][Exhibit - #5]

Part III (F - B) - Against (3) the RBC and (4) CIBC for their multiple in-branch and telephone refusals and/or ignorance to search and supply RNC with requested documentation for possible use of evidence. Fortunately, RNC is only interested in the truth from both defendants so RNC will ignore these claims of their Negligence.

Part III (G) - Res Ipsa Loquitur:
(1) Against Dianne C? (EFX) for her inaccurate 1998 investigations of the RNC complaint. [EFX-PB-04]
(2) Against Sylvie Miserere (EFX) for her inaccurate 1999 investigations of the RNC complaint. [EFX-PB-02]
(3) Against Louisa Menta (EFX) for her inaccurate 2000 investigations of the RNC complaint. [EFX-PB-02]
(4) Against Mrs. Laporta [RNC-PB-10], Sylvie Normandeau, [RNC-PB-11] [RNC-PB-16] and
Adrianna Moukas (Mar 19 2002 refusal letter), Jean Pierre Chabot [RNC-PB-26] (EFX)
(5) Against EFX for their unreleased incomplete 2000 investigations of all RNC’s complaints to EFX a d BNS
over the many years of the credit rating errors and how they originally began attaching themselves to
RNC and his Credit Report and Public Records and taking over his and family s Life.
(6) Against Anne Spelchuk (BNS) for her incomplete and inaccurate 1998 investigation. [RNC-PB-06]
(7) Against Credit Experience (BNS) for their incomplete and inaccurate 1999 investigation. [BNS-PB-13]
(8) Against Winsome Rattray-Bennett (BNS) for incomplete and inaccurate 2000 investigation. [EFX-PB-02]
(9) Against Marie Meschino [RNC-PB-21], Charlie Dougall, [RNC-PB-19] and Ombudsman William Bailey
(RNC-PB-23) The Bank of Nova Scotia [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08]
(10) Against BNS for their unreleased 2000 incomplete investigations of all RNC’s complaints to E and
BNS over the many years of the credit rating errors and how they originally began attaching themselves
to RNC and his Credit Report and Public Records and taking over his and family Life.
(11) NOTE: This doe not include employee(s) from BNS who created the write-offs and errors that followed.

Part III (H) - Joint and Several Liability: The case was belittled by EFX and BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) the multiple types of errors (c) the multiple faulty investigations (d) the multiple evasions of truth (e) multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court. [EFX-PB-01][EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08] [Exhibit-#4] [Exhibit-#5]
(1) Against Dianne C? (EFX) for her inaccurate 1998 investigations of the RNC complaint. [EFX-PB-04]
(2) Against Sylvie Miserere (EFX) for her inaccurate 1999 investigations of the RNC complaint. [EFX-PB-02]
(3) Against Louisa Menta (EFX) for her inaccurate 2000 investigations of the RNC complaint. [EFX-PB-02]
(4) Against Mrs. LaPorta [RNC-PB-10], Sylvie Normandeau, [RNC-PB-11] [RNC-PB-16] and
Adrianna Moukas (Mar 19 2002 refusal letter), Jean Pierre Chabot [RNC-PB-26] (EFX)
(5) Against EFX for their unreleased incomplete 2000 investigations of all RNC’s complaints to E and BNS
over the many years of the credit rating errors and how they originally began attaching themselves to
RNC and his Credit Report and Public Records and taking over his and family's Life.
(6) Against Anne Spelchuk (BNS) for her incomplete and inaccurate 1998 investigation. [RNC-PB-06]
(7) Against Credit Experience (BNS) for their incomplete and inaccurate 1999 investigation. [BNS-PB-13]
(8) Against Winsome Rattray-Bennett (BNS) for incomplete and inaccurate 2000 investigation. [EFX-PB-02]
(9) Against Marie Meschino [RNC-PB-21], Charlie Dougall, [RNC-PB-19] and Ombudsman William Bailey
(RNC-PB-23) The Bank of Nova Scotia [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08]
(10) Against BNS for their unreleased 2000 incomplete investigations of all RNC’s complaints to E and
BNS over the many years of the credit rating errors and how they originally began attaching themselves
to RNC and his Credit Report and Public Records and taking over his and family Life.
(11) NOTE: This doe not include employee(s) from BNS who created the write-offs and errors that followed.

Part III (I) - Strict Liability: This case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) the multiple types of errors (c) the multiple faulty investigations (d) the multiple evasions of truth (e) multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court.[EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03][EFX-PB-08] [Exhibit - #4][Exhibit - #5]
(3) (a) Against EFX for their incomplete and/or unreleased multiple investigations of all RNC�� complaints to EFX and others over the past twelve years of their errors (b) How they originally began attaching themselves to RNC and his Credit Reports and Public Records taking over his and family’s mental physical and financial Life.
(4) (a) Against BNS for their incomplete and/or unreleased 1998 and 2000 investigations of RNC�� complaints after discovery of being BNS errors 58 months into case (b) Learning of BNS active investigation 56 months [BNS-PB-09] before RNC knew BNS was involved. Proves the cover-up by EFX to hide identity theft by BNS.

Part III (J) - Breach of Contract: This case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) the multiple types of errors (c) the multiple faulty investigations (d) the multiple evasions of truth (e) multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court.[EFX-PB-01][EFX-PB-03][EFX-PB-08] [Exhibit - #4][Exhibit - #5]
(3) (a) Against EFX for their incomplete and/or unreleased multiple investigations of all RNC�� complaints to EFX and others over the past twelve years of their errors (b) How they originally began attaching themselves to RNC and his Credit Reports and Public Records taking over his and family’s mental physical and financial Life.
(4) (a) Against BNS for their incomplete and/or unreleased 1998 and 2000 investigations of RNC�� complaints after discovery of being BNS errors 58 months into case (b) Learning of BNS active investigation 56 months [BNS-PB-09] before RNC knew BNS was involved. Proves the cover-up by EFX to hide identity theft by BNS.

Part III (K) - Rebuttable Presumption: The case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) multiple types of errors (c) multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court.[EFX-PB-01][EFX-PB-03][EFX-PB-08][Exhibit - #4][Exhibit - #5]
(3) Against EFX for not submitting all evidence - example: [EFX- PB-02] <Collection Network documents>
<Why is there no Collection Network documents to accurately pin point credit reporting errors?>
(4) Against BNS for not submitting all evidence- example: [EFX-PB-11] <Equifax/CBC documents>
<Where are the other pages and why is only Page 3 of (?) the document pages submitted as evidence?>

Part III (L) – Fraud: The case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) multiple types of errors (c) multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) the multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court. [EFX-PB-01][EFX-PB-03][EFX-PB-08][Exhibit - #4][Exhibit - #5] - Similar Timelines.
(3) Against EFX for not submitting all evidence - example: [EFX- PB-02] <Collection Network documents>
<Why is there no Collection Network documents to accurately pin point credit reporting errors?>
(4) Against BNS for not submitting all evidence- example: [EFX-PB-11] <Equifax/CBC documents>
<Where are the other pages and why is only Page 3 of (?) the document pages submitted as evidence?>

Part III (M) - Obstructing Justice: This case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) multiple types of errors (c) multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court.[EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08] [Exhibit - #4] [Exhibit - #5] Similar Timelines
(3) Against EFX for not submitting all evidence - example: [EFX- PB-02] <Collection Network documents>
<Why is there no Collection Network documents to accurately pin point credit reporting errors?>
(4) Against BNS for not submitting all evidence- example: [EFX-PB-11] <Equifax/CBC documents>
<Where are the other pages and why is only Page 3 of (?) the document pages submitted as evidence?>

Part III (N) - Bad Faith: The case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) multiple types of errors (c) multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) the multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court. [EFX-PB-01] [EFX-PB-03] [EFX-PB-08] [Exhibit - #4] [Exhibit - #5] - Similar Timelines.
(3) Against EFX for not submitting all evidence - example: [EFX- PB-02] <Collection Network documents>
<Why is there no Collection Network documents to accurately pin point credit reporting errors?>
(4) Against BNS for not submitting all evidence- example: [EFX-PB-11] <Equifax/CBC documents>
<Where are the other pages and why is only Page 3 of (?) the document pages submitted as evidence?>
(5) Against BNS solicitor Martin Sclisizzi for his 2 harassing comments and his Discovery trickery in stalling.
(i) Trickery in gaining 5 extra days investigation in the middle of discoveries (June 3-4 and 10, 2002)
(ii) Discoveries Harassment “Why don’t you change your name to match what Equifax has on file”>
(iii) Courtroom Harassment “Make it easier on all of us and change your name”>
(6) Against EFX solicitor Stephen Schwartz for his March 3 2006 Courtroom conduct of lengthy stares at RNC
(adjusting his chair in doing so) in an attempt to intimidate RNC before addressing motion Judge Blair.

Part III (O) - Slander: (1) Against BNS solicitor Martin Sclisizzi for his actions:
(i) Trickery in gaining 5 extra days investigation in the middle of discoveries (June 3-4 and 10, 2002)
(ii) Discoveries Harassment “Why don’t you change your name to match what Equifax has on file”>
(iii) Courtroom Harassment “Make it easier on all of us and change your name”>

Part III (P) - Slander of Title: (1) Against BNS solicitor Martin Sclisizzi for his actions:
(i) Trickery in gaining 5 extra days investigation in the middle of discoveries (June 3-4 and 10, 2002)
(ii) Discoveries Harassment “Why don’t you change your name to match what Equifax has on file”>
(iii) Courtroom Harassment “Make it easier on all of us and change your name”>

Part III (Q) - Harassment: (1) Against BNS solicitor Martin Sclisizzi for his actions:
(i) Trickery in gaining 5 extra days investigation in the middle of discoveries (June 3-4 and 10, 2002)
(ii) Discoveries Harassment “Why don’t you change your name to match what Equifax has on file”>
(iii) Courtroom Harassment “Make it easier on all of us and change your name”>
(2) Against EFX solicitor Stephen Schwartz for his March 3 2006 Courtroom conduct of lengthy stares at RNC
(adjusting his chair in doing so) in an attempt to intimidate RNC before addressing motion Judge Blair.

Part III (R) - Vexatious: (1) Against BNS solicitor Martin Sclisizzi for his actions:
(i) Trickery in gaining 5 extra days investigation in the middle of discoveries (June 3-4 and 10, 2002)
(ii) Discoveries Harassment “Why don’t you change your name to match what Equifax has on file”>
(iii) Courtroom Harassment “Make it easier on all of us and change your name”>
(2) Against EFX solicitor Stephen Schwartz for his March 3 2006 Courtroom conduct of lengthy stares at RNC
(adjusting his chair in doing so) in an attempt to intimidate RNC before addressing motion Judge Blair.

Part III (S) – Malice - A desire to cause harm to another person out of spite. Against (1) Sclisizzi (2) Schwartz

Part III (T) – Nuisance - Behavior which offends or bothers another person. - Against (1) EFX (2) BNS (3) Sclisizzi (4) Schwartz – for causing errors, forcing trial, f harassment and submitting unfounded cross-appeal.

Part III (U) – Libel - An inaccurate or false written statement that damages the reputation of another person.
(1) Against EFX and (2) BNS for indirect cause in discrimination and defamation of character towards RNC.

Part III (V) - Definitions of Conspiracy: A plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially political).
This case was belittled by (1) EFX and (2) BNS and simplified with many omissions of evidence (a) of the multiple errors (b) the multiple types of errors (c) multiple faulty investigations (d) multiple evasions of truth (e) the multiple counts of negligence due to multiple lack of duty proven in its singularity in Superior Court.

Part III (W) - Definitions of Collusion: An illegal agreement between two or more persons to defraud another of his rights by the forms of law, or to obtain an object forbidden by law. BNS and EFX evasion of full history.

Part III (X) - Definitions of Defamation of Character: In English and American law, and systems based on them, libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character) which is the tort or dialect of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation.[Slander-RBC, CIBC] [Libel-BNS, EFX, TD]
Part III (Y) - Definitions of Discrimination: Discrimination is the restrictive treatment of a person or group based on prejudiced assumptions of group characteristics, rather than on individual judgment. It is the denial of justice prompted by prejudice. Discrimination against RNC from RBC and CIBC caused by BNS and EFX.

Part III (Z) – Invasion of Privacy: an invasion of privacy as intrusion upon a person seclusion or solitude.
The Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged the existence of a privacy right by holding that section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects the privacy of the individual. Somwar v. McDonald Canada Ltd.,

