No mas No mas The Rod Barr legacy

In the summer of 2013 I went to the ICAO AGM and sat front row directly opposite Rod Barr to confront him about the Marshall Sone fraud and cover up by Elizabeth Cowie. First I had to endure the "speech" by blowhard Gerry Gallant. Ole Gallant, an impish, rotond, odd looking fellow complained about the apathy of the membership towards unification. In fact he ridiculed the membership for not participating and was painfully boorish. How an incompetent like Gallant can get elected speaks to the leadership at council. After the meeting I approached Barr and he suggested a meeting the following Monday at the hotel across the street.

I explained to Barr in the lobby of the hotel, that I was angry with the conduct of Cowie and advised him of my intention to sue if matters were not set straight. He commiserated with me of tails of woe from being pushed out by mandatory retirement and then the arduous task of pursuing the Deloitte auditors in the Livent fiasco and other "bothersome" tasks like dealing with my complaint. Barr stated that since 2009 he spent 50% of his time on unification and 50% on my complaint.

I asked Barr why he was spending so much time on my complaint and he stated that he was worried about the fallout and liability if they were held negligent. Barr tried to get Cowie removed from the process due to her incompetence and was rebuffed by council. Turns out council was worried too, and for good reason. The question of negligence was never at issue. The question was how were they going to deal with it while saving face.

Barr finished that meeting by assuring me that he would review the complaint and get back to me in a timely fashion. Barr called me later in the summer to advise that he was successful in removing Cowie and that he  and Scullion had agreed to send the complaint to arbitration in September when staff returned from holiday's.

Late in September. after I requested action on the arbitration by email several times, Barr advised that Cowie had intervened and that the complaint was no longer being sent to arbitration.

Barr and Scullion both gave me their word that my complaint would be settled at arbitration. Barr and Scullion are liars.

Now, Barr retires in the midst of battle as he did in the Livent investigation where he retired from Deloitte to take the helm at the ICAO. Later justice Gains lamented that Barr signed off on the biggest fraud in Canadian history.

Is Barr trying to duck publicity about the Livent scandal or the Sone scandal? Probably both.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

When is a fraud a fraud? The Marshall Sone expulsion

Marshall Bryan Sone: Summary, as Published in CheckMark Marshall Bryan Sone , of North York, was found guilty of a charge under Rule 201.1 of failing to maintain the good reputation of the profession and its ability to serve the public interest, arising out of his criminal conviction for fraud. While a trustee in bankruptcy of monies for the benefit of creditors of the bankruptcy estates administered by him, Mr. Sone, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, converted monies to a use not authorized by the trust, contrary to the Criminal Code. He was fined $15,000 and expelled from the Institute. Mr. Sone’s appeal of the discipline committee’s decision and order was dismissed by the appeal committee. CHARGE(S) LAID re Marshall Bryan Sone The Professional Conduct Committee hereby makes the following charges against Marshall Sone, CA, a member of the Institute: 1 THAT, the said Marshall Sone, on or about May 25, 1998, failed to conduct ...
Read more

CRA investigations result in 53.5 years of jail sentences

Tax fraud and evasion represent the most flagrant instances of non-compliance with tax statutes. During 2012-2013, 71 income tax and GST/HST investigations were referred to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC) for prosecution, compared to 120 cases in the previous year. As a result of referrals to the PPSC (current and previous years), 128 cases resulted in convictions for tax evasion or fraud in 2012-2013. The courts imposed $9.95 million in fines and 53.5 years of jail sentences. These convictions related to revenue loss of $32.6 million. The CRA obtained convictions in 96% of cases prosecuted. In addition, the Ministère du Revenu du Québec, acting on our behalf, referred 27 GST investigation cases for prosecution and, based on these and previous year referrals, Quebec courts convicted individuals and businesses in 58 cases, and imposed $3.1 million in fines. Quebec GST convictions related to revenue loss of $4.4 million. Court convictions are publicized in local,...
Read more

Penalty for Tax Evasion in Canada

Penalty for Tax Evasion in Canada Most people file their annual return honestly and only take deductions and credits made available by the Income Tax Act. Unfortunately, some individuals and businesses evade taxes, and there are legal consequences for such actions. Anurag Gupta, a Toronto business and tax lawyer with the law firm of Anurag Gupta Professional Corporation, says that evaders may face criminal penalties including jail time and fines up to "200 percent of the amount" that the offender may have been trying to avoid. Ignoring the Law Tax evasion occurs when an individual or business ignores tax laws to avoid paying taxes. The Canada Revenue Agency explains that evaders may report less income than they actually earn or state that their deduction amounts are higher than allowed. If a person earns income not documented by an employer, such as cash or self-employment income, and does not report that income to the CRA on his return, he is committing tax ev...
Read more