Judge slams auto repair boss as ‘unblinkingly dishonest’

He masterminded an auto insurance fraud ring that featured staged accidents.

He created the equivalent of an “automotive Frankenstein” cobbled together out of uncommon parts for a swindle that endangered the public.

He is “without conscience,” one judge concluded.

Meet Gurnek Singh, owner, operator and the brains behind Brampton Auto Collision Centre on Stafford Drive in Brampton.

Business is brisk at the collision centre for the 50-year-old industry veteran, former used-car salesman and convicted con man.

Fines, penalties and a judge’s blunt rebuke don’t faze Singh, an unlicensed mechanic with body repair training and a flair for storytelling.

“I’m okay,” he said at his shop the other day. “I’m busy. Business is good.”

The judge who found that Singh acted fraudulently described him as “unblinkingly dishonest” with “no aptitude for the truth” and “incorrigible.” Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn of Ontario Superior Court said he should not even be in business.

“Singh should not be permitted to conduct any commercial business in the province of Ontario that brings him into contact with members of the public,” he wrote in a recent judgment that detailed a wide range of infractions and efforts to hide them.

But Singh knows that nothing can legally stop him or anyone else from opening an auto body repair shop in Ontario.

The Liberal government says it protects consumers in many ways under several pieces of legislation. But advocates for legislation specific for the auto body shop industry argue there is a need for regulations for accreditation and performance standards that could reduce fraud and provide more safety protection on the road.

Vehicles sometimes crowd the front of Singh’s narrow lot below a shop sign that offers customers “guaranteed workmanship” and “complete collision repairs.”

In his colorful ruling, Quinn ordered Quinn to pay a customer, who got stuck with a creaky car patched together from non-matching parts, more than $83,000, including $50,000 in punitive damages.

Singh faces further sentencing for contempt of court for ignoring a deadline in production of documents in that civil case, which dragged for 10 years primarily because of Singh’s tactics, according to Quinn.

At one time, Singh also sold used cars as Sarwan Auto Sales from the same location. Ontario’s regulator for car dealers cancelled Singh’s sales license in 2001 because he lied about his criminal past.

In Singh’s latest caper, the court heard that Dr. Kalimuddin Pirbhai of St. Catharines paid $32,913.20 for a dark brown 1998 Lexus LS400 luxury car that the body shop operator bought for him at an auction. Unbeknownst to Pirbhai, Singh actually paid $27,065.65 and the car was seriously damaged.

When the family learned about the damages, Singh promised to turn the car into “showroom condition” for $5,000 at his Brampton shop. But Singh rang up charges of $16,235 and when Pirbhai finally took possession months later he noticed it didn’t handle well.

“He (Pirbhai) noted the vehicle swayed, swerved, wobbled and emitted unusual noises,” Quinn said in his judgment. “He also observed that it seemed to have a number of body parts that did not match.”

Quinn mused that the car had become “something of an automotive Frankenstein” – put together out of disparate parts.

Pirbhai’s wife took the car to a Lexus dealership, where a check showed it would not pass a safety test. The doctor returned the car to Singh for a refund and signed over ownership.

Singh initially denied the transfer but a forensic document examiner looked at the papers and refuted his testimony. Singh conceded the point later with an explanation “that fell somewhere between a yarn and fairy tale,” Quinn said.

“If lies were clothes, Singh would have been considerably overdressed for the trial,” the judge added.

Singh did not sell the car and Pirbhai never saw a refund. Exasperated, Pirbhai retook possession of the Lexus and a reputable shop inspected the car.

It found a major structural misalignment, numerous poor repairs and shoddy paint work. It concluded that the car would put occupants “in a dangerous situation.”

In the end, the judge ruled that Singh deliberately misled Pirbhai by overstating the auction price by almost $6,000 and overcharged for repairs by $6,235 more. It needed another $15,565 in repairs.

“It is not enough to describe his conduct in this regard as being negligent; it was fraudulent and grossly so,” added Quinn. “Singh exposed the plaintiff and his family to a significant safety risk.”

He ordered Singh to pay damages of $33,465.77 to Pirbhai for breach of contract, deceit and misrepresentation, and added another $50,000 in punitive damages.

Singh, who is appealing the judgment, said in a brief interview he had never experienced a problem with a customer until the Pirbhai case.

But Singh pleaded guilty to swindling Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. of more than $5,000 and conspiracy to commit fraud in 1997. The court fined him $15,000 in that case where police said Singh appeared to be the leader of the scheme.

A police investigation found Singh bought vehicles at auctions that industry officials classified as damaged and insurance writeoffs. Singh fixed the vehicles at his Brampton shop to minimum standards and then sold them through his used car dealership.

The vehicles were soon involved in staged crashes where both parties knew an accident would occur. The vehicles were sent back to Singh’s shop for repairs and people allegedly involved would claim compensation for “soft tissue” damage. However, police said, those people were never in the crashes.

The police probe found that Singh himself claimed compensation from the insurance company even though he was not present at the accident.

Singh applied for renewal of his registration to sell used cars in 2001 but the registrar, which enforces the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, revoked it because the legislation requires sellers to operate a business “with integrity and honesty.”

The registrar found that Singh had checked “no” on a question asking whether he had any convictions. Singh denied the handwriting on the application belonged to him.

Singh appealed that decision at a licence tribunal and in court during 2002 and 2003. The tribunal and courts dismissed his requests.

Ticket cancelling manual released Once-secret guidelines explain possible escapes from that parking fine

If you are old, have a medical condition and are religious you have a good chance of beating a parking ticket in Toronto.