Part IV – Brief Examination of Prima Facie Issues of Proximate Cause knowing Eggshell Skull Rule applies.
1) July 24 1993: Denied Credit Card from false credit history - RJC Timeline Evidence
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report - EFX and BNS / Discrimination by TD
2) Unknown to Jan 19 1994: Atleast 1 bad rating error [R9] - displayed by RBC and investigated EFX.
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX and BNS / Discrimination by RBC
3) Jul 1995 to Sept 1995: Atleast 1 bad rating error [R9] - displayed by RBC and investigated EFX.
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX and BNS / Discrimination by RBC / CMHC – Resolved
4) Feb 10 1996: Denied Loan from false credit history showing [R9 rating] - RNC does not pay his debt.
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX and BNS / Discrimination by TD
5) Feb 12 1996: Denied Loan from false credit history showing [R9 rating] - RNC does not pay his debt.
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX and BNS / Discrimination by Trans Canada Credit
6) Aug 30 1996 to Oct. 1996: Atleast 1 bad rating error [R9] and [2 Public Record Errors] - CIBC and EFX.
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX a d BNS for Credit Report and Public Record
7) Aug 30 1996: RBC called RNC a “liar” and says “I knew those R9 ratings belonged to you all along.
> Defamation of Character – Slander / Discrimination by RBC wrongful accusing RNC of ownership.
8) Sep 17 1996: Denied Loan from false credit history showing [R9 rating] - RNC does not pay his debt.
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report - EFX and BNS / Discrimination by CIBC
9) Sep 21 1996: Denied Loan from false credit history showing [R9 rating] - RNC does not pay his debt.
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report - EFX / Discrimination by CIBC
10) Oct 01 1996: Denied Loan from false credit history showing [R9 rating] - RNC does not pay his debt.
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX and BNS / Discrimination by CIBC
11) Nov 10 1996: Denied Credit Card from false credit history showing [R9 rating] - RNC does not pay his debt
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX and BNS / Discrimination by Future Shop
12) Nov 10 1996: Denied Loan from false credit history showing [R9 rating] - RNC does not pay his debt.
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX and BNS / Discrimination by Merchant Services
13) Nov 14 1996: Denied Credit Card from false credit history showing [R9 rating] - RNC does not pay his debt
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX and BNS / Discrimination by CITIBANK
14) Nov 28 1997: Denied Credit Card from false credit history showing [R9 rating] - RNC does not pay his debt
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX and BNS / Discrimination by Canada Trust
15) Dec 16 1997: Denied Credit Card from false credit history showing [R9 rating] - RNC does not pay his debt
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX and BNS / Discrimination by CT - Resolved Jan 1998
16) Dec 25 1997: Unknown Inquirer - Who checked credit report without permission on Christmas Day?
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – Unknown Inquirer
17) May 26 1998: Denied O/D Protection from false credit history shows [I9 rating] RNC does not pay his debt
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report - EFX / Discrimination by CIBC
18) Jul - Aug 1998: RNC sent Final Demand Notice instead of employer who wrote NSF paycheque
> Defamation of Character / libel and Discrimination by EFX and TD
19) Oct 19 1998: Why did TD Visa check RNC credit report when RNC never had or applied for TD Visa?
> Invasion of Privacy - TD Visa – RNC believes TD is checking RNC through R TD account. Why?
20) Nov 20 1998: Atleast 1 bad rating error [I9] and [2 Public Record Errors] - No Discrimination by CT
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report - EFX and BNS for Credit Report and Public Record
21) Nov 24 1998: Atleast 1 bad rating error [I9] and [2 Public Record Errors] - Discrimination by CIBC
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report - EFX and BNS for Credit Report and Public Record
22) Nov 30 1998: Anne Spelchuk (BNS Ajax) - 1st Complaint and Investigation to (the now known) BNS.
> EFX evasive Cover-up of (now known) BNS involvement since Mar 1994 Search for RJC unknown to RNC.
23) Jan 12 1999: Faulty Investigation by the Defendants labeled RNC as the owner of the bad credit history.
> Proximate Cause by EFX and BNS Faulty Investigation leads to re-labeling RNC as owner of bad debts.
24) Aug 09 1999: Denied O/D Protection from false credit history shows [R9 rating] RNC does not pay his debt
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report - EFX and BNS / Discrimination by CIBC
25) Jan 10 2000: Denied O/D Protection from false credit history shows [R9 rating] RNC does not pay his debt
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report - EFX and BNS / Discrimination by CIBC
26) Apr 14 2000: Why did TD Visa check RNC credit report when RNC never had or applied for TD Visa?
> Invasion of Privacy - TD Visa – RNC believes TD is checking RNC through R TD account. Why?
27a) Sep 06 2000: CIBC tells RNC “you don’t pay off your debts so why would we lend money to you?”
27b) Sep 06 2000: CIBC refuses all form of credit and calls RNC a “liar” and says “credit reports don't lie!”
> Defamation of Character – Slander / Discrimination y CIBC
28) Sep 06 2000: Atleast 1 bad rating error [I9] and [other report errors] (now known) to RNC.
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report - EFX and BNS
29) Oct 03 2000: EFX dated credit report released to RNC after repeat demands for Sept 6 2000 credit report.
> EFX evasive Cover-up to not release Sept 6 2000 credit report. 86 days later RNC decides to seek a lawyer.
30) Oct 18 2000: RNC complained to EFX about not receiving Sept 6 2000 report and about other errors?
> BNS evasive Cover-up to not release all information regarding the repetitive errors on RNC�� credit report?
31) Oct 20 2000: RNC complaining to EFX about receiving Sept 6 2000 credit report and other report errors?
> EFX shows Conspiracy to not disclose past faulty investigations Jan 1994, July 1995, Sept 1996, Nov 1998
32) Oct 20 2000: RNC�� Credit Report #5 from EFX contains 8 errors. The terms below continue to appeal.
> EFX - Libelous Fiduciary Quasi-Contract Misrepresentation Proximate Cause Implied Contract from history.
> EFX - Ultra Vires Malice Quasi-Contract Malfeasance Nuisance Libelous Misrepresentation of legal name.
33) Oct 20 2000: BNS did not ask RNC for permission to pull RNC’s credit report #6 from Trans Union?
> Invasion of Privacy – BNS – Trans Union was not involved in ca therefore unfounded report pulling.
34) Oct 23 2000: RNC�� Credit Report #7 from EFX contains 10 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
35) Nov 2 2000: Mr. Little TD displays RNC’s account history "This account previously had an I9 rating".
> Defamation of Character – libel and Discrimination by EFX / libel and Discrimination by TD
> Invasion of Privacy – RNC never had [R9] or [I9]. Who typed comment? Malfeasance Malice Nuisance
> Libelous Fiduciary Quasi-Contract Misrepresentation Implied Contract for accuracy of RNC credit History.
36) Nov 7 2000: RNC�� Credit Report #8 from EFX contains 10 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
37) Nov 08 2000: Unknown Inquirer - Who checked RNC’s credit report without permission?
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report – EFX a d BNS
38) Nov 13 2000: RNC�� Credit Report #9 from EFX contains 12 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
39) Nov. 13 2000: after EFX�� (Sep. 6 2000) investigation and after BNS’s (Oct. 18 2000) investigation fails to completely clear RNC from any more associated credit reporting errors to reappear as demonstrated by a repeat of 1996 and 1998 credit reports in Nov 2000 with [2 Public Records Errors] and [other report errors].
> Invasion of Privacy / Libelous Report - EFX and BNS for Credit Report and Public Record
40) Nov 16 2000: RNC�� Credit Report #10 from EFX contains 10 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
41) Dec 8 2000: Denied $100 Bus. O/D until RNC shows CIBC pamphlet “$250 O/D No Questions asked !”.
> Malice Nuisance Malfeasance Discrimination from Kim Thompson, Len Baker, Mano Jenkins of CIBC.
42) Dec 8 2000: BNS did not ask RNC for permission to pull RNC’s credit report #11 from Trans Union?
> Invasion of Privacy – BNS – Trans Union was not involved in ca therefore unfounded report pulling.
43) Dec 13 2000: RNC�� Credit Report #12 from EFX contains 9 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
44) Dec 22 2000: RNC/kids declined debit use at Zellars who tried to obtain card. RNC calls CIBC learns of 21 day freeze on all accounts including 2 kid accounts to clear a RnR-Online business cheque. This was not the usual. RNC could deposit and withdraw $1000 on same day until RNC’s complaints about EFX and then CIBC.
> Discrimination from CIBC for changing rules on RNC and Zellars Embarrassment for RNC and 2 daughters
45) Sept 10 2001: Denied BNS Visa upgrade telling RNC about a false “Judgment against borrower one.
> Malice Nuisance Malfeasance Discrimination by BNS - CIBC Visa approve upgrade without above statement
> All RNC’s credit reports before and after never mention Judgment and there was no judgment – BNS LIES!
46) Oct 23 2001: RNC�� Credit Report #13 from EFX contains 8 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
47) Feb to Mar 2002: Denied 2nd Mortgage by TD – Bob Pinkney could not get RNC credit report from EFX.
> Nonfeasance - RNC was not informed by EFX that his credit report was unavailable for retrieval for viewing.
48) Mar 19 2002: Received letter from Adrianna Moukas of EFX refusing RNC from receiving credit report
> Malice Nuisance Malfeasance RNC finds out that EFX blocked RNC from credit report due to the litigation.
49) Apr 05 2002: Denied 2nd Mortgage by Laurentian Bank since never hearing back from them.
> RNC believes Laurentian Bank was not able to retrieve credit report therefore never replied back to RNC.
50) June 03 2002: RNC�� Credit Report #14 from EFX contains 8 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
51) Sept 9 2003: Denied transfer of 2nd CIBC Mortgage SDRRSP #305141 (Toby Ezer) to Savers Mortgage.
> RNC failed taking 2nd mortgage (RNC never received mortgage documents) away from ENIO�� original setup
52) Oct 15 2003: RNC Credit Report #15 from EFX contains 7 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
53) Nov 03 2003: RNC Credit Report #16 from EFX contains 6 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
54) Dec 16 2003: RNC Credit Report #17 from EFX contains 6 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
55) Jan 15 2004: MBNA Refused because “Lack of established revolving credit history” Can not find RNC’s.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
56) Jan 26 2004 - RNC Credit Report #18 from EFX contains 5 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
57) Nov 23 2004 - RNC Credit Report #19 from EFX contains 6 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
58) Apr 26 2005 - RNC Credit Report #20 from EFX contains 10 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
59) Aug 29 2005 – Inv Financial Group - Pulled RNC credit report without permission?
> Invasion of Privacy – Unknown Inquirer - Who is Invis Financial Group?
60) Dec 7 2005 - RNC Credit Report #21 from EFX contains 12 errors.
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
61) Jan 29 2006 - RNC Credit Report #22 from EFX contains 14 errors. (20 EFX reports = 192 known errors)
> Refer to #32 RNC will claim #32 until EFX corrects several errors especially RNC’s name to its leg l form.
62) > RNC claims EFX and BNS worked in Collusion to hide most facts about the errors repeated existence. In Joint and several liability to Aid and Abet Malfeasance Fraud Misrepresentation of Fiduciary Implied contract
63) > EFX/BNS Proximate Cause Nonfeasance Quasi-Contract Ultra Vires Breach of Trust Eggshell Skull Rule
64) > EFX’s multiple Invasion of Privacy reproducing and displaying ROC’s info on RNC’s credit reports.

Part V (A) - The trial appellant RNC firmly states that the Trial Verdict delivered by the Learned Judge to be deemed as incomplete, inaccurate, inappropriate and a Prima Facie misrepresentation in many areas of the many years of this Prima Facie Case. This history of errors created and recreated by EFX and BNS combined with a selective suppression of many key documents by EFX and BNS along with the complete suppression by CIBC and RBC of all or any documents to be used as possible submissions of evidence. A full forensic explanation of all facts and the many faulty investigations by BNS and EFX with RBC, CIBC and CAT should have been available immediately to clarify and defend RNC’s innocent from the multiple errors, the multiple invasion of privacy, the multiple misrepresentation, the multiple slander RNC suffered from RBC and CIBC, the multiple untruths given by BNS and EFX and the multiple aggravated stresses set upon RNC. The Learned Judge did not hear all factual evidence from case to make proper investigations into the true nature of the defendants actions.

Part V (B) - The trial appellant RNC firmly states that the Cost Endorsement delivered by the Learned Judge to be dismissed and/or changed with all Superior Court for Ontario costs to be awarded to both EFX and BNS on a substantial indemnity basis with founded multiple grounds of negligence committed by (i) EFX and several employees and by (ii) BNS and several employees including The Bank of Nova Scotia’s Ombudsman. which, the Learned Judge indicated that RNC had a chance to settle the matters out of court, but the facts to the non settlement are; the monies offered to settle out of court were by far less then the total of true damages incurred or even the legal expense incurred. From Jan 2001 to Au 12 2002 the legal fees alone topped: ($6k paid to ENIO, $21k misdirected by ENIO and an outstanding 2nd mortgage for $26k totaling $53k+) This total does not include the next 16 months (Aug 12 2002 – Dec 15-19 2003 Trial Date) the accumulating fees. RNC could not settle for anything less $53+k and not be given the truth and not receive all the appropriate apologies.

Part V (C) The trial appellant RNC humbly requests that the trial verdict be deemed invalid as it is incomplete, inaccurate, and inappropriate with a Prima Facie misrepresentation and to properly award RNC�� s pleadings:
i) Psychiatric Harm.
ii) Pre-judgment interest on all sums awarded pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act.
iii) Punitive Damages.
iv) Costs of this action on a solicitor and client scale throughout.
v) Such further and other relief as this Honourable court may deem just and appropriate.

Part V (D) - The appeal appellant RNC humbly requests an additional award of damages of $25,000.00 from each defendant for each account of damages suffered as the result of the continuing mental anguish suffered throughout this litigation as set upon by both respondents of Appeal. This includes the submission of the Cross-Appeals that absolutely bear no ground for their submission except to counter attack RNC’s appeal for a complete and proper justice including all su financial justice. Unfortunately it was RNC’s claim that was the first successfully win and begin to pave a road to recovery amongst a David and Goliath type battle for falling into uncharted waters and complaining about EFX’s now renowned faulty reporting system. The trial showed the lack correcting the credit report since Jan. 1994 but the court did not comprehend nor stress over (i) how many errors (ii) how many loans (iii) how many BNS branches (iv) how many times the errors repeated and invaded RNC’s privacy (v) how many institutions displayed errors (vi) how many times the errors discriminated RNC (vii) how many months before 1994 did bad credit rating errors attach to RNC’s credit report a d (viii) how they affected the beacon score total with harmful deductions to RNC credit report.

Part V (E) The Appeal appellant (and Cross-Appeal respondent), RNC, states that the Notice o Cross-Appeal brought in by the Appeal defendants (and Cross-Appeal appellants) be dismissed with costs on a substantial indemnity basis as the grounds of Cross-Appeal’s by both BNS and EFX “are not valid”. In act, it is untrue and unfounded as demonstrated by the evidence provided in and during the trial. The respondent for the Cross-Appeals humbly asks this Court of Appeals, not only to dismiss the Notice of Cross-Appeals by both appellants, but also to award the true damages that the respondent has suffered, namely, RNC’s exposure to various legal bills and award RNC additional damages $250,000.00 from each on account of damages continually suffered as the result of mental anguish suffered throughout this litigation as set forth by both defendants of Appeal. In which, the Learned Judge indicated that RNC had a chance to settle manners out of court, the facts of the matter are; the monies offered to settle out of court were by far less then the true damages incurred. Even if RNC agreed to take any offer to settle, some Erroneous Information on RNC’s credit report would still continue to be present and could cause more damages in defamation of character and discrimination.

Part V (F) - The Cross-Appeal respondent RNC firmly states that Notices of Cross-Appeal’s brought for by the Cross-Appeal appellants EFX and BNS - be dismissed with all court costs awarded to the defendants on a substantial indemnity basis as the grounds for the Cross-Appeals are not valid and bears no merits based on the evidence of the multiple suppression and cover-up of factual evidences leading to the defendants now extended counts of negligence in conspiracy through collusion and harassment including obstructing justice. This is a Prima Facie Case with many important facts being ignored, misrepresented, belittled or omitted from the Superior Court trial causing a mass distortion of factual history to successfully recover all or any losses and to advance the offence of RNC’s claim of (i) multiple counts and types of negligence and (ii) the multiple counts of invasion of privacy followed by (iii) the multiple counts of damages suffered. RNC humbly requests Court of Appeals for Ontario to dismiss both Notice of Cross-Appeal and award Treble Damages for their nuisance.

Part V (G) The appeal appellant RNC humbly requests the Court of Appeals for Ontario to quash the Motion of Consent presented to The Superior Court for Ontario with Statement of Claim No.4CV274206SR by ENIO/ZEP against RNC/ROC as (i) they were “tricked” into signing under false pretences of ENIO’s plan (ii) ROC was never a client ENIO/ZEP (iii) RNC would never truly consent to ruining his credit report (iv) ENIO planned scheme to trick Justice Day with claim and consent (v) ENIO/ZEP untruth to Justice Day about total legal costs.

