Kumar(s): The Hammer Comes Down

[Burnaby49]

Given that this is eric's topic I'll defer to him regarding the starting point and title for the new thread.

[eric]

We've talked about Kevin Kumar for over ten years and there are literally thousands of posts. It's time for a split, since the Kumars, pater et filius, are finally about to run into the hammer of the Alberta Courts and their dislike of pseudolaw adherents. For those who want to look back you can go all the waaay back to here viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10455, although I would suggest starting here: viewtopic.php?p=294057#p294057. Or you can go here: viewtopic.php?p=232693#p232693

[eric]

Just a quick update on the Kumars. As I saw when privatesectoract went down they have gone dark. Nothing new on any of their social media accounts or websites. Assuming they aren't planning a pivot to a new scam like they did the last time, and being charitable, I expect they are busy fighting the good fight (with the aid of ChatGPT May 2023 update) in multiple court proceedings. Not all of them, for various reasons, have been mentioned on Quatloos, something about not revealing your hand, etc. A hint to Colton and Kevin - if you're going to use ChatGpt to prepare filings remove the watermark before you hand the documents in.

And yet another update. Pleadings to follow, seems the Kumars have now brought defamation proceedings against me in the BC Supreme Court.

I plan on observing this one tomorrow morning virtually, assuming the technology works, and will report anything interesting. It was a bit of an unusual experience setting it up, I don't make a habit of exchanging emails on a Saturday evening with retired members of the judiciary. Many thanks to The Honorable Bruce Cohen who made it happen. Burnaby49 may remember the Cohen Commission on the West Coast Fishery.....

[Burnaby49]

Indeed I do. The commission was the result of the sockeye panic of 2009 when only 1,370,000 sockeye returned to spawn in the Fraser River, the lowest return in over 50 years. While they were still holding the public hearings in 2010 we got the largest Fraser River return in almost 100 years. It was estimated that about 30,000,000 fish started the run and about 14,000,000 of those were caught.

It was a once in a lifetime opportunity for sockeye lovers like me. The processors were overwhelmed and they were virtually giving it away. I ended up with about 150-200 pounds of canned salmon cramming all the shelving in my basement. We just finished it a few years ago.

[yycparalegal]

Hey Eric, any chance you were able to observe? Either way end result is a reserved decision returnable on February 6 remotely. (Might be my fault for giving the Justice 400 pages of case law)

[eric]

I had a chance to observe it via dial-in. No I didn't have my pants on. I will post my thoughts on it later to day or early tomorrow. Short teaser - Kevin Kumar argued the wrong topic, Colton eventually got on track, you kept to the point and at least had some case law to back you up. Quick edit - I put in a request to observe on 6 feb.

[eric]

As I mentioned in a previous post, yesterday I observed remotely a court proceeding involving the two Kumars and the paralegal firm of John McDonald (JM) and a coworker, Heidi Semkowich (HS). Some of the people I will mention are here on Quatloos, if I've made a mistake or you wish to chime in, go for it. Most of the various cases mentioned here are up on Quatloos.

Necessary background – In December 2024 the Kumars made a claim against JM and HS for defamation and interference with contractual relationships as previously discussed on Quatloos:
https://www.mcdonaldparalegal.ca/_files ... 8d6a74.pdf
On 19 December JM made an application to stay/dismiss the claim for (summarized) lack of jurisdiction, being frivolous/vexatious, and have the Kumars vex-litted in BC.
https://www.mcdonaldparalegal.ca/_files ... 9d32cf.pdf

Part 1: ORDER(S) SOUGHT 1. An Order staying the Action for want of Jurisdiction. 2. An Order dismissing the claim as scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious pursuant to rule 9-5(1)(b). 3. An Order dismissing the claim as an abuse of process pursuant to Rule 9-5(1)(d). 4. An Order dismissing the claim pursuant to the Protection of Public Participation Act. 5. An Order Declaring the Plaintiff’s Colton Kevin Kumar, and Kevin Anthony Kumar to be vexatious litigants. 6. An order prohibiting the Plaintiff’s Colton Kevin Kumar, and Kevin Anthony Kumar from bringing any action against John McDonald, McDonald Paralegal Services Ltd., and Heidi Semkowich without first obtaining leave of the Court. 7. An Order awarding costs on a full indemnity basis pursuant to the Protection of Public Participation Act.

