Canadian Vending Distributors Reviews
4 TOTAL REVIEWS
Simon Ham, Iraj Fatahi, and Anu Maharaj, the gang of three who rip you off under the business names of cvdi, iphoto, javamax, canadian vending
Simon Ham, Iraj Fatahi, and Anu Maharaj, the gang of three who rip you off under the business names of cvdi, iphoto, javamax, canadian vending. Just go to Canlii.org and see the court caseshttp://www.canlii.org/en/on/onscsm/doc/2011/2011canlii100487/2011canlii100487.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJc2ltb24gaGFtAAAAAAE Court file no. SC-10-0046**-** Brampton Date: August 15, 2011 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE Small Claims Court B E T W E E N: Ryan Rohatom, operating as Justin’s Vending ) ) ) A.S. Kassam, paralegal Plaintiff ) ) - and - ) ) ) 214**** Ontario Inc., Trading as Starz Canada ) ) Marcel Gelineault, Director of sales Defendant ) ) ) Heard: July 18, 2011 Judgment The Facts  The plaintiff and his wife were looking for an investment to earn some extra income. The