Part V (H) The appeal appellant RNC humbly requests for all litigation losses (#1) (#2) (#3) (#4) (#5) (#6) forced upon RNC to uncover the history to clear his name and claim his innocence from all past experiences.
1) All outstanding Superior Court for Ontario Fees: ?

2) All outstanding Court of Appeal for Ontario Fees: ?

3) Legal Fees misdirected or Unfairly by Enio Zeppieri & Associates:
Aug. 12 2002 – Enio misdirected 2nd
Aug. 23 2004 - Claim on Robert Neil Clark and Roxane Brunet-Clark by Enio Zeppieri & Associates � $40,631.00
Dec. 21 2004 – Enio misdirected 1st
Dec. 21 2004 – Enio unfairly used 1st
Dec. 21 2004 – Enio unfairly involved fees Stewart Title $70.20, execution $160.50 to lift and re-file claim � $230.70
Dec. 21 2004 - Enio misdirected funds held in trust from the unaccepted $5k held for TD settlement � $4,000.00
Total Legal Fees Losses � $72,535.95

4) 2nd Mortgage Interest Payments Paid to cover monies misdirected by Enio Zeppieri & Associates:
(12 months = Sep. 2002 – Aug. 2003) x ($216.59 = 10% interest payment on $26k) = Interest paid $2,599.08
Renewal Fee $85.00
(12 months = Sep. 2003 – Aug. 2004) x ($216.59 = 10% interest payment on $26k) = Interest paid $2,599.08
Renewal Fee $85.00
(12 months = Sep. 2004 – Aug. 2005) x ($216.59 = 10% interest payment on $26k) = Interest paid $2,599.08
Renewal Fee $85.00
(4 months = Sep. 2005 – Dec. 2005) x ($216.59 = 10% interest payment on $26k) = Interest paid $866.36
Payment on Principle $2,000.00
(8 months = Jan. 2006 – Aug. 2006) x ($200.00 = 10% interest payment on $24k) = Interest being Paid $1,600.00
Total Interest Paid $12,518.60
The total paid out by closing date of 2nd mortgage Aug. 12th 2006 will be Total Principle Owed $24,000.00
Total Indirect Legal Fees Losses $36 18.60

5) Legal Fees Paid to Enio Zeppieri & Associates (plus interest from the credit card payments):
TD Payment to Enio Zeppieri & Associates � paid $800.00
May 23 2001 – Dec. 23 2004 = 1292 days x .0004241 daily compounded interest paid $583.00
CIBC Payment to Enio Zeppieri & Associates paid $1,000.00
June 6 2001 – Dec. 23 2004 = 1278 days x .0005068 daily compounded interest paid $909.84
CIBC Payment to Enio Zeppieri & Associates paid $1,198.92
Aug 20 2001 – Dec. 23 2004 = 1203 days x .0005068 daily compounded interest paid $1,204.37
CIBC Payment to Enio Zeppieri & Associates paid $1,000.00
May 10 2002 – Dec. 23 2004 = 940 days x .0005068 daily compounded interest paid $609.24
CIBC Payment to Enio Zeppieri & Associates paid $1,000.00
May 31 2002 – Dec. 23 2004 = 919 days x .0005068 daily compounded interest paid $592.21
CIBC Payment to Enio Zeppieri & Associates � paid $1,000.00
June 7 2002 – Dec. 23 2004 = 912 days x .0005068 daily compounded interest paid $586.58
Total Payments made to Enio Zeppieri $5,998.92
Total Interest Paid for these payments $4,485.24
Total Legal Fees Losses $10,484.16





6) Miscellaneous Expenses for RNC - Court Evidence and Travel to Court:
Ajax Hospital Medical Documents = $200.00
Ajax Hospital Medical Documents = $30.00
Dr. Boutros Medical Documents = $25.00
John Howards Society = $60.00
Video on Stolen Identities = $31.75
Parking for Trial (Jun. 3rd, 4th, 10th 2002) = 3 days x $15.00 = $45.00
Parking for Pre-Trial Oct 14th 2003 = $15.00
Parking for Trial (Dec. 15, 17, 18th, 19th 2003) = 4 days x $15.00 = $60.00
Go Train Tickets (Dec. 16th 2003) = 2 persons x $11.00 roundtrip = $22.00
Parking for 1st Extension Date August 12th 2005 = $18.00
Parking for 2nd Extension Date November 23rd 2005 = $18.00
Parking for 3rd Extension Date December 2nd 2005 = $18.00
Parking for 4th Extension Date January 27 2006 = $18.00
Parking for 5th Extension Date March 3rd 2006 = $18.00
Appeal Book and Compendium, Exhibit Book and Factum print original, make 5 copies and courier = $300.00 approx.
Total of Miscellaneous Losses = $ 8.75

Part V (I) - The appeal appellant RNC humbly requests that all expenses occurred (#7) (#8) by RNC beginning November 24th 2000 and ending February 2nd 2003 due to the continued mental anguish, pain and suffering, travel expenses to and from separate homes and travel expenses to and from counseling sessions.
7) Debt incurred by Robert Neil Clark to payoff misappropriated 2nd mortgage funds:
Robert Neil Clark borrowed $24,000.00 from Dorothy McDiarmid Feb. 2 2003 to replace 2nd Mortgage = $24,000.00
Interest Rate at 4% per annum (Feb 2 2003 to Feb 1 2006 = 3 Years) = $2,996.74
Total Amount owed to Dorothy McDiarmid to replace funds stolen by Enio Zeppieri & Associates = $26,996.74

8) RnR-Online Losses after health problems take over from nervous breakdown Nov. 23-24 2000:
RnR-Online earned - $7,754.62 in 1999
RnR-Online earned - $7,124.51 in 2000 (RNC did not work on RnR-Online advertising after Oct. 2000)
RnR-Online earned - $906.78 in 2001 (RNC did not work on RnR-Online advertising after Oct. 2000)
RnR-Online earned - $0k in 2002, $0k in 2003, $0k in 2004 and $0k in 2005.
RnR-Online losses – ($7,754.62 x 6 years) = ($46,527.72) – ($7,124 1) – ($906.78) = Potential Losses: $38,496.43

Part V (J) - The appeal appellant RNC humbly requests for all of RNC’s Proline Inc. total losses (# 9) (#10)
9) Robert Neil Clark Losses from the 1st year of business with Proline Inc.:
Robert Neil Clark Gives Tom Clark $3,000.00 to set-up Proline Inc $3,000.00
Robert Neil Clark of RnR-Online.com purchase and setups 11 domains for Proline Inc. $1,384.56
Robert Neil Clark Proline Inc. = Total Losses: $4,384.56

10) Robert Neil Clark - 2nd Year and 3rd Year Losses until Proline Inc. considered closed: Dec 31st 2003:
ProlineSportsbook.com – 09/01 $35 renew – 09/02 $35 renew – 09/03 renew – 09/04 renew $140.00 usd
BetNFLFootball.net – 09/01 $30 renew - 09/02 $ renew = $60.00 usd
BetCFLFootball.com – 09/01 $35 renew - 09/02 $ renew = $70.00 usd
BetEngSoccer.com – 09/01 $35 renew - 09/02 $ 5 renew = $70.00 usd
BetNBABasketball.com – 09/01 $35 renew - 09/02 $ renew = $70.00 usd
BetMLBBaseball.com – 09/01 $35 renew - 09/02 $ renew = $70.00 usd
BetNHLHockey.com – 09/01 $35 renew - 09/02 $ 5 renew = $70.00 usd
BetCartRacing.com – 09/01 $35 renew - 09/02 $ 5 renew = $70.00 usd
BetPGAGolf.com – 09/01 $35 renew - 09/02 $ 5 renew = $70.00 usd
BetNascarRacing.com – 09/01 $35 renew - 09/02 $ renew $70.00 usd
BetGreyHoundRacing.com – 09/01 $35 renew - 09/02 $ renew $70.00 usd
Total Losses = $840.00 usd
Exchange Rate at 1.25% USD to CDN = Total CDN Losses = $1037.50 cdn

Part V (K) - The appeal appellant RNC humbly requests for all total losses (#11) by Tardis and TAC to be reimbursed to RNC to return to Tardis and TAC for their loss of RNC and eventual loss of funds and claim.
11) Tardis Communications and Tom Arthur Clark loss of RNC causing loss of business, funds and claim:
Due to the incapacity of RNC from Nov. 23rd 2000, the closure of Proline Inc. and claim against Tardis Communications
Expenses paid $14,300.00 for (non-working) programming to Mike Cooper of Copper Systems = $14,300.00
Judgment #7077/01 Bowmanville against Tardis Communication Inc. by Mike Cooper of Cooper Systems = $7,562.62
Total Tardis Communications and Tom Arthur Clark Losses = $21,862.6

Part V (L) - The appeal appellant RNC humbly requests that his potential loss of income (#12) as originally set out by Proline Inc agreement between TAC and RNC to be awarded as a RNC�� financial loss of income.
12) Robert Neil Clark’s income loss from Proline Inc.:
Oct. 6th 2000 to Aug. 12th 2006 = 304 weeks x $500.00 per Week = Total Income Loss: $152,000.00
Summary of Losses:
1) All outstanding Superior Court for Ontario Fees = ?
2) All outstanding Court of Appeal for Ontario Fees = ?
3) Legal Fees misdirected or Unfairly Used By Enio Zeppieri & Associates = $72,535.95
4) 2nd Mortgage Interest Payments Paid to cover monies misdirected by Enio Zeppieri & Associates = $36,518.60
5) Legal Fees Paid to Enio Zeppieri & Associates (plus interest from the credit card payments) = $10,484.16
6) Miscellaneous Expenses for RNC - Court Evidence and Travel to Court = $878.75
7) Debt incurred by Robert Neil Clark to payoff misappropriated 2nd mortgage funds = $26,996.74
8) RnR-Online Losses after health problems take over from nervous breakdown Nov. 23-24 2000 = $38,496.43
9) Robert Neil Clark Losses from the 1st year of business with Proline Inc. = $4,384.56
10) Robert Neil Clark - 2nd Year and 3rd Year Losses until Proline Inc. considered closed: Dec 31st 2003 = $1037.50
11) Tardis Communications and Tom Arthur Clark loss of RNC causing loss of business, funds and claim: = $21,862.62
12) Robert Neil Clark’s potential income loss from Proline Inc. over 304 weeks = $152,000.00
Summary of Total Losses = $365,195.31

Part VI (A) – R C requests the following exhibits required from the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario to be used by Court of Appeal for Ontario as RNC has not received anything requested making it seem odd that RNC’s ex-counsel does not want RNC pursue case and win appropriately to pay off his bogus claim.

1. Exhibits:
A) Exhibit - #1 – Yes - The appellant does not know this exhibit nor ever h a copy of this exhibit.
B) Exhibit - #2 – Yes - The appellant does not know this exhibit nor ever h a copy of this exhibit.
C) Exhibit - #3 – Yes– Even though it is a copy from other Exhibit p>
D) Exhibit - #4 – Yes – Scotiabank Production Brief - long
E) Exhibit - #5 – Yes – Equifax Production Brief
F) Exhibit - #6 – Yes – Dec. 12 2003 - RNC Credit Report from EFX. p>
G) Exhibit - #7 – Yes – Photo Copy of DL, Heath and S.I.N. Cards
H) Exhibit - #8 – Yes – RNC Production Briefs
I) Exhibit - #9 – Yes – Exhibit comes from Exhibit 2 Tab #50 – RNC does n have Exhibit 2.
J) Exhibit - #10 – Yes – Tardis Statement of Claim, Statement of Defense and Judgment
K) Exhibit - #11 – Yes – DSM Statement of Claim p>
L) Exhibit - #12 - Yes - The plaintiff does not know this exhibit nor have a copy of this exhibit.

2. Transcripts:
A) Transcripts from Discoveries (Jun. 3-4 and 10 2002)
B) Transcripts from Trial (Dec. 15-19 2003)

Part VI (B) - RNC took great care in retaining all correspondence RNC received by ENIO & ZEP. While looking through the Interim Receipts RNC realized that he has not received all correspondence on a growing list of communication by correspondence sent back and forth among lawyers. RNC would need all documents to proceed with the Appeals and study the entire case oddities thoroughly from Jan. 2001 until the last correspondence between ex-counsel and defendants counsel whatever that date may still be. ENIO told he would keep fully apprised. This did not happen with many communications not forwarded to RNC.

Part VI (C) – R C requests all case documents surrendered to RNC from ex-counsel ENIO & ZEP LLP
1) All correspondence sent to Martin Buhler - Borden, Ladner and Gervais LLP
2) All correspondence received from Martin Buhler - Borden, Ladner and Gervais LLP
3) All correspondence sent to Martin Sclisizzi - Borden, Ladner and Gervais LLP
4) All correspondence received from to Martin Sclisizzi - Borden, Ladner and Gervais
5) All correspondence sent to law firm of Borden, Ladner and Gervais LLP
6) All correspondence received from law firm of Borden, Ladner and Gervais LLP
7) All correspondence sent to Stephen Schwartz - Chaitons LLP
8) All correspondence received from Stephen Schwartz - Chaitons LLP
9) All correspondence sent to Chaitons LLP formerly Chaitons & Chaitons LLP
10) < >All correspondence received from Chaitons LLP formerly Chaitons & Chaitons LLP
11) All case documents belonging to Robert Neil Clark, held by Zeppieri & Associates
12) All other items belonging to Robert Neil Clark, held by Zeppieri & Associates LLP
13) All documents from 2nd mortgage misappropriated and misdirected from their agreed intentions.

[555] April 18 2006
CJC Investigation - 04 Canadian Judicial Council - Norman Sabourin admits administrative error and departure of Mr. Grant caused delay of file in his office.

[556] April 21 2006
ZEP History - 507: ENIO of ZEP letter to Kowalski of LSUC – ENIO of ZEP submits a motion record of documenting several events omitting many more.
ZEP History - 508: ENIO of ZEP submits an incomplete motion record without full explanations of documents avoid the truth as per the history and RNC.
ZEP History - 509: ENIO of ZEP submits a motion record Kowalski of LSUC with tampered evidence letter and documents that ENIO did not give to RNC

[557] April 24 2006
ONT Courts - 52: Court of Appeal - Svetlana MacBain - Registrar General - Order Dismissing Appeal – The Appellant has not perfected this appeal.
RNC History - 630: RNC perfected the appeal on April 4 2006 when RNC emailed the Certificate of Perfection to the court of Appeal on April 4 2006.

[558] April 26 2006
EFX History - 22 De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Certificate of Completeness

[559] April 28 2006
EFX History - 23 De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Re: Factum, Brief of Authorities and Appeal Book and Compendium
EFX History - 24 De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Notice of Election to Proceed with Cross-Appeal

[560] April 29 2006
CJC Investigation - 05 Canadian Judicial Council - Norman Sabourin for Chief Justice Scott states RNC complaint does not warrant further Investigation.