If you want to read along with the case law cited by JM, here ya go. Warning, it's almost 400 pages long.
https://www.mcdonaldparalegal.ca/_files ... b477a5.pdf

So let's see how it all went down, from notes I scribbled. Things open with JM removing his request for an order dismissing the claim pursuant to the Protection of Public Participation Act. (Anti-SLAPP) Apparently that part of the claim would take priority and he doesn't want to get into that. So this is going to be a discussion about jurisdiction and how the Kumars are pseudolaw.

JM opens with a review of how Kerslake and Kohut are suing the Kumars and that he is representing them along with a short mention that Kevin and Colton are vex liited in Alberta. Time to get into the jurisdiction argument. Roughly his argument is that JM and HS live and do business in Alberta, the trial should be there, not BC. More Case Law “just living in BC is not a claim to jurisdiction.” Where did did the Kumar's claims for damages occur? - in Alberta with Kerslake and Kohut. Summary – everything happened in Alberta, a BC court does not have jurisdiction in this matter.

Time to get into the reasons why the two Kumars should be vex litted in BC. Kevin Kumar aka TY Griffiths was vex litted in Maple Trust. Colton Kumar for some reason interjects that he also lives in Calgary. JM talks about how Kevin Kumar was a vex lit in Courtoreille and both of the Kumars were vex-litted in the three Bonville decisions. He cites case law (Wu) that a vex lit in one province can apply in another province. Summarizes with the statement that the Kumars are simply trying to avoid the consequences of Bonville by bringing their action forward in BC.

Things have been fairly calm and rational until now, just a dry recitation of claims with references to case law. Time therefor for things to go off the rails because it's Kevin Kumar's chance to speak. He doesn't seem to have read the memo that this is an argument about jurisdiction. Kevin is in full frothing at the mouth Ty Griffiths mode as seen in some of his videos. Everything JM has said is all irrelevant because he called me a fraudster. We do business across Canada and some of my customers are no longer toeing the OPCA line I fed them. You can't call me a fraudster because I was never charged with fraud (false), two words later changes that to convicted of fraud.(true). Time for a new take on the classic Strawman motif. Attempts to show the court a picture of Ty Griffiths, “litigation by ambush”, denied. How could anyone believe I am Ty Griffriths, I was only play acting as him. Therefore since I was only acting as Ty Griffiths it wasn't me who was vex litted. Side note – yipee – Kevin Kumar, is now finally on record as Ty Griffiths. The Bonville cases don't count because they came down as a memorandum of decision rather than a jury trial. In the one case where an AVAP wasn't considered the best approach that proves he is not a vexatious litigant. Nothing else matters, this is just about him being called a frraauudster.

Things have now fallen apart. Justices are supposed to give self represented clients some leeway but this is getting silly. (looking for a Monty Python video) The next half hour is mostly Kevin Kumar (trying to represent his voice) “I'm a VERY HONEST businessman with 33 years of experience”. I'MMM NOT A FRAAUUDster, why would he say that about me?” I've only ever been convicted of contempt of court but that doesn't count (classic one) I have never been sued for fraud (technically correct, the word “fraud” was never used in those 300 K$ of judgements against you). Meanwhile JM and HS keep hammering away with the fact that this application is about jurisdiction, not about whether the Kumars have been called fraudsters.

Time for Colton Kumar. He has started to figure out that his father is not getting anywhere. He makes reasonable arguments with proof, that since JM is allowed to practice in BC, therefore he conducts business there, so a BC court has jurisdiction.. Brings up Marc Kilfoy, a BC customer (read victim) who stopped making payments supposedly because of JM.