Top 5 parking ticket excuses

1. Members of a congregation attending worship can get a ticket cancelled by getting a letter from a clergy person.
2. Under a courtesy exemption, drivers who can convince staff they were tagged because of medical reasons, age, unusual circumstances, or ignorance of the bylaw — particularly those who live more than 100 kilometres out of the city — might get off.
3. Those parking on streets where authorized parking alternates from side to side can argue they were confused about the schedule. A grace period for “change-over dates” is allowed.
4. Security companies, utility vehicles, taxis and limos, delivery trucks and fast food delivery drivers can all appeal to have tickets cancelled if they can prove they were on business at the time of the tag.
5. If you’re ticketed more than once in 3 hours for the same reason — such as an unpaid meter — you can ask to have subsequent tickets cancelled if you pay the first

With files from Paul Moloney

The excuses that work with bureaucrats were made public Tuesday night when city council voted to release the holy grail of how-tos: the Parking Ticket Cancellation Guidelines.

According to the previously confidential report, city staff can cancel tickets for drivers on compassionate grounds, especially if they live more than 100 kilometres from Toronto.

Other potentially acceptable excuses are that the driver was attending worship, confused over which side of the street to park, or got multiple tickets for the same offence in a 3-hour window.

The 18-page report details exemptions for fast-food delivery, nursing agencies, tour buses, taxicabs, disabled drivers and delivery vehicles, among others.

Like police, fire and ambulance services, city councillors on “city business” can have tickets cancelled for virtually any infraction.

So why did city council make public some of its deepest secrets?

“Myself and Councillor Moscoe have been trying to get it released for a long time, and staff have constantly been saying ‘It’s confidential, it’s confidential, it’s confidential,” said Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong.

He asked city solicitor Anna Kinastowski to explain why.

The rationale, she said, was that the guidelines “were drafted in a manner that makes them perhaps not quite understandable to average members of the public. And they can be used against the city.” Kinastowski said there could be litigation and revenue concerns.

Minnan-Wong said these arguments were “very weak.”

“Here a group of bureaucrats have set up these secret rules that nobody knows about,” he said. “I think that there is a risk that once some of these rules get out that they may be open to abuse, and if that’s the case there has to be some consideration whether those rules should be applied.”

Bureaucrats are encouraged to use “sound judgment and problem solving skills” when evaluating excuses. A driver’s previous ticket history is almost always a factor when deciding whether to cancel a ticket.

Ignorance can be bliss when it comes to parking tickets.

You can escape a fine if you can convince staff you were unaware of the parking rules, or “unusual circumstances” kept you from putting cash in the meter.

Council voted 23-8 in favour of releasing the document and having the issue guidelines reviewed by committee. In the meantime, the full list is online at the City of Toronto website.

During the council meeting, Moscoe said the current system wastes time and money.

“Taking a ticket to court that is going to lose automatically puts the whole system in a bad light and it wastes a whole lot of police officer time, staff time and prosecution time,” he said.

“It makes no sense to allow all the tickets that are automatically written for whatever reason to go to court when you know there’s a whole block of them that are going to lose.”

Daw: Auto insurers ordered to distribute false advertising

Expect a letter soon about your auto insurance. It will include false advertising.

Regulators have ordered insurers to warn us that Ontario’s standard auto policy is to change Sept. 1, and to turn to our insurer or insurance representative, or to government or industry websites, for more information.

The standard notice will make no mention of price increases or price reductions, only the promise of more choice and greater influence over price. Any invitation to pay more, or less, is to come later.

The false advertising that every company must include in the Early Warning Mailing is this:

“Your policy will remain unchanged until your next renewal.”

It’s true the wording of your policy and the price you pay will be unchanged, and this could important to you. You will get to keep most of the coverage you have now without having to pay more money.

But your coverage will certainly change.

If you suffer a minor injury on or after Sept. 1, you will be limited to claiming $3,500 for therapy.

If you need an assessment of your injury, you will be limited to paying $2,000.

If you go for an assessment that costs $2,000, it will come from the medical and rehabilitation portion or your accident benefit coverage.

If you have a minor injury, paying that much for an assessment would leave you with only $1,500 to pay a physiotherapist, chiropractor, massage therapist or whomever.

These changes are all intended to save policyholders money over time, particularly motorists in the Greater Toronto Area. We are paying exceptionally high premiums and deserve a break. But our underlying coverage will have to change.

You will have to wait for a second mailing from your insurer to point out the $3,500 limit for minor injuries will apply, regardless of the level of coverage you have now or purchase in the future.

When your current policy expires you will have the choice of reducing or maintaining other aspects of your accident benefit coverage.

You will have a choice of the limit for medical, rehabilitation and attendant care coverage for non-catastrophic injury, whether to pay for caregiver, housekeeping and home maintenance coverage, and whether to have less deducted from a court award for pain and suffering.

What’s still not known is whether the choice of maintaining your coverage (apart from treatment for a minor injury) will remain the same or go up.

That will depend on how much profit, if any, your particular insurer has been making from selling auto insurance policies to drivers with your particular risk characteristics.

“Every auto insurance company in Ontario was required to file rates by April 15th based on the reforms that take effect on September first,” said Rowena McDougall, the spokeswoman for the Financial Services Commission of Ontario.

“Several filings have been approved and the companies have been notified.”

Policyholders who have seen substantial increases in premiums during the past 18 months. But, the increases have not been enough — on average — to pay all accident claims and provide insurers a profit on their Ontario auto business, according to one of the province’s leading actuaries.

Ron Miller estimated in a report from MSA Research Inc. and Baron Insurance Services Inc. in April that premiums for the existing level of coverage would be about 9 per cent short of what insurers would like.

He estimated premium revenue could be just enough or 7 per cent short depending on how insurers respond to rate filing guidelines set down by regulators. He did not return a telephone request to discuss his estimates.

Consumers should seek advice about the coverage limits they choose, regardless of the price