[561] May 4 2006
EFX History - 25 De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Re: Certificate of Time
EFX History - 26 Schwartz and De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Certificate of Time
LSUC History - 05: Kowalski of LSUC letter to RNC – Re: ENIO April 21 2006 Motion Record – “Dear Mr. Clark: I have received a response from Mr. Zeppieri with voluminous attachments that I am reviewing. Please contact my assistant Jenny during the day tomorrow so that she could make a telephone appointment for us to discuss Mr. Zeppieri's response next week, once I have had a chance to review the materials in full. You can reach Jenny at 416-947-3300, x. 2028. I have copied her on this email so that she may expect your call.”

[562] May 5 2006
EFX History - 27 De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Transcripts of Dec 15-19 2003 trial as per Justice Moldavor’s Dec 2 2005 order.
BNS History - 11 Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS sends letter to RNC – Re: April 24 2006 dismissing of RNC’s Appeal by Svetlana MacBain Court of Appeal.

[563] May 15 2006
ONT Courts - 53: Piacente v. Zeppieri & Associates, May 15 2006 CanLII 16547 (ON S.C.D.C.) - Justice Swinton
ONT Courts - 54: “The Deputy Judge found the Respondent, her husband, and Mr. Zeppieri to have given self-serving testimony and to have been less than forthright. He also rejected the evidence of Ms. Hamid, a secretary in the Appellant’s law firm.”

[564] May 23 2006
RNC History - 631: RNC sends Schwartz of CTN for EFX – Consent to Set Aside Order Dismissing for Delay
RNC History - 632: RNC sends Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS – Consent to Set Aside Order Dismissing for Delay

[565] May 24 2006
EFX History - 28 Schwartz of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC and returned Consent to Set Aside Order Dismissing for Delay

[566] May 25 2006
BNS History - 12 Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS sends letter to RNC - Re: Consent to Set Aside Order Dismissing for Delay
BNS History - 13 Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS sends to RNC - Consent to Set Aside Order Dismissing for Delay
[567] June 6 2006
RNC History - 633: RNC files with Court of Appeal - Motion to Set Aside Registrar Order to Dismiss Appeal – Released April 24 2006 - Svetlana MacBain.
RNC History - 634: RNC sends to Schwartz of CTN for EFX - Motion to Set Aside Registrar Order to Dismiss Appeal – April 24 2006 - Svetlana MacBain.
RNC History - 635: RNC sends to Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS - Motion to Set Aside Registrar Order to Dismiss Appeal – April 24 2006 - Svetlana MacBain.

[568] June 12 2006
ONT Courts - 55: Court of Appeal - Senior Legal Officer John Kromkamp recommends transfer to Divisional Court – Courts of Justice Act 19(1)(a)(i)

[569] June 13 2006
ZEP History - 510: ENIO and Hamid of ZEP sends letter to RNC and ROC – Re: Final 2nd mortgage payout on August 12 2006.

[570] June 14 2006
RNC History - 636: RNC emailed Philippa Lawson - The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
Hello, I am Robert Neil Clark, I am emailing you today to update you on this litigation.
If you are still interested in my story, I wrote a little something and copied some things
Please contact me, if you wish. Robert Neil Clark - robertclark@rnr-online.com - 905-618-6777
16 YEARS IN A NUTS HELL! : IDENTITY THEFT COMMITTED BY 2 TRUSTED FINANCIAL CORPORATIONS
I have appealed the verdict because it does not accurately portray the abuses I suffered at the hands of Equifax and Scotia bank. I have overwhelming evidence against the CRA and bank, but I have no luck in presenting all the material evidence in court because my lawyer was a con-artist who hand-cuffed me and my case, gagged me and then robbed me.
I am seeking more help in some of the investigations to discover more truths about the bad credit history that doesn't and never belonged to me but followed and discriminated against me from financial institution to financial institution since January 1994 until November 2000 and now to this day. My credit report is still not 100% corrected and it is still not 100% legally correct. I would like to go beyond the courts and ask for a full forensic audit done to seek all the answers to the many questions I have. I am seeking a committee to formally ask all the questions I have not yet retained throughout the bad credit history, the bogus litigation offense by my lawyers and the lying and scheming collusive defense
As of today, December 2nd 2005, I was granted an extension to perfect my appeal until February 1st 2006. The same as the defendants, but I was told that I would probably not be extended any longer. Equifax’s lawyer agreed and stated that they want this over quickly because of the repercussion this case is having on them. Equifax wants to win and close this case ASAP. Equifax doesn’t want to lose, and they are trying everything they can to not lose.
Originally only Equifax filed for the first extension, but Scotia bank showed at my extension request and the judge granted their extension request. This is totally unfair, I thought Scotia bank dropped their Cross-Appeal because they never filed for the first extension when the deadline date went by last August 12th 2005. This again, proves that I am still receiving unfair justice. The solicitors for Scotia bank are getting away with corrupting the rules of law. That’s Unfair!
The unfair justice I am receiving started when both defendants; Equifax took 80 days after their 40 day deadline was due, to file their defense. And, Scotia bank took 100 days after their 20 day deadline to file a defense. That’s Unfair!
It also continued through the pre-trial with a harassing comment by Justice Lissaman. “Martin Sclisizzi will peal him like a banana”. I never expected to hear an abrupt, disheartening and terrifying comment from any judge. That’s Unfair!
This is an extension of time I do not really want, but I am forced to request because of the ongoing investigations by Mr. Sabourin, of the Canadian Judicial Counsel. Mr. Sabourin has also referred my complaints to the Honourable Richard Scott, Chief Justice of Manitoba and Chairperson of the Judicial Conduct Committee of Counsel. I did not get a fair trial from the very first minute, with the upset comments by Justice Day’s regarding the length of the 3-5 day trial. This trial was heard Dec. 15-19 2003, almost 3 years after starting this claim. I blame Justice Day from the trial for his incompetence in being blindsided with misrepresentation of many key pieces of evidence by both Equifax's and Scotia bank's lawyer.
This is an extension of time I do not really want, but I am forced to request because of the ongoing investigations by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The investigation is on Martin Sclisizzi, Solicitor for Scotia bank, for his harassing comments, his discovery trickery, his courtroom conduct and his collusive tactics in covering up the original conspiracy of Identity Theft committed several times by both defendants, Equifax Canada (Worldwide) and The Bank of Nova Scotia in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and in Ontario by their staff, located in Office of the President, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. This also includes the lack of truth and full investigation by Ombudsman for Scotia bank, William Bailey
I did not file a complaint with the Law Society of Upper Canada against Stephen Schwartz, solicitor from Equifax, because I have been trying to break the defendants and their solicitors apart from each other. I was hoping that the Scotia bank solicitors would get mad and start telling the truth about Equifax’s defense to cover-up their displaying of discriminating false information about me. I have trying to defend myself from these false accusation of bad credit history since Jan. 1994.
This is an extension I do not want, but I am forced to request because of the ongoing investigations by the Law Society of Upper Canada. This investigation is on my ex-counsel, Enio Zeppieri, for the mistrust, for his lack of care and for his lack of duty concerning many topics surrounding my legal counsel. There was 7 associates altogether.
Enio Zeppieri ("Zeppieri") also stalled me and it took 5 months to file the claim (which was done on May 23, 2001). Zeppieri kept insisting that I "trust" him...but that became very difficult when Zeppieri would not listen to my comments or to the details of my case! I argued with him many times about his lack of following my instructions. I told him many times that I did not like his effort he put into my case. I told Zeppieri that the facts of my case were not being argued to the extent needed to explain it fully to Justice Day. Zeppieri told me that I was not allowed to tell the entire case history. I was not allowed to present the entire case's evidence. I was not allowed to properly pursue my side of my case. I was not allowed to speak about everything and everyone involved in my entire case. I cannot accept his apparent lack of effort and the unprofessional attitude as exhibited by Zeppieri and by the firm of Zeppieri & Associates. I did not receive fair and proper counsel from ex-council Zeppieri & Associates. I found out later that he did not start because he wanted some money.
I make these claims against my ex-counsel Enio Zeppieri & Associates, for the following miscarriages of my legal and civil rights. My lawyer fought for the negligence in the law and he did not worry about his handling of the true facts of the evidence. Therefore Equifax and Scotia bank escaped from revealing facts of the true identity theft.
As for my so-called “legal team”, Zeppieri & Associates, I am very unhappy with them. It is my belief, and many others that surround me, that I have been very badly misrepresented by my legal team. My legal team did not treat me, my family or my case with the respect and service it required. He did not seem to care about anything except his legal fees. I also thought that I had hired Enio Zeppieri to take on my case and represent me - not his associates.
Enio Zeppieri constantly pushed me aside. And now with my Appeal and the defendants 2 Cross-Appeals, This case law is in jeopardy, now. The judge told me to be ready by February 1st 2006. But, I am without a lawyer. I have contacted a dozen (plus) lawyers and they said that this case was too much for them to take on. Legal Aid said that this case is beyond them. And one lawyer, I was referred to by Clayton Ruby's office quoted me a $30,000 retainer without most facts. I have lost $240k in the last 5 year ordeal, I have no money to fight. I have no idea what’s going to happen next.

(1a) For Enio Zeppieri’s non disclosure of all the facts and in complete detail as this entire case needed to be truthfully portrayed throughout the past 16 years.

(1b) For Enio Zeppieri’s non disclosure of most, and many important, questions to the defendants and concerning many pieces of their many evidence(s), that required more attention. Like the background of the bad history.

(1c) For Enio Zeppieri’s lack of requests for retaining crucial evidence from the defendants and from many necessary witnesses to complete the whole truth about my Identity Theft story.

(1d) For his trickery, lying, fraud, scheming, misdirection and stealing $21,000.00 from my 2nd mortgage funds.

(1e) For his professionalism, control or lack of control over his staff and the miscarriages resulted by the staff.

(2a) Pearl Rombis and her sudden unwanted appearance on my case March 15th 2002 until she was suddenly fired by Enio Zeppieri, shortly after her mistakes, behavior and poor conduct during the discoveries held on June 3rd, 4th and 10th. She was gone without notice just after our July 2nd 2002. Now Pearl Rombis has become the brunt end of Enio Zeppieri staff’s poor jokes and bad comments. I didn’t expect to get shafted by my own lawyer.

(3a) Avril Hasselfeild was next to take over the case from Pearl Rombis, on or before December 2nd 2002 and then disappeared from the case on or just after June 2nd 2003. Just before Pre Trial on October 17th 2003. This is the second lawyer of Zeppieri & Associates, who has taken over my case when originally Enio Zeppieri stated that he would look after the case, by himself to keep his cost to a minimum. This turned out to be another lie of many.

(4a) On October 17th 2003, day of Pre-Trial, I was introduced to a third lawyer, Lora Olsthoorn. Of whom, I was told, that she will take over the case from Avril Hasselfeild and attend to my case throughout court proceedings. We, my wife and I had a couple (2 or 3 ?) meetings with Lora leading up to the trial, December 15th-19th, 2003. On the morning of the trial, Lora phones us on Monday December 15th 2003 and claims that she is sick and that she won’t be able to attend the trial today. Lora also stated that she would be there to continue on Tuesday. Lora never showed up on Tuesday and I haven’t heard from her since. This turned out to be another lie of many.

(5a) On December 15th 2003, first day of trial and upon arrival to the courthouse, I was introduced to a 4th associate, Gregory ________?.
I was told by Enio Zeppieri that Gregory would fill in for today for the sickened Lora Olsthoorn. I have only seen Gregory once very, very briefly in the Zeppieri’s office back in the very first meeting in January 2001. I had no desire to have a lawyer representing me that I had no conversations with him, ever!

(6a) I will add Rose Serino, of Zeppieri & Associates for her participation in the improper conduct, her lies, her ignorance, (her playing stupid), and her constant deflections of communications of or by me, Robert Neil Clark, during almost all telephone conversation. These conversations usually ended in requests to speak to Enio Zeppieri, immediately. I was usually told that Enio Zeppieri would call me back. He usually never did. These turned out to be another lie of many. Rose has been totally unprofessional to the profession as an employee.

(7a) Theresa ______? for fulfilling Enio Zeppieri's theft by misdirection of my $26,000.00, 2nd mortgage. The plans were written, submitted and agreed upon by Enio Zeppieri and myself, that $24,000.00 would go to pay off my debt and $2,000.00 would go to him for the litigation. On August 12th 2002, Enio Zeppieri decided to take all $26,000.00 and give me nothing for my debts. Both my wife argued for a week with Theresa, Rose and finally Enio about the misdirection of the funds. And then, Enio decided to give me back $5,000.00 and stated to me “Take this and pay off your creditors”. I had to accept anything, even though it was only 21% of the debt to pay off as agreed upon. Theresa knew the misdirection was wrong therefore, she was unprofessional to the profession as an employee.

