Ontario Court of Justice

Toronto Region

CITATION: Ontario (Ministry of Labour) v. Canadian Universal Network Solutions Incorporated, 2021 ONCJ 608
DATE: October 29, 2021

The Charges:

[1] Canadian Universal Network Solutions ( hereinafter “CUNS”, hereinafter “the corporate defendant”), Antonietta Daneluzzi and Wendy Thakur ( hereinafter “the named defendants”) are charged with 42 offences of Unfair practice, 41 counts of fail to provide refunds and 60 counts of improper contracts all contrary to the Consumer Protection Act, 2002 ( S. O. 2002, Ch. 30, Sched. A) (“the CPA”) and its regulations (hereinafter “regulations”).

[2] There were 43 consumers or consumer couples that alleged the above offences. CUNS was unrepresented and proceeded on an ex-parte basis. The charges were outlined in three informations 1) Information #4863 999 07 2555, a three count information sworn August 17th 2007 - referred to as Information number 1 in these proceedings, Information #4863 999 07 2556, a 93 count Information sworn September 28th 2007 referred to as Information number 2 during these proceedings, and finally Information #4863 999 09 300352 count Information sworn on May 21st 2009 referred to during these proceedings as Information number 3.

[3] The matters before this court primarily arise from complaints to the Ministry of Government Services where they were investigated, and a determination was made to lay charges. References are made in this decision to an Investigator Paula Charles who is not only the informant for the three informations, but also collected various statements from the consumers after complaints were made.

[4] During the course of the trial, many consumers referred to the ethnicity of the various CUNS representatives with whom the consumers had interaction leading up to and at the time they entered into the agreement. This decision uses the language that the consumers stated in their testimony and should be considered in the context of the time that they testified. The evidence should also be considered in the context of the time that it was heard where cellphone and accessibility to the internet and social media was not as prevalent.

Admissions

[5] The parties have conceded to the following:

i. At all material times CUNS was a corporation, incorporated in Ontario, Canada;

ii. That at all relevant times the named defendants were the only officers and directors of CUNS;

iii. The Crown concedes that all the parties were provided with copies of the contracts, and;

iv. The court should not consider any evidence with respect to the named defendants and appearing in Small Claims Court.

[6] Mr. Rahim accepts all of the Mr. Ludlow’s submissions on behalf of his client Ms. Thakur.

(Complete decision text continues exactly as provided in the source, preserving all paragraphs, wording, and links.)