Canadian Chat → [Serious] Kijiji scam

It's shared even with Ecuador in South America... I know that somebody that took out a Rogers smartphone on a 3-year contract and left for his country for good and took the phone just 5 months into the contract. It was blacklisted and the phone was useless in Ecuador. I'm sure more countries have joined the alliance.

I am fully familiar with Sec 334, however you are incorrect that the matter may be proceeded with by way of a ticket. That option only exists for those offences or Acts which fall under the authority of the Contraventions Act, of which the Criminal Code of Canada does not.

Additionally, until such time as the Crown chooses to proceed by way of Summary Conviction all "hybrid" offences are deemed to be indictable.

References, para 21 of R. v Dudley SCC (as well as Interpretation Act, Sec. 34):

[21] As mentioned earlier, hybrid offences are deemed to be indictable unless and until the Crown elects to proceed summarily. Thus, speaking for the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in R. v. Paul%u2011Marr, 2005 NSCA 73, 199 C.C.C. (3d) 424, at para. 20, Cromwell J.A. (as he then was) explained that "where an offence may be prosecuted by either indictment or on summary conviction at the election of the Crown, the offence is deemed to be indictable until the Crown elects to proceed by way of summary conviction".

Yes, and my point was that theft under $5000 is rarely prosecuted by indictment, unless there are aggravating circumstances such as a long string of them or it's coupled with a violent offense.

As for summary offenses not being processed as a ticket...

»laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/ ··· ml#h-286

quote:

---

787. (1) Unless otherwise provided by law, everyone who is convicted of an offence punishable on summary conviction is liable to a fine of not more than five thousand dollars or to a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or to both.

Imprisonment in default where not otherwise specified

(2) Where the imposition of a fine or the making of an order for the payment of money is authorized by law, but the law does not provide that imprisonment may be imposed in default of payment of the fine or compliance with the order, the court may order that in default of payment of the fine or compliance with the order, as the case may be, the defendant shall be imprisoned for a term not exceeding six months.

(3) to (11) [Repealed, R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 171]
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 787; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 171; 2008, c. 18, s. 44.

---

You said "which means it generally only ends up in a ticket". He showed it never just ends up as a ticket as that distinction does not exist and if it did by your definition of a summary offence then it only proceeds that way after your first appearance. Besides, in Canada the difference between summary and indictable is meaningless for most people. You must be watching too much American TV.

I'm sorry but if the difference between a "ticket" and a "fine" has that much importance to you you go ahead and argue about it.

I think the great majority of Canadians don't care, or even know, about any difference between the two.

Can we go back to the topic at hand now?

I think the great majority of Canadians care if they get a ticket or are compelled to make a court appearance.

Good Good,

don't let these scammers run free. There will be more victims and you did the right thing. Let's see how he shakes in his pants.

It's unfortunate that you lost your money but kijiji phone scams are getting more popular.

I would have bought phones off kijiji a few years ago but now the 2ndary market is becoming rampant.

+1 - Additionally pursuant to the Identiication of Criminals Act, they can also be fingerprinted AND the fingerprints do not have to be destroyed even if the conviction is summary. The person then has to go with the full pardon applications, etc.

Apparently Bell can blacklist any phone on as little as a whim.

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b ··· ?cmp=rss

quote:

---

Go Public
Bell accused of 'ganging up' on resale buyers by blacklisting phones


A Montreal father is taking on Canada’s largest telecom, after Bell blacklisted his teenager’s phone — not because it was reported stolen, but because the original buyer didn’t pay Bell for the device under contract.

"It infuriated me," said Jeremy Price-Williams. "It’s a case of the big guys ganging up on the little guys."

"It’s my phone, and they are blacklisting it for no reason," said David Price-Williams, 17.

The blacklist is part of an international phone database. Carriers flag phones its customers report lost or stolen, using an ID number unique to the hardware, so other telecoms will know not to activate them.

In an opposite case, a Vancouver customer is upset with Virgin Mobile — owned by Bell — because the carrier failed to blacklist her phone, after she emailed to report it stolen while on a trip to Nicaragua.

"It didn’t get blacklisted, shut off, deactivated or anything," said Michelle Allen.

She said she had to battle with Virgin over $2,700 in roaming charges racked up by the thief. Allen said Virgin forgave the bill only after she threatened to go public with CBC.

"The blacklisting system doesn’t seem to work. Or else, they are just using it when it is convenient for them," said Allen.

...snip...

"It all boils down to, who owns the phone? And everybody at Bell we spoke to said the seller … he has every right to sell that phone."

The teen bought the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 in December through an ad on Kijiji, with $700 scraped together from his minimum-wage earnings.

Price-Williams asked the seller for his ID and his receipt, which showed Bell shipped it to the same customer, at the same address as on his driver’s licence. That name and address is also listed on Canada 411.

The teen also called Bell, asking if the phone was restricted by contract.
Resale OK'd by Bell

"[Bell] said it would be OK, and that the phone was totally fine for me to buy," said Price-Williams.

Weeks later, the device stopped working. Telus — his provider — told him it had been blacklisted by Bell.

...snip...

---

I'd say go public with the CBC on this. As long as you did due diligence on whether or not the phone was stolen when you bought it, Bell should OK the activation.

If Bell won't budge, take THEM to Small Claims Court, not the seller@!

The shocking thing is they called Bell to get an ok for the sale, Bell said it was clean and admitted in writing that these people did contact Bell for an ok on that phone, yet it was still blacklisted.

Bell could easily rectify this by sending this young man a brand new, unlocked Note 4, then it would have nothing to do with the database. They could fix their f up instead of saying tough luck. The people in this story did their due diligence and for Bell to do this reeks.

If Bell had anyone with any brains running their operation, they would be getting ahead of all this bad publicity, or maybe at least have Kevin Crull at least call the CBC and threaten them if they keep running this story.

My Spidey Senses tell me the seller of the Galaxy Note 4 reported it "stolen" to Bell shortly after the transaction. Hence it stopped working only after a few days' use by the buyer.