Enio stated from “DAY ONE” and I quote Enio Zeppieri “I will take on your case, pro-bono, but, I would need a few thousand dollars to pay for disbursements so they did not come directly out of my pocket”! I thought it was fair so I paid him $6998.92 from April 23rd 2001 to June 7th 2002, well before the August 12th 2002 theft of mortgage funds. Of which, I am still making $200.00 monthly payments for the theft. And now, since the unfair and disastrous discoveries, every time there was a major court event, my current lawyer would disappear. Why?
WHY WAS I NOT ALLOWED? Zeppieri told me that I could not advance my claim against Equifax, Inc. Headquarters in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, because they were a separate entity. BUT, Equifax quotes otherwise "Founded in 1899 in Atlanta, Georgia, Equifax is a world leader in shaping global commerce. We have operations in 17 countries with sales in nearly 50 countries. We are the leader in providing consumer credit information in the United States, and consumer and commercial credit information in Chile, Argentina, the United Kingdom, Spain, Portugal, Canada, Peru, El Salvador and Italia. We are the second leading provider of this information in Brazil. Equifax also leads the full-service credit card processing industry for credit unions and community banks in the United States." OR Quoted from NewsWire.ca: "Equifax Inc. is a global leader in turning information into intelligence. For businesses, Equifax provides faster and easier ways to find, approve and market to the right customers. For consumers, Equifax offers easier, instantaneous ways to buy products or services, and better insight into and management of their personal credit. Equifax. Information That Empowers. Equifax employs 4,500 people in 13 countries and had $1.1 billion in revenue during 2002." Equifax again claims to be just one company! Even their Canadian website - http://www.equifax.ca and http://www.equifax.com/EFX_Canada/ - runs off the American (.com) website. PROVING ALL ORDERS COME FROM THE TOP!
In the very few meetings my wife and/or I had with Mr. Zeppieri, I was told to shut up (more times then he would listen to me). He said that I didn’t know what I was talking about. He said that I couldn’t tell many parts of my case in court, and therefore, I couldn’t give Justice Day all of the information and evidence. Mr. Zeppieri would never let me finish what I had to say before rudely interrupting me. I walked out of his office many times wishing I had retained another lawyer but I couldn’t afford to. I felt that I had no choice except to continue on with him because I was already financially bound to the Zeppieri law firm through a loan/mortgage that he acquired on my behalf to pay his legal fees up front…and not pro bono as he originally told us.
As for the discoveries, Mr. Zeppieri sent one of his new associates, Pearl Rombis, to act as my counsel. For most of the time during the three days of discoveries, Ms. Rombis could not keep her head off the desk. She looked like she hadn’t slept in weeks and in my opinion that she did not want to be there. She wouldn’t talk to me during lunch, she said that she’d rather eat alone. She wouldn’t answer my questions during most of our times together.
I gave Ms. Rombis several pages that contained “lots of questions that I wanted answered”. Ms. Rombis managed to ask some of my questions but she left most unanswered. These were questions that I believed deserved to be asked and that the answers would then have strengthened my case against Scotia bank and Equifax.
Ms. Rombis allowed Mr. Sclisizzi (a Scotia lawyer) to fool us into thinking that he was finished with his discovery. Mr. Sclisizzi “unfairly” gained six extra days to re-study his notes and the questions and answers provided in the first two discovery days, during June 3rd and June 4th. The third day was on June 10, 2002.
I thought that was very unfair and I tried to stop Mr. Sclisizzi after he asked his 1st question on the third day of discoveries. Mr. Sclisizzi explained how Ms. Rombis did not officially instruct his discovery to be closed at the end of Day Two, in which just 35-40 minutes earlier, Mr. Sclisizzi remarked that he would be finished in the next ½ hour. I was told that this was a trick that lawyers have used before and Ms. Rombis failed to catch it.
I have been questioned many, many times about the following: my choice in lawyers, the progress they have made, the amount of effort they have put forth, the frustrations they given me throughout this case, the mistakes made by Ms. Rombis during her brief employment, the taking of our 2nd mortgage, the physical lack of Mr. Zeppieri’s involvement throughout, the lack of Mr. Zeppieri’s returning our phone calls, the disappearance of another associate, Avril just before trial, and now, the overall outcome of my litigation. I AM NOT HAPPY and, even though I might have “won” my case (my day in court), I am appealing the awarded “costs” aspect of Justice Day’s decision!
I now have a $40,000.00 claim, the courts have granted against me by Enio Zeppieri & Associates. This was done out of trickery. On August 22 2004, we had a meeting with Enio Zeppieri, when he tricked my wife and I into signing a consent form on his litigation against me and my wife. Roxane Brunet-Clark, at no time, was ever a client knowingly or by consent. Enio Zeppieri claimed that he was using the consent and sample litigation forms to show Justice Day at the meeting to deal with costs on October 15th 2004. This turned out to be another lie of many. Enio Zeppieri pleaded in front of a judge August 23rd 2004, and I had no idea because that wasn’t what Enio told us. I claim that Enio Zeppieri & Associates were completely unprofessional to the profession. And these are just a few of many complaints.
I am now forced into filing a defense and counter-claim against my ex-counsel Enio Zeppieri & Associates to correct even more injustice. Enio Zeppieri took advantage of our mental situation and kept me financially, a hostage.
There is a whole lot more depth and details that I haven’t talked about. For instance, the re-occurring Identity Theft committed by 2 un-Trusted Financial Corporation, which is the original claim I set forth. This litigation against Bank of Nova Scotia and Equifax Canada is for their inaccurate and omissions of the truth about all evidence and all witnesses involved in any of the prior events or segments of entire case history.
Justice Day and the judicial system have failed me terribly. [“Justice Day seems to have had no idea who Equifax is and what role Equifax plays in the financial community, therefore, his knowledge was very limited and he should not have been able to sit behind the bench in this litigation.”] I expected a lot more compassion from any judge.
Several times throughout the five-day trial, Justice Day stated that he was suffering from what he said was “a seniors moment”. This made me very scared and it gave me absolutely no confidence in his ability to listen to me and to comprehend such an extraordinary, confusing case with such extensive details and timelines. I do not mean to be disrespectful to Justice Day - I am sure he has served our country very honourably… but, I have been treated very unfairly by our financial system, medical system and now, by our judicial system.
I feel very belittled, confused, frustrated, upset, angered, embarrassed, emotionally and mentally exhausted. This trial has battered my mentality to the point of me being able to only cope with a single task at a time – I am unable to completely focus on very much any more. I am having flashbacks from the many, many moments, out of the past 10 years, of me trying to fight the seemingly endless and erroneous credit rating problems that have plagued me.
Only “after being lied to”, and “not being told the whole truth in and about the investigations” by both defendants, Scotia bank and Equifax, did I finally decide that I was given no choice but to bring this matter to trial. Thereby, hopefully, to end all these credit problems permanently and to get answers to all my questions, such as: how did this get started? why does this keep happening to me? who are the people involved? why was this not corrected several times before? where are the missing credit entries 1994 to 1997? why are my 1994 and 1995 inquiries missing? and, why are Equifax and Scotia staff lying and still trying to cover-up their mistakes? And, many more questions that remain unsatisfactorily unanswered.
The credit bureaus blame the banks and the banks blame the credit bureaus while the consumers are put into the position of having to prove ourselves innocent and defend our financial integrity, psychological upsets and ruined reputations. What happened to consumers being “Innocent until proven Guilty” …???
It seems that - No matter what!, when Equifax and/or Scotia Bank gets directly or indirectly involved with my name, reputation and/or credit history report, I am forced to prove my innocense from inaccuaracies that clearly do not belong to me. I have a big problem with that, and I think all people would!....I have been very kind to those people and I kept their secrets and lies from the public, excluding most parties mentioned within my notes. In the meantime, this disturbed my life in creditably and I will always fear the vulnerability of any future attacks on me, somehow and by someone attaching bad ratings and reports to my credit history report. Thank god, my name isn’t John Smith !!!!
I have been made to feel guilty of the erroneous bad ratings by being called a liar by both the Royal Bank and the CIBC, when these errors repeatedly returned to my credit report sometime after Equifax’s and Bank of Nova Scotia’s completed their so-called investigation.
I can not believe that I had to wait 6 months to hear a verdict that contained so many errors and omissions and that does not accurately portray my entire litigation. I was not allowed to tell my entire case’s history. I was not allowed to present my entire case’s evidence. I was not allowed to properly pursue my side of my case. I was not allowed to speak about everything and everyone involved in my entire case.
As usual, the so-called BIG BOYS (i.e. Scotia bank and Equifax) seem to be “protected” and only given a tiny slap on the wrist (a $5,000 “fine” each) while, I, just a little guy, gets totally shafted and completely crushed when I try to repair “the BIG BOYS’ careless mistakes”. Both, the trial and the verdict did not answer many of my questions. The trial failed to mention many key points in the history of events and is, therefore, inaccurate. To that extent, I have suffered a lot of mental stress and anguish throughout this ordeal.
This entire mess has been 100% totally unfair to me yet I will be forced to pay for it for the rest of my life.
A lawsuit win against the financial industry would most definitely have a major impact on the financial industry and they would have to address all of their negligence, their lack of duty of care for every one of their customers. Banks, credit cards, retail stores' cards and loans institutes, etc., would be held accountable for the reporting accuracy of their customers' facts and credit histories. This would, however, benefit Credit Repair Agencies, who, in my opinion, deserve more power and involvement in correcting errors on consumer’s credit history, specially in the cases of Identity theft or in situations similar to mine. The lone customer would now put his or her faith in such trusted financial businesses as Credit Repair Agency's to correct errors easily. This is why the defendants have fought hard and dirty! The financial industry wouldn’t want a new case law created about the sticky situation of credit accuracy.
While I was investigating and gathering evidence, I had to request several times for all records of my financial history from the Royal Bank and the CIBC. Each time, explaining my credit report problems and the reasons I need this information for my evidence. Both, the Royal Bank and the CIBC repeatedly ignored my every request. I have never received anything to this day and I realize now that it is because they do not want to get involved with credit reporting problems, at all!
I am seeking redress for the emotional, mental, physical and economical injury caused to me by Equifax and Scotia Bank, and by the defendants lawyers, jointly and severally. I feel that my credit history and personal reputation were attacked and unjustly penalized by errors in reporting, holding and displaying inaccuracies of information displayed and forwarded from my credit history record.
The Bank of Nova Scotia and Equifax Canada have created a financial disaster and an emotional distress and panic disorder for me and my family. I won my case, but the outcome as to being awarded all my costs for the twelve years of my life that it has taken and severally distorted, so far, for me to have my case, heard in a court that has not even been remotely close to what I had been expecting. I expected Equifax and Scotia Bank to be BLASTED for their multiple errors, their multiple investigational mistakes and for their intentional cover-ups (I am referring to the several lies in the misleading conversations, they both had with me, to withhold the entire truth) - they should have been forced to pay my all my costs.
This story has haunted me and my family for the past twelve years. I hope all stories related to this litigation will end soon. I hated this story as it continued to grow. This story has multiple segments, of which, I have lots of evidence as proof and several lists of questions to seek answers from corresponding and known facts found on much of the evidence that I have accumulated from January 1990 to today, and that’s almost sixteen years, now.
My life and the lives of my wife, and two young children have been severely and permanently distorted. This emotional rollercoaster's has blurred the past 5 years of our children's lives leaving mostly memories of the many episodes dealing with this case. The absence of truth and justice is now affecting more then just me, mentally, emotionally, physically and financially. This is not fair to me, my wife, and especially our 2 young children.
The family household and spirit have been greatly distorted and we all feel the affects. We all or mostly suffer from anger, confusion, depression, hopelessness and we are physically and mentally sick. Christmas is a write off as we are financially destroyed. If I give up now, I will have lost $240,000.00+++ and soon our family house.
If I keep fighting for truth and Justice, I will not afford my home and I will lose my family house before I can get back to court to get answers and demand the defendants to tell the truth about the whole story. My ex-lawyer banned me from explaining everything in explicit details in court in front of Justice Day. Enio kept threatening me with causing a mistrial, so I was completely confused on what I could say and what I couldn’t say that I barely said anything at all, hoping the evidence would do most of the talking. I am really wrong to trust anything again.

[571] June 15 2006
CTC Toby Ezer 05: Giai Tran of CTC letter to ENIO of ZEP – Re: Statement for Discharge Purposes
ZEP History - 511: ENIO of ZEP sends Giai Tran of CTC June 15 2006 letter to RNC and ROC.

[572] June 26 2006
LSUC History - 06: Kowalski of LSUC emails RNC after several weeks of promises – Motion Record submitted by ENIO of ZEP to LSUC April 21 2006.
“Dear Mr. Clark, I attempted to send you Mr. Zeppieri's reply with attachments by email, but the email was returned as undeliverable. The letter has 40 tabs, and so size may be an issue. I will try again, this time with each attachment as a separate email. You should receive the following five attachments: 1. Mr. Zeppieri's letter dated April 21, 2006, with tabs 1-9 attached 2. Tabs 10-19 3.Tabs 20-29 4.Tabs 30-35 5.Tabs 36-40The letter with tabs 1-9 is attached to this email. Four emails will follow with the remaining attachments.”
RNC History - 637: RNC did not have PDF program to read Motion Record – RNC used 30 trial version but still could not read and understand accurately.
RNC History - 638: RNC phoned Kowalski of LSUC complaining about what RNC saw and requesting a hard copy of the Motion Record by ENIO of ZEP.
LSUC History - 07: Kowalski of LSUC agreed and promised to send RNC a hardcopy of Motion Record as quickly as possible. (as per RNC’s phone call)

[573] June 28 2006
EFX History - 29 De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Re: Motion Record for July 10 2006 hearing.
BNS History - 14 Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS letter to RNC - Re: Court of Appeal June 12 2006 letter from Senior Legal Officer John Kromkamp

[574] July 4 2006
EFX History - 30 De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Re: Scheduling of the July 10 2006 hearing.

[575] July 10 2006
RNC History - 639: RNC emails Lynn Burns at PBLO - lynn@pblo.org - Court of Appeal case #C142139 - In need of Help! – RNC emails Factum #3.

[576] July 7 2006
EFX History - 31 De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Re: July 10 2006 hearing moved to July 12 2006.

[577] July 12 2006
RNC History - 640: RNC faxed Court of Appeal - Consent to transfer to Divisional Court of Appeal with complaints of unfairness throughout case history.
RNC History - 641: RNC faxed Schwartz of CTN for EFX - Consent to transfer to Divisional Court of Appeal with complaints of unfairness throughout case
RNC History - 642: RNC faxed Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS - Consent to transfer to Divisional Court of Appeal with complaints of unfairness throughout case.

[578] July 14 2006
ONT Courts - 56: Court of Appeal - Justice Gillese - Order to transfer Appeal and Cross-Appeals to Divisional Court.
EFX History - 32 De Champlain of CTN for EFX sends letter to RNC – Re: Copy of Justice Gillese July 14 2006 order from Court of Appeal.
LSUC History - 08: Kowalski of LSUC sends letter to RNC – “Thank you for your email. I have not provided you with a "full investigation report" because, as you know, ours remains an active file and the investigation is ongoing. I confirm that you will receive a closing report in the event that we close our file. I last sent you emails dated June 26, 2006 (containing Mr. Zeppieri's comments regarding the second mortgage and consent judgment, supported by 40 tabs). Please confirm whether you received my emails and whether you intend to reply. If you do not wish to respond, I will presume that we already have your full representations regarding the issues of the second mortgage and the consent judgment.”
[579] August 3 2006
ONT Courts - 57: Divisional Court of Appeal - Livia Sessions – This Appeal has been Perfected - Notice of Listing for Hearing – Hearing Request Form.
RNC History - 643: RNC emails Lynn Burns at PBLO - lynn@pblo.org – RNC Factum #3 April 4 2006

[580] August 4 2006
RNC History - 644: RNC wrote letter to Giai Tran and Linda Tran of CTC, Toby Ezer and Mrs. Toby Ezer and Kowalski of LSUC
PBLO Lawyers - 01: Yonit Fuhrmann of PBLO emails RNC - Hi Robert, As per our conversation, I am forwarding you an application for assistance. If you could return that to the contact information below and provide me with a copy of the judgment you are appealing as well as your notice of appeal it would be appreciated.

[581] August 6 2006
RNC History - 645: RNC emailed to Kowalski of LSUC, Giai Tran and Linda Tran of CTC, Toby Ezer and Mrs. Toby Ezer
To: SDRRSP Mortgage Department: Giai Tran; Linda Tran; SDRRSP Mortgage Department; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Trust Corporation; And to be forwarded to: Toby Ezer and Mrs. Toby Ezer Regarding RRSP 59032458 and CIBC Mortgage 305141,
1. I have never received nor fully read the original documents regarding this mortgage.
2. I did not know that this mortgage 305141 was a SDRRSP Mortgage.
3. I was not told by my ex-counsel that this was a SDRRSP Mortgage.
4. I do not know Toby Ezer.
5. I do not know Mrs. Toby Ezer.
6. I do not know who or the name of the {signing lawyer} on this mortgage.
7. I did not setup the meeting with the {signing lawyer} – this was done by my ex-counsel.
8. My ex-counsel instructed me to deny [TO LIE] about the DSM Leasing claim found on my title search.
9. I told the truth to the {signing lawyer} and told him that my ex-counsel instructed me to deny claim.
10. The {signing lawyer} signed off on the mortgage [even though] I told the truth about my DSM Leasing claim.
That is now 2 counts of Fraud committed by 2 lawyers - ex-counsel Enio Zeppieri and unknown {signing lawyer}.
11. The original $26,000.00 was misdirected by ex-counsel from the debts it was assigned and agreed to pay out.
12. I (Robert Neil Clark) and wife (Roxane Brunet-Clark) argued with Theresa Hamid, then Rose Serino and finally with Enio
Zeppieri, all from Zeppieri & Associates about the misdirection of the 2nd mortgage funds until Enio Zeppieri surrendered $5,0000.00 and told us to “pay off our creditors with that”. The debt was almost $26,000.00.
13. My ex-counsel led us to believe that this mortgage was taken out to pay off my debts. They lied several times.
This is 1 count of Theft and a 2nd count of Fraud by Enio Zeppieri & Associates - Theresa Hamid and Rose Serino.
14. I can prove that Enio Zeppieri & Associates committed a 3rd count of Fraud to misappropriate trust fund money.
15. I can prove Enio Zeppieri & Associates committed a 2nd count of Theft with other monies held in my trust fund.
16. I can prove ex-counsel Enio Zeppieri & Associates makes illegal documents to protect his other clients assets.
17. I can prove that ex-counsel Enio Zeppieri & Associates sabotaged me and my litigation against Equifax and The Bank of Nova Scotia and hold me hostage by stealing my money and hoped I disappeared (ex. Bankruptcy or Die)
18. It is now known that Enio Zeppieri and Theresa Hamid lost a litigation against them for another trust fund theft.
After these illegal actions by Enio Zeppieri, I can prove that he will commit several more throughout his retaining.
19. I can prove my ex-counsel tricked us into signing a consent and lawsuit claim against ourselves with lies & deceit.
20. If I would have known Enio Zeppieri was a dirty lawyer – I would not have hired him – And this is why I went to the Law Society of Upper Canada and they admitted to Enio Zeppieri breaking atleast 2 regulations – He is done!
21. This list goes on… I can prove that Maple Trust (my 1st mortgage holder) was to take over the whole 2nd mortgage, even though I believe I only owe $3,000.00. Maple Trust saw Enio Zeppieri’s deceitful claim against us and turned us down for a 2nd mortgage. Maple Trust knows the history but said they can not help us until I removed my ex-counsel’s fraudulent claim against us. I will not be able to pay out this unknown, unwanted, unaccepted - SDRRSP Mortgage on due date August 12th 2006. Within a few weeks, I may be able to pay off the $3,000 of the $5,000 that I received (as I already paid $2,000 off the $26,000 SDRRSP Mortgage). The $21,000 was stolen by Enio Zeppieri & Associates therefore they owe that monies. I welcome and anticipate any legal actions from any party as my legal action against my ex-counsel will commence in the very near future. Please contact me to make arrangements for any payment. I did offer the $200 payments per month! - Written by RNC on Friday August 4th 2006.

[582] August 9 2006
RNC History - 646: RNC emails Kowalski of LSUC and Yonit of PBLO - Motion to Set Aside Consent and Judgment [ZEP vs. RNC and ROC]
(1) Notice of Motion to Set Aside Consent to ENIO and ZEP Statement of Claim against RNC and ROC.
(2) Notice of Motion to Set Aside Judgment to Statement of Claim presented to Justice __________ Aug 23 2004 and filed Sept 2004.

[583] August 10 2006
CTC Toby Ezer 06: Sheereda Daniel of CTC send letter to RNC regarding LSUC complaints about Enio Zeppieri & Associates LLP and Jack Rosati LLP.
CTC Toby Ezer 07: Sheereda Daniel of CTC states as per LSUC on August 4 2006 - ENIO and Rosati have no past or pending disciplinary proceedings.
RNC History - 647: RNC emails Kowalski of LSUC and Yonit of PBLO - LSUC Rules of Professional Conduct. Robert will argue these LSUC Rules: 2.01(1)a,b,c(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)(v)(vi)(vii)(viii) / 2.01(2) / 2.02(1) / 2.02(2) / 2.02(3) / 2.02(4) / 2.02(5) / 2.03(1) / 2.03(4) / 2.04(1) / 2.04(2) / 2.04(3) / 2.04(4)b / 2.04(6)a / 2.04(8) / 2.04(11) / 2.05(10) / 2.06(3)a,b / 2.06 (6)a(i)(ii)(iii)b / 2.06(7) / 2.08(1) / 2.08(2) / 2.08(3) / 2.08(4) / 2.08 (10) / 6.01 (1) / 6.01(3)ace / 6.01 (4) / 6.02 / 6.03 (1) / 6.03 (2) / 6.03 (3) / 6.03 (5) / 6.03 (5) / 6.03 (8) / 6.07 (1) / 6.08 (1) or 6.08 (2) /6.09 (1)a,b,c / 6.11 (1) / 6.11 (2)/ 6.11 (3)
RNC History - 648: RNC emails Kowalski of LSUC and Yonit of PBLO - Motion to Allow Statement of Claim and Counter-Claim [ZEP vs. RNC and ROC]
(1) Notice of Motion to Allow Statement of Defence from RNC and ROC..
(2) Notice of Motion to Allow Counter-Claim against ENIO and ZEP group.

[584] August 14 2006
PBLO Lawyers - 02: Yonit Fuhrmann of PBLO emails RNC - PBLO Application.pdf
RNC History - 649: RNC emails Yonit Fuhrmann of PBLO – I could not use adobe so I transferred it all to word.doc

[585] August 15 2006
RNC History - 650: RNC emails Yonit Fuhrmann of PBLO – Endorsement as to Cost from Justice Day in attendance was ENIO, Sclisizzi and Schwartz at the Cost meeting held October 14 2004 – RNC was banned from going to the cost verdict – ENIO would not allow RNC to go – Why?
RNC History - 651: RNC emails Yonit Fuhrmann of PBLO – Here are some key people that may wished to be contacted - from RNC.
PBLO Lawyers - 03: Yonit Fuhrmann of PBLO emails RNC - Hi Robert: I’ve been able to identify a lawyer who is willing to discuss your case with you in more detail, and possibly provide you with some summary advice. Please note that at this time, the lawyer has not agreed to represent you on your appeal. The lawyer’s name is Paul J. Pape, Pape Barristers. He can be reached at 416-364-8765. Please give him a call. Best regards, Yonit Fuhrmann Interim Coordinator Appeals Assistance Project Pro Bono Law Ontario

[586] August 16 2006
BNS History - 15 Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS sent letter to RNC – Re: Divisional Court Hearing Request Form
BNS History - 16 Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS sent RNC - Divisional Court Hearing Request Form.
RNC History - 652: Divisional Court of Appeal Hearing Request Form from RNC – Re: Request Appeal Trial heard between Oct 1 2006 and Nov 30 2006.
RNC History - 653: RNC emails Kowalski of LSUC – RNC and ROC Statement of Defense and CounterClaim against ENIO and ZEP
PBLO Lawyers - 04: Yonit Fuhrmann of PBLO emails RNC - Dear Mr. Clark: As per our conversation, I am writing you to let you know that we will not be able to provide you further assistance through the Appeals Assistance Project. Yesterday, we put you in touch with Mr. Paul Pape to hear further details about your case and possibly provide you with some summary advice. Following this conversation Mr. Pape informed us that he will not represent you in your appeal. Unfortunately, we have not been able to identify an alternate lawyer that is able to assist you. As such, we are closing your file with this program. We wish you the best of luck with your case, and I’m sorry we couldn’t do more for you. Best regards, Yonit Fuhrmann Interim Coordinator Appeals Assistance Project Pro Bono Law Ontario
RNC History - 654: RNC emails Yonit Fuhrmann of PBLO - Yeah - Thanks, Just to confirm to ProBono - Appeals Assistance - that I turned down Mr. Pape because he was not prepared to fight on all aspects for all causes for the entire case. I need to win all legal cost for original trial. Mr Pape's offer was to improve the damages to $20k and legal costs of appeal. Unfortunately, my ex-counsel (legal cost) are at $91k - and the court costs are unknown ?? Accepting anything less then my legal and court cost will cause the loss of our family home through bankruptcy and/or foreclosure. I can not accept half of an effort for this prima facie case. Robert Neil Clark
Conflict of Interest = Lawyers protecting Corporations or Themselves (ex. Zeppieri & Associates)

[587] August 25 2006
RNC History - 655: RNC emails Lawyers Fund for Client Compensation - compfund@lsuc.on.ca - Applying for Lawyers Fund for Client Compensation:
(1) When RNC took this case to Enio Zeppieri (ENIO) in Jan 2001, RNC decided that it would be best to take both Defendants through Court at the same time because BNS/EFX would have to tell the whole truth of RNC’s history of errors as it applied to each of them. BNS/EFX should have been upset with each other because of RNC’s claim of the re-occurring and compounding errors. RNC expected to, and did WIN! However, RNC was not fairly nor appropriately awarded including the issue of costs - given the facts of the case (which RNC insists should be paid directly to him by both Defendants). RNC was unable (due to faulty legal representation) to clearly tell how the errors have impacted and disrupted the lives of RNC/ROC and family caused by both BNS/EFX through their faulty credit reporting. Both Defendants’ lawyers walked into court arm-in-arm. Learned Judge asked if the Defendants were adversarial, and the Defendants’ lawyers replied that they were not. RNC was completely shocked. RNC expected the trial to be different with someone(s) taking the responsibility for all their errors. RNC expected to see the Defendants’ lawyers engage in the professional mudslinging that had been displayed during the Discovery each blaming the other for the errors. BSN/EFX cannot afford to lose this trial because major changes are now being sought in the Ontario Legislation [see Bill 38 - An Act to Amend the Consumer Reporting Act]. There is no doubt that the joining together of the Defendants, misleading representation of the errors and missing evidence, suggests that the Defendants continue to cover-up for each other suggesting: collusion; conspiracy (in order to hide the credit history errors mismerge; involvement by both EFX/BNS; involvement by RJC (and others); denial of all earlier complaints; and belittlement of RNC’s claim.

(2) RNC has made several claims against RNC’s ex-counsel and law office (ENIO and ZEP). RNC was totally betrayed and completely let down by the efforts and/or lack of efforts by the errors and omissions of RNC’s legal representatives. ENIO/ZEP did not treat RNC, ROC, the case, the legal system or Learned Judge with the respect that they deserved. RNC was badly misrepresented and mistreated by ENIO/ZEP that it has distorted the case and RNC was treated unfairly and unprofessionally (to properly piece together all the timelines and evidence in order to prove the multiple compounding errors and to show defamation of character, discrimination, untruths, conspiracy, cover-up and collusion). Investigations were withheld when it came to and evidence from the Court and from RNC. RNC faced many roadblocks throughout the 12-plus years because ENIO/ZEP did very little investigation of the facts in order to gain any supportive evidence that would have been needed or available. ENIO did not pay attention nor care to know most of the facts of evidence that were discovered throughout RNC’s investigation. [See Exhibits 4 and 5] Therefore, BNS and EFX escaped from paying for the errors and for the repeated identity theft of RNC caused by their mistakes. Learned Judge was not fully apprised of the entire case history nor did he seem to know how it had affected and impacted RNC’s life and the lives of ROC and family. ENIO/ZEP did more harm than good to RNC. RNC’s case was sabotaged attributable to ENIO’s/ZEP’s misrepresentation. ENIO was untruthful from their first meeting saying, “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!” RNC trusted ENIO and believed this would be the case. RNC paid ENIO/ZEP $5,998.92 (from May 23, 2001-Jun 7, 2002) for any costs that might have already been incurred. ENIO told RNC that he “would take on this case on personally because of the depth and scope of the case - and to keep the costs down”. ENIO agreed to file the claim immediately; however, it was not filed until five months later, with the excuse that he was, “waiting for the results of another court case”. That Decision was on Dec 13, 2001 and the Appeal Court Decision was on Mar 6, 2003. RNC’s claim was completed on May 23, 2001 (which happened to coincide with the first payment asked by and given to ENIO/ZEP by RNC). ENIO also stated that RNC “could not have a jury in a civil case”. RNC found out later that civil cases could have a jury in special circumstances. RNC believed that this case had extenuating circumstances and merited a trial by jury. By Mar 2002, EFX would not release RNC’s credit report when requested to do so (Feb to Mar 2002) by Bob Pinkney, The Toronto Dominion Bank (TD) nor would EFX give a copy to RNC (see a letter received from Adrianna Moukas, EFX). RNC could not get his credit report and this affected his application for a TD second mortgage. RNC pleaded with ENIO to expedite a 2nd mortgage, but it took ENIO almost five more months before ENIO set up RNC’s and ROC’s second mortgage (Aug 2002). ENIO agreed to pay off creditors, in the amount of $24,000, leaving a balance of $2,000 to go towards costs. On Aug 12, 2002, ENIO misappropriated all of the $26,000 from the second mortgage monies and no creditors were cleared. Both RNC/ROC argued for a week with Theresa Hamid of ZEP (Hamid) and Rose Serino of ZEP (Serino) and finally with ENIO about the misdirection of these funds. ENIO returned $5,000 to RNC, and said “take this money and pay off your creditors”. At this point in time, RNC was forced to accept anything that was offered in order to satisfy his outstanding debts (even though this amount was insufficient). RNC felt financially “like a hostage” with the $6,000 paid to ENIO. RNC could not afford another $21,000 on top of that, so RNC decided to stay quiet about the misdirection of funds and keep ENIO on as Counsel as RNC could not afford to retain another lawyer even though his faith and trust in ENIO was completely gone. ENIO failed in not calling any of the following witnesses: RJC, Cheryl Clark, (branch manager who signed on Oct 18, 1993), (someone from BNS Credit Experience), W.M. Hovey, Maria Meschino, Sylvie Miserere, Mrs. Normandeau, Mrs. Laporta, Adrianna Moukas, Alka Nedungadi, Nancy Mitchell, Bob Pinkney, and others…) ENIO made little attempt, if any, to make requests or getting subpoenas to obtain crucial and/or supporting evidence from the Defendants, or any witnesses or from the financial institutions involved. All were necessary to complete an accurate timeline and to gather the truths about BNS’s and EFX’s repeated involvement of creating the identity theft of RNC. It was left to RNC to investigate and gather most of the evidence on his own. On several occasions RNC requested all the records of his financial history from RBC and CIBC, each time having to explain RNC’s entire credit reporting history, the errors and the reasons that RNC needed the information as evidence in an attempt to correct these errors. Both RBC and CIBC repeatedly ignored and denied RNC’s many requests. ENIO was told several times about the lack of co-operation by RBC and CIBC but ENIO did nothing to obtain their records. RNC has to this point still not received anything from RBC and CIBC. On Jul 30, 2004, RNC/ROC received a consent form and claim against RNC/ROC. RNC telephoned ZEP and demanded to speak to ENIO to ask why there was a claim against RNC/ROC. ENIO would not speak to RNC or ROC. Serino wanted to schedule a meeting for any further communication with ENIO. RNC/ROC did not want to go to any more “costly” meetings nor listen to any more of ENIO’s lies, so RNC/ROC argued with Serino on several occasions for a period of about two weeks before RNC/ROC finally “caved in” and scheduled a meeting with ENIO on Aug 22, 2004. ENIO convinced RNC/ROC to sign the consent form and judgment stating, “ROC should sign the documents so that just in case something happened to RNC, ROC would still be entitled to any costs awarded by Learned Judge”. ENIO told RNC/ROC that ENIO would hand in this judgment and consent form to Learned Judge on Oct 14, 2004 at a scheduled meeting that would be held on costs. ENIO also said to RNC/ROC that this was his plan to show Learned Judge that if RNC did not win anything for legal costs, then ENIO would file a $40,631 claim against RNC. ROC’s attendance at the meetings with RNC was because RNC could not trust what ENIO/ZEP said and does due to the past dealings with ENIO/ZEP. The next day, Aug 23, 2004, ENIO (or a ZEP associate), filed the $40,631 claim and a consent for judgment. This was done without RNC’s knowledge - and this was not according to the plan as had been stated previously to RNC/ROC at the meeting with ENIO the day before. RNC/ROC did not believe that ENIO would keep on deceiving RNC/ROC even after they caught ENIO in lies (e.g. the misappropriation of their second mortgage funds and RNC’s/ROC’s creditors’ monies). Throughout the period that RNC retained ENIO/ZEP, he talked with Serino to let her know how unhappy he was with ENIO/ZEP – citing the Pearl Rombis (ZEP) Discovery disaster and two months later, the misdirection of RNC’s and ROC’s second mortgage funds. ENIO’s/ZEP’s deceptions continue to this day as RNC has not received any missing and/or requested files, letters and notes from correspondence to/from the Defendants. ENIO had his own agenda throughout this case and ENIO did not respect his client, RNC, or the Law Society of Upper Canada Rules of Professional Conduct of a Lawyer, nor the Superior Court for Ontario. RNC firmly states the Nonfeasance and Malfeasance efforts by ex-counsel – Was a set-up for a case disaster!

(3) After being passed back and forth, RNC insisted that Pearl Rombis of ZEP (Rombis) take ownership of all the documents regarding RNC’s loss of business and the loss of a new business venture with RNC’s business partners. These documents contained evidence of the three businesses: RnR-Online.com, ProlineSportsbook.com and Proline Inc., the activities of businesses, the documents from the new business and the financial records of the original business, RnR-Online.com, showing the previous earnings for 1999 and 2000, the past five years of losses and the projected potential losses and RNC’s personal income for those years which are still mounting. RNC could not figure out why it was such a challenge to submit documents to ENIO/ZEP. A few weeks later, RNC received the same bundle of documents back with a yellow sticky note asking, “is this [sic] relevent?” RNC was confused and wondered why ENIO/ZEP did not think that the financial structure of the business was not relevant when they clearly showed how the lack of funding affected all three businesses. RNC claims that Rombis without the knowledge or consent of RNC made several crucial mistakes during her sudden unprepared appearance on behalf of RNC’s litigation, on or about Mar 15, 2002. Rombis was obviously unprepared and made a number of mistakes during Discoveries that were held Jun 3, 4 and 10, 2002. Rombis was suddenly gone (sometime after Jul 2, 2002) without any notice given to RNC. During the Discoveries, Rombis allowed Sclisizzi and Schwartz to “trick” RNC into giving them six extra days to prepare (before the originally non-scheduled Day 3 of Discovery). Rombis permitted Sclisizzi to restart with more questions on Day 3 of Discovery (Sclisizzi stated, “Mrs. Rombis did not officially close my end of the discovery”. Even though, at 4:25 p.m. on Day 2 of Discovery, Sclisizzi claimed that he would be finished by 5 p.m. and that Schwartz would start Day 3 of Discovery. Sclisizzi finished at 5:10 p.m. - therefore, Sclisizzi should have been finished and Rombis should have ended Sclisizzi’s Discovery at that point. RNC thought he was finished. It seems now; Rombis had become the brunt of (ZEP’s) jokes and comments. RNC did not expect to see and hear that sort of behaviour from RNC’s Counsel or, in fact, from any legal associate or law office staff member. Such behaviour cemented just how badly distorted, misrepresented and trivialized RNC’s case was treated. ENIO promised to keep RNC fully apprised – RNC always felt unadvised and second class client!
(4) Avril Hasselfeild of ZEP (Hasselfeild) took over the case from Rombis on or before Dec 2, 2002. RNC was never given a choice of legal representation (ZEP) as it was ENIO’s decision who he would appoint, besides himself, to take on this case. Hasselfeild was let go from the case seven months later (about June 2, 2003) shortly before the pre-trial on Oct 17, 2003. This was the second ZEP associate to have heard RNC’s case when originally; ENIO had stated that he would look after the case himself to keep costs to a minimum. There appeared to be some discrepancies in the signatures “purportedly” to be Hasselfeild’s signatures on three different documents supposedly signed signatures and on 2 unsigned documents. Who is releasing the 5 letters using Hasselfeild’s (ZEP) name on Dec 12 2002, Jan 28 2003, May 23 2003, May 23 2003 and June 2 2003?

(5) On Oct 17, 2003, at pre-trial, RNC was introduced to a third ZEP associate, Lora Olsthoorn of ZEP (Olsthoorn). RNC was told that Olsthoorn would be taking over from Hasselfeild and would be attending to RNC’s case “throughout the court proceedings”. RNC/ROC only had two or three meetings with Olsthoorn leading up to the trial to be held during the week of Nov 3-10, 2003, which was later postponed until Dec 15-19, 2003. In the morning of the first day of trial, Olsthoorn telephoned RNC to say that she was sick and that she “would not be able to attend the trial today”. Olsthoorn also said that she “would be at court to continue on Tuesday”. Olsthoorn never showed up on the Tuesday or any of the days of trial, and in fact, RNC has not seen or heard from Olsthoorn since then. Another untruth told by ENIO/ZEP. RNC/ROC felt ZEP abandoned, again!

(6) On Dec 15, 2003, upon arrival at the courthouse for the first day of trial, RNC was introduced to Gregory Gryguc of ZEP (Gryguc), another ZEP associate to represent RNC. RNC was told by ENIO that Gryguc would be filling in for the day for the sick Olsthoorn. RNC had only ever seen Gryguc once - very briefly - in ENIO's office (way back at the very first meeting held in Jan 2001). RNC did not want to have yet another unprepared associate represent him. Once again, RNC was extremely let down by being lied to and was very disappointed in ENIO/ZEP for the way they juggled associates throughout his case, pre-trial and trial. RNC was not given a fair chance to have proper legal counsel or to be represented entirely and consistently by ENIO which was exacerbated by the fact that RNC never got to discuss the entire case history in its entirety with just one lawyer. This ultimately destroyed RNC’s faith in obtaining the justice. RNC felt that he should never have retained ENIO/ZEP and regretted not being financially able to fire ENIO as Counsel much earlier, but RNC was held “financially hostage” with ENIO’s misdirections of monies. Was all this juggling – “a planned confusion”.

(7) RNC holds Serino accountable for her participation, improper conduct toward himself and ROC, in that untruths, evasions, not wanting to reveal the submitted legal costs to RNC also, for her acting “stupid” and pleading ignorance to the many facts and questions, and when ZEP received the cost decision, her constant deflections of communications urgently needed by RNC/ROC during several crucial time periods. These conversations usually ended up with requests (and demands) to speak to ENIO immediately, but RNC was told that ENIO “would call RNC back”. ENIO did not return most of these requested telephone calls. Serino told this particular “untruth” many times. RNC asked Serino to “stop lying” to him when she would say that ENIO would call RNC back. This was a favourite ploy of Serino, therefore, Serino demonstrated herself to be untrustworthy and unprofessional. All of these frustrations added to the failure of ZEP to properly represent his client RNC. RNC firmly states Serino ignorance and evasions of or in communication as “a planned confusion”.

(8) RNC holds Hamid accountable for conspiring with ENIO in the theft of RNC’s $26,000 (second mortgage money/funds to pay off debts). The plan, which was written, submitted and agreed upon by ENIO and RNC, was that $24,000 would go to pay off RNC’s outstanding debts and that $2,000 would go to ZEP to pay for costs. On Aug 12, 2002, ENIO misappropriated all of the $26,000 and gave RNC nothing for RNC’s outstanding debts. Both RNC/ROC argued for a week with Hamid (ZEP), Serino (ZEP) and, finally, with ENIO about this misappropriation of their second mortgage funds. RNC told Serino that RNC considered this to be “theft” and that ENIO was going against his own words, “taking this case on a pro bono basis” and “only needing a few thousand dollars for disbursements/costs” as was said in RNC’s first meeting with ENIO. RNC had no way to dismiss ENIO/ZEP without losing the entire $27,000 paid to ENIO/ZEP and the $26,000 second mortgage, for a total of $53,000. RNC could not afford to engage another lawyer and was put in the reluctant position of having to continue with ENIO/ZEP. Hamid knew that the misappropriation of funds was wrong and that it was not the agreed upon plan as discussed (re-financing of the second mortgage). Therefore, Hamid should be held accountable for her part in the misappropriation of funds. RNC firmly states that the misappropriation and misdirection of monies was a scheme to keep RNC financially bound to ENIO and ZEP!

(9) Many people, having heard the credit reporting history of errors of RNC, have felt disgusted by the way both BNS and EFX have treated RNC/ROC. RNC had several telephone interviews (including a home visit and interview with Laura Zilke (“Zilke”) of “Global News”, a few weeks before the trial). Zilke was shocked to hear the history of this case against BNS and EFX. RNC and Zilke stayed in contact until the first day of trial. For some reason that first day of trial was delayed. Unfortunately, it was delayed too long for Zilke to wait and she apologized to RNC for needing to move on to other news events. This delay left the Courtroom empty of media representation. The trial questioning put the onus on RNC and not on BNS’s/EFX’s involvement. Neither EFX nor BNS wanted to talk about their role in RJC’s credit report history at trial which evidence was very crucial to RNC’s case. It became apparent [Exhibit-04] that the evidence showed the “loss of control over RJC’s multiple BNS accounts (from multiple BNS branches)”. In fact, most of BNS’s evidence presented in their production brief was about RJC. The trial did not dissect the evidence provided by BNS. RNC talked to Zilke a few weeks after the trial, asking how her story was coming along and she replied that it was a “very complex story with too many angles. It would be too confusing to the reader”. Another shock for RNC, because Zilke was, at one time, very sympathetic and anxious to have RNC’s story told. RNC gave Zilke some early incidents to use for her story about the errors and the BNS branches involved and as far as RNC knows, they are still in her possession. What happened to Zilke’s news coverage? Was ENIO involved? ENIO was upset with RNC because he went behind ENIO’s back and ENIO did not want the media interviews to be held in his office. See correspondence of June 2, 2003, [but unsigned] by Hasselfield and typed by Serino who was ENIO’s assistant. Zilke knew about the grief and mistrust of ENIO and ZEP as told by RNC before the trial began. By Jan 2006, RNC contacted Zilke, who then confirmed her earlier feelings but told RNC that “she could not write her story because the Defendants would not talk to her; therefore, she could not write a one-sided story”. This hints at more cover-ups by BNS/EFX: their ongoing negligence acts and lack of duty, their faulty credit reporting systems, the unreliable bank data reporting and the faulty or non-existent investigations by EFX and BNS.

(10) After ENIO filed the appeal July 2004, RNC was led to believe that transcripts would be ordered from some of 1st mortgage funds that were eventually setup by Dec 14 2004 to pay for transcripts. These funds were again misdirected to pay for litigation and not the agreed transcripts. RNC did not find this out that the transcripts were not ordered until May 3 2005. RNC fired ENIO the next day – May 4 2005. It took ENIO until July 18 2005 (75 days) to inform the courts, meanwhile, still in communication with the defendants counsel. I have requested all files regarding this case including a list of missing correspondence between counsels. ENIO will not release anything requested by RNC to continue his appeal. Why is ENIO hesitant on releasing material?

(11) Combine all with now dishonest lawyer who sabotaged discoveries and then misdirected mortgage trust funds telling RNC not to admit and lie to another lawyer about a title search [instead RNC told the truth] - Followed by a change of ZEP [four] Associates involvement with lies and ignorance by ZEP support staff altogether misrepresenting the entire case facts through Enio Zeppieri secret agenda constantly breaking RNC’s trust while holding RNC financially hostage and ENIO not doing his do diligence - needed to acquire all concealed evidence with total lack of under-takings and no Subpoena's served for any evidence or to any persons crucial involvement in the case. [ENIO and ZEP filed a bogus claim against RNC with a false consent through more lies and trickery.] ENIO went so far as to lie to Learn Judge during the cost endorsement meeting.
The defendants have never received documentations regarding what ENIO & ZEP submitted for legal at the cost endorsement meeting. RNC would like to know what was said at this meeting and what was submitted.

STATEMENT OF COUNTERCLAIM
(12) The Defendant of Statement of Claim and Plaintiff to Statement of Defence and CounterClaim claims:
(a) Damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00 or to be quantified by the Honourable Court for the following;
(i) General Damages - refer to personal losses which result from damages to a person's reputation.
(ii) Aggravated Damages - are generally intended to compensate the plaintiff for injuries to his or her feelings arising from the outrageous or reprehensible conduct of the defendant. Damages for mental distress may be awarded where the plaintiff has experienced, inter alia, additional anxiety, frustration, humiliation, or grief as a result of the defendant’s conduct, and such damages were in the reasonable contemplation of the parties at the time of contractual formation.
(iii) Punitive Damages - A court awarded amount that exceeds the economic losses and general damages of a defendant and is intended solely to punish the plaintiff because of reckless or malicious acts.
(iv) Special Damages - Actual loss from the natural, not the necessary, consequences of the subject of complaint; e.g, specific payments for medical bills or car repairs. In third party claims, it means the damages that may be proved with documents.
(v) Compensatory Damages - Damages a wrongdoer is required to pay to a victim to compensate the victim for the consequences of the wrongdoer’s actions or inactions. There are many different kinds of compensatory damages, based upon the kinds of injuries that have been sustained.
(vi) Economic Damages - Out-of-pocket expenses, such as medical bills incurred, lost wages, etc.
(vii) Actual Damages - compensation for losses that can readily be proven to have occurred and for which the injured party has the right to be compensated
(viii) Nominal Damages - When a plaintiff in a lawsuit is awarded a small compensation to show he/she was right the no actual damage was done, he or she receives nominal damages – Against Pearl Rombis
(b) Pre-Judgment Interest on any and all sums awarded pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act;
(c) All outstanding Superior Court for Ontario Fees;
(d) The cost of this action on a solicitor and client scale throughout;
(e) Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court may deem just and appropriate in the circumstances.

[588] August 22 2006
CTC Toby Ezer 08: CTC Giai Tran SDRRSP Mortgage Administrator letter to RNC 2nd mortgage not to be renewed per annuitants (WHO?) instructions.

[589] August 28 2006
BNS History - 17 Colleen Bell of BLG for BNS letter to RNC and serves Appeal Book, Factum and Brief of Authorities #1.

[590] August 29 2006
BNS History - 18 Colleen Bell of BLG for BNS letter to RNC and serves Appeal Book, Factum and Brief of Authorities #2.
ONT Courts - 58: Divisional Court of Appeal – Livia Sessions Notice of Hearing Date – November 28 2006.

[591] October 11 2006
RNC History - 656: Equifax History of Errors on RNC Credit Report

[592] October 23 2006
ONT Courts - 59: Silverberg v. Zeppieri, 2006 CanLII 35817 (ON C.A.)
ONT Courts - 60: “THIS COURT ORDERS costs to the respondent Vera Barbieri in the amount of $4634.85 payable by the applicant Zeppieri & Associates Ltd within 30 days of this Order.

[593] November 14 2006
CTC Toby Ezer 09: Palleschi for CTC and Ezer file and serve a Notice of Sale under Charge against RNC and ROC. [CTC and Ezer vs. RNC and ROC]
[594] November 20 2006
RNC History - 657: RNC files with Court of Appeal - Notice of Motion - Transfer Trial and Discovery Transcripts and Exhibits to Divisional Court.
RNC History - 658: RNC sends Schwartz of CTN for EFX - Notice of Motion - Transfer Trial and Discovery Transcripts and Exhibits to Divisional Court.
RNC History - 659: RNC sends Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS - Notice of Motion - Transfer Trial and Discovery Transcripts and Exhibits to Divisional Court.

[595] November 23 2006
RNC History - 660: Equifax History of Errors on RNC Credit Report
ZEP History - 512: Gryguc / Serino overseen by ENIO of ZEP submit Motion Record with tampered evidence to Court of Appeal for Nov 28 2006 hearing.
ZEP History - 513: Gryguc / Serino overseen by ENIO of ZEP send letter to RNC included with ENIO / ZEP Record Book with the Tampered Evidence.

[596] November 27 2006
RNC History - 661: Court of Appeal - Notice of Motion to transfer Trial, Discovery transcripts, exhibits, correspondence to Divisional Court – Abandoned.
ONT Courts - 61: Court of Appeal Hearing – Request to transfer Trial, Discovery transcripts, exhibits, correspondence to Divisional Court – Abandoned.

[597] November 28 2006
ONT Courts - 62: Division Court of Appeal Trial - Justice Ted Matlow, Justice Katherine Swinton, Justice John Murray are sitting on the court bench.
ONT Courts - 63: Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS, Schwartz of CTN for EFX and RNC’s ex-lawyer’s associate Gryguc for ENIO and of ZEP are in attendance.

[598] November 30 2006
BNS History - 19 Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS sends to RNC – Sclisizzi gives excuses about not showing up August 12 2005 extension hearing.

[599] December 1 2006
RNC History - 662: RNC emailed to Kowalski of LSUC
Page #1 - Enio Zeppieri's tampered version - (cut off bottom - Name - Appeal) - (re-wrote date)
Page #2 - My Original Letter

[600] December 18 2006
ONT Courts - 64: Court of Appeal – Verdict Release - Justice Matlow - Justice Swinton - Justice Murray – Release from 2006-11-28 Appeal Trial.
RNC History - 663: RNC emails Sharon Seenath of LSUC – RNC original and ENIO tampered evidences with RNC descriptions of fraud.
Attention: Sharon Seenath - Case # 05-3139 and Case # 05-3560
Tampered document (by Enio Zeppieri) and Original Letter (by Robert Neil Clark)
The bottom and tops were cut-off:
The date was poorly copied, shifted and re-printed to take up space
My Name was cut-off the bottom to make it look like I did not sign it.
My appeals notice was cut-off to hide the truth of me not stopping my appeals
Please Contact me - Immediately - 905-619-6777

[601] December 20 2006
RNC History - 664: RNC emails Marie Tremblay of CJC – Canadian Judicial Council - rmtremblay@judicom.gc.ca
I demand a full investigation with a judicial review of the failures of Justice Day.
Please contact me - immediately
Robert Neil Clark
905-619-6777
The CJC initial review of the case turned out faulty.
I plead and demand my complaints be heard.
This was unfair to me!
I want a full report!
And I needed it today – please hurry!
RNC History - 665: RNC faxes Feeley of LSUC – RNC original and ENIO tampered evidences with descriptions.
RNC History - 666: RNC emails and faxes Feeley of LSUC – (#1) Attention: Caroline Feeley - Case # 05-3139 and Case # 05-3560.
Attention: Caroline Feeley - Case # 05-3139 and Case # 05-3560
Tampered document (by Enio Zeppieri) and Original Letter (by Robert Neil Clark)
The bottom and tops were cut-off:
The date was poorly copied, shifted and re-printed to take up space
My Name was cut-off the bottom to make it look like I did not sign it.
My appeals notice was cut-off to hide the truth of me not stopping my appeals
Please Contact me - Immediately - 905-619-6777
LSUC History - 09: Feeley of LSUC emails RNC – reply to RNC email of the tampered evidence with descriptions. “Mr. Clark, I confirm that I have received your email below. As discussed yesterday, please forward a copy of the appeal decision as soon as you have received the same. In our telephone conversation yesterday, you indicated that you recently received a notice regarding foreclosure on your house. You indicated that you had been in touch with Mr. Palleschi, the lawyer representing Toby Ezer. I understand that you are currently unrepresented and that you cannot afford to retain a lawyer to assist you with respect to the foreclosure. As you know, this is a serious matter and I suggest that you consult with a lawyer in private practice about your rights and obligations. If you do not know a lawyer to contact , you may want to use the Law Society's Lawyer Referral Service which will give you up to one half hour of free legal advice. You can then decide whether to retain this lawyer or not. The cost for using the Lawyer Referral Service is $6.00 which is billed to the phone you use to call the service. The telephone number is 1-900-565-4577.”
RNC History - 667: RNC emails Feeley of LSUC – (#2) Letter written by Enio Zeppieri and submitted to LSUC and Court of Appeal with the tampered document
RNC History - 668: RNC emails Feeley of LSUC – (#3) Appeal Verdict - [5] should tell you that Enio Zeppieri has his own agenda that corrupted my case and destroyed our lives!
RNC History - 669: RNC emails Feeley of LSUC – FW: (#4) Attention: Caroline Feeley - I don't even have $6 that I can afford to take away from the mouths of my 2 young girls. I have 2 part time low paying jobs and I am very very sick physically and mentally to take on anymore. I suffer from massive chest pains, anxiety, lack of sleep, nightmares, and I am scared for my health and life. I was told I made a lot of enemies. I tried PBLO (Pro Bono Lawyer Organization) and they gave me Paul Pape - as soon as I talk about my ex-lawyers dealings - his pro-bono went to a $30k retainer. And with Enio Zeppieri's bogus verdict against me and my wife no finance company will touch us and no finance company even like me for bringing this lawsuit to trial, anyways! I think I am now dead in the water. I feel dead. I needed honesty and help but nobody wanted to step on toes No one cares about my family's suffering.
LSUC History - 10: Feeley of LSUC emails RNC – I have spoken to John Peddie, the manager of the Law Society's Call Centre. Mr. Peddie also manages the Lawyer Referral Service. I have told him that you have an urgent matter and that you are not able to pay the $6.00 charge for the Lawyer Referral Service. Under the circumstances, Mr. Peddie is willing to waive the charge. Mr. Peddie also indicated that you can call him directly at 416-947-4058. If you do not reach him right away, you can leave a message and he will return your call. Alternatively, Mr. Peddie's email address is jpeddie@lsuc.on.ca

[602] December 21 2006
CJC Investigation - 06 Canadian Judicial Council Heather Freeman for Norman Sabourin – Acknowledges RNC recent email complaint about Justice Day.
Good Morning Mr. Clark,
I wish to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail of December 20, 2006 with respect to a complaint about Mr. Justice Day. If you wish to make a new complaint against Mr. Justice Day, please due so in writing indicating the particulars so that I can bring your complaint to the attention of the Executive Director, Mr. Sabourin.
Thank you Heather Freeman, Administrative Services Officer
[603] December 22 2006
RNC History - 670: RNC emails Feeley of LSUC – Along with several other motions - I will be filing a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim shortly after Christmas. I will also be charging Enio Zeppieri with fraud and theft. I only wish I could have done all this before Christmas. And return to Enio Zeppieri the wonder Christmas he gave us for the past 6 years of his lies and BS! For 19 months Jessica Kowalski kept telling me to hold on - hold on. I can not hold any Longer. We talk to Zeppieri's relative yesterday and he said "What goes around will come around" It is time!
RNC History - 671: RNC faxes Court of Appeal – Intake Office – Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal
RNC History - 672: RNC faxes Schwartz of CTN for EFX – Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal
RNC History - 673: RNC faxes Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS – Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal

[604] December 24 2006
RNC History - 674: Equifax History of Errors on RNC Credit Report

[605] December 27 2006
RNC History - 675: RNC faxes Schwartz of CTN for EFX – Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal
RNC History - 676: RNC faxes Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS – Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal
RNC History - 677: RNC faxes Schwartz of CTN for EFX – Amended Statement of Claim – Combining first two lawsuits DC-06-381 / 04 CV 274206 SR
RNC History - 678: RNC faxes Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS – Amended Statement of Claim – Combining first two lawsuits DC-06-381 / 04 CV 274206 SR
RNC History - 679: RNC faxes Rombis of Dutton Brock – Statement of Defence and Counter-Claim [ZEP vs. RNC and ROC]

RNC History - 680: RNC faxes Schwartz of CTN for EFX – Courts of Justice Act R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194 – Rules of Civil Procedure
RNC History - 681: RNC faxes Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS – Courts of Justice Act R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 194 – Rules of Civil Procedure

[606] December 28 2006
RNC History - 682: RNC faxes Court of Appeal – Intake Office – Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal
RNC History - 683: RNC faxes Court of Appeal – Intake Office – Amended Statement of Claim – Combining 1st 2 lawsuits DC-06-381 / 04 CV 274206 SR
RNC History - 684: RNC faxes Court of Appeal – Intake Office – Request to Registrar for Free Fee Wavier for Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal

[607] December 29 2006
ONT Courts - 65: Court of Appeal - Huguette Thomson returns Notice of Motion for Leave to Appeal because Rule 61.03.1 the Notice of Motion did not state “the court will hear the motion in writing, 36 days after service of the moving party’s motion record, factum and transcripts, if any, or the filing of the moving party’s reply factum, if any, whichever is earlier”. And because of Rule 16.09 - Proof of Service required.
RNC History - 685: RNC faxes Schwartz of CTN for EFX – Cancelling court hearing January 2 2007 due to Rule 61.03.1(1) – Heard 36 days after service.
RNC History - 686: RNC faxes Sclisizzi of BLG for BNS – Cancelling court hearing January 2 2007 due to Rule 61.03.1(1) – Heard 36 days after service.
RNC History - 687: RNC faxes ENIO and ZEP – Cancelling court hearing January 2 2007 due to Rule 61.03.1(1) – Heard 36 days after service.


[694] January 17 2006:
History.......711: RNC leaves voice message for Theresa Morris (Court Reporter) 10:30 am
History.......712: Theresa Morris returns RNC’s telephone call at 12:30 pm (ish) and leaves message with ROC to have RNC call at 3:40 pm sharp.
History.......713: ROC asks Theresa Morris to call RNC but Theresa Morris told ROC to “Have him call me at 3:40 pm”.
History.......714: RNC calls at 3:38 pm, 3:39, 3:40, 3:41, 3:42, 3:44, 3:46, 3:48 RNC leaves message for Theresa Morris, 3:50, 3:54, 3:58, 4:00, 4:10 and 4:20 pm.
History.......715: RNC leaves message for Theresa Morris to call Wednesday January 18 2006 before 11:30 am and after 1:05pm.
History.......716: RNC reads July 11 2005 correspondence from Stephen Schwartz (EFX) to ENIO stating “I was informed by her (Theresa Morris) that your (ENIO) client (RNC) had ordered the evidence from the trial and had cancelled the order upon learning that the reporter required a deposit prior to proceeding to transcribe evidence”.

[695] January 17 2006:
Medical......107. RNC and ROC Medical: Social Service Dept. Family Services Durham Counseling with Joni Vegotsky at 1:00 pm.

[696] January 23 2006:
Medical......108. RNC and ROC Medical: Social Service Dept. Family Services Durham Counseling with Joni Vegotsky at 1:30 pm.

[697] January 23 2006:
History.......717: RNC receives Notice of Motion from BNS at (7:45pm)

[698] January 24 2006:
History.......718: RNC receives Notice of Motion from EFX at (9:50am)

[699] January 25 2006:
Medical......109. RNC and ROC Medical: Social Service Dept. Family Services Durham Counseling with Joni Vegotsky at 2:00 pm.

[700] January 25 2006:
History.......719: RNC signs Factum, Appeal Book and Exhibit Book and setups their arrival to defendants for January 27th 2006.

[701] January 27 2006:
History.......720: RNC serves BNS and EFX via courier.
History.......721: RNC is ready to go to Appeals and would request an “immediate date in February 2006”.

[702] January 27 2006:
History.......722: BNS request for 30 MORE DAYS to “perfect their Cross-Appeal” after RNC delivers his Appeal.
History.......723: EFX request up to February 28 2006 to “Perfect their Cross-Appeal” after RNC delivers his Appeal.

[703] January 27 2006:
History.......724: RNC goes to Motion hearing to hear the “Defendants have the wishes granted – As usual!”
History.......725: But, BNS should not even have a “CROSS-APPEAL” because they “NEVER” showed up on Aug 9 2005.
History.......726: BNS allowed an extension willfully pass by without attendance or written submission
History.......727: Therefore BNS’s cross-appeal should be dismissed with all costs.

[704] January 27 2006:
History.......728: The Canadian Judicial Council updates RNC on the progress of RNC’s judicial complaints.

TO BE CONTINUED...