So let's talk about Marc Kilfoy. As usual he ran into problems with his creditors, looking for a way out of his dilemma, probably a little desperate, and thus is perfect victim material for the Kumars like so many others..... been there, done that. I don't have entirely all the details, but he became part of their system and signed a promissory note for a loan. For whatever reasons he thought better of it, the Kumars blame it on JM, and stopped making payments on the note. As a result he is being sued by a Basilios Lolos from Toronto, one of Kevin Kumar's “network of 2300 private lendors”. I'm not entirely sure if Basilios Lolos is a real person or not, his internet presence seems a little sketchy to me. Out of interest's sake, and since Kevin on assorted videos is claiming to be suing all and sundry I did a little digging. I found this one, the corporation listed is Colton Kumar's:


Rough summary, Colton loaned Berge 13000 dollars at 18% pa in June 2022 and one payment on the loan was made. In September of the same year he sued her in Small Claims for the 13 K$ plus another 4 K$ in interest and 5 K$ in “costs”. That's leg breaker territory for interest and 5 K$ for costs in small claims where there are no legal fees and a few hundred for service and filing fees is the norm. I don't know how the case ended up, BC Court Services doesn't indicate anything. What I found even more fascinating were the details on the supposed private lender involved. It's an Ontario numbered company with a valid phone number and address for Killaloe, Ontario, not BC as the claim states. In fact, that's Round Lake East, not to be confused with Round Lake West, or even Round Lake Centre. TLDR version – Let's just say through family connections I've knocked around there for years. (memories of the Wilno Tavern)

JM's argument – Kilfoy is now one of my clients. If a court case involving the Kumars can only be done in BC why is Kilfoy being sued in Ontario? This whole thing is nothing more than a collateral attack (OPCA indicia) on the Alberta Courts, references this web site:
https://www.publicwatchdogcomplaintline.ca
Side note: I have no intention of discussing Kevin's issues with his parents and what may be going on with their estate. As per quatloos policy I don't do family stuff, unless like Kevin and Colton, father and son, they are both involved. Although Colton was a key in tracking down Kevin years ago I never brought him up until he went down the pseudo law rabbit hole.

Time to wrap it up. The Judge has reserved her decision until 6 February and it will be virtual so I plan to be there. Considering she has 400 pages of case law to peruse that seems reasonable to me. That also means there might be a written decision so it will make it to Canlii. A hopeful thought, she asked JM for a written submission on costs, but not the Kumars so that may indicate how she is leaning.

[yycparalegal]

Time to wrap it up. The Judge has reserved her decision until 6 February and it will be virtual so I plan to be there. Considering she has 400 pages of case law to peruse that seems reasonable to me. That also means there might be a written decision so it will make it to Canlii. A hopeful thought, she asked JM for a written submission on costs, but not the Kumars so that may indicate how she is leaning.

I mean in all fairness the 393 pages includes the cover page and list of authorites, but it is in a nutshell, Courtorielle, the Bonnville Trilogy, Unrau #2, Wu, and Hansraj (an Alberta Decision on Attornment" and quite a read, I did highlight what I thought were the most relevant portions. The Justice seemed (at least the look on her face) unimpressed when I quoted from my video appearance on www.publicwatchbogcomplaintline.ca about being teamed up with the "corrupt Alberta Judge Nielsen" and Colton laughed. I suppose I have some costs drafting to finish now.

I

I don't know how the case ended up, BC Court Services doesn't indicate anything.

I just had a look at the procedure card, looks like the claim was never served.

[eric]

The Justice seemed (at least the look on her face) unimpressed when I quoted from my video appearance on www.publicwatchbogcomplaintline.ca about being teamed up with the "corrupt Alberta Judge Nielsen" and Colton laughed

I didn't have the pleasure of watching that being only on dial-in. Not a big fan, Zoom like in Alberta would be so much easier or even MS Teams if you want to show documents. BTW, welcome to the club, from one "hired thug and harasser" to a "member of a corrupt conspiracy".

I just had a look at the procedure card, looks like the claim was never served.

When I first looked at it a few months or more ago the claim hadn't even been scanned in. I'm careful about how much I spend on what is essentially a retirement hobby so I didn't look at it again until a few days ago. I suspect someone else must have asked for it and I lucked out.

[Paralegal-SP]

Justice Laurie's written decision was released about a half hour ago. I (HS) am doing a bit of a victory lap now! While we were not successful in getting the Kumars declared vexatious litigants, we were successful in having the action stayed for want of jurisdiction. Justice Laurie has some rather entertaining comments on the Kumars.

The decision is not published on the court's website yet, but if you would like to see a copy I am happy to send it to you.

[yycparalegal]

I'll upload the decision sometime today, currently working a casino

[eric]

Justice Laurie's written decision was released about a half hour ago. I (HS) am doing a bit of a victory lap now! While we were not successful in getting the Kumars declared vexatious litigants, we were successful in having the action stayed for want of jurisdiction. Justice Laurie has some rather entertaining comments on the Kumars.

Here you go for anyone interested. I haven't had time to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the ruling but in general agree with HS's thoughts.

[Paralegal-SP]

Her comments is paras. 43 and 46 made me chuckle. At para. 43 Justice Laurie says she doesn't think they meet the criteria to vex litted "at this time". Definitely opening the door for future possibility. And her comment in para. 46 about not disagreeing that there has been "reprehensible conduct".. That one did make me laugh out loud. Probably more than it should have. But hey, I can be easily entertained.

Now we wait to see if the appeal comes in...

[eric]

Unless they are careful how they word their appeal it may be just further ammunition for vex lit status. Looking at the bright side though, having won in court against the Kumars qualifies you for your very own youtube video with Kevin frothing at the mouth about various injustices he has suffered at your hands.

[yycparalegal]

not disagreeing that there has been "reprehensible conduct"..

. So the reprehensible conduct referred to is Kevin's statement in a video on publicwatchdogcomplaintline.ca which refers to Mr. Justice Nielsen being a "Corrupt Alberta Judge". Next week ought to be entertaining.

[eric]

So the reprehensible conduct referred to is Kevin's statement in a video on publicwatchdogcomplaintline.ca which refers to Mr. Justice Nielsen being a "Corrupt Alberta Judge".

And poof, just like that, it was gone...

https://www.publicwatchdogcomplaintline.ca -wix error - Looks like this domain isn't
connected to a website yet

Seen that one before. When the pressure got too much, the old privatesectoract.com sites disappeared but the youtube videos remained for awhile. Kevin is very attached to his videos since they can always be re-used for marketing purposes. His unitedwestandpeople derogatory youtube and instagram vids are still there, I don't know how long. One of the good things about quatloos is that it functions as a repository (morgue?) of old stuff, often with dead links however.

[morrand]

So the reprehensible conduct referred to is Kevin's statement in a video on publicwatchdogcomplaintline.ca which refers to Mr. Justice Nielsen being a "Corrupt Alberta Judge".

And poof, just like that, it was gone...

Mostly gone.

"Thank you for your complaint!"

[DNetolitzky]

Hey folks,

Another setback for the Kumars - the Alberta Court of Appeal has ruled that the purported legislative basis on which the Kumars have demanded accounting of debts to disprove securitization has no basis in law:

[13] Ms Bonville said in her written submissions that her litigation is founded on rights set out in the Consumer Protection Act, RSA 2000, c C-26.3, s 13(1). She said that section sets out a right for her to provide a “Request for Debt Validation”. It does not. ...

[14] In her oral submissions, Ms Bonville said her infringed rights are set out in a regulation under the Act, the Collection and Debt Repayment Practices Regulation, AR 194/1999, s 23.2. That provision is wholly unrelated to this matter. The regulation applies to registered collection agencies, debt repayment agencies, debt collectors or debt repayment agents. PC Financial is none of these; it is a financial institution.

[15] Ms Bonville’s litigation has no basis in the legislation in which she says it is founded.

Naturally, that binds all Alberta trial courts, and appears to invalidate any of the Kumars' litigation in Alberta.

Then Feehan JA confirms steps taken to manage one of the Kumars' customers, Claire Bonville, are not subject to appeals due to late activity or being moot.

The judgment is here:

Bonville v President's Choice Financial, 2025 ABCA 42: https://canlii.ca/t/k9cd2

$2,000 in costs ordered against Bonville by the ABCA.

Interestingly, the record would seem to indicate Bonville herself carried this appeal, including appearing in court as a self-represented litigant. But, its pretty certain who's pulling the strings.

Donald

[eric]

[14] In her oral submissions, Ms Bonville said her infringed rights are set out in a regulation under the Act, the Collection and Debt Repayment Practices Regulation, AR 194/1999, s 23.2. That provision is wholly unrelated to this matter. The regulation applies to registered collection agencies, debt repayment agencies, debt collectors or debt repayment agents. PC Financial is none of these; it is a financial institution.

The Kumar's counter argument as expressed on multiple youtube videos, has always been that once a financial institution sends a debt to "collections", the lawyers representing the bank become one of the entities mentioned above. I haven't read the regulation but it may be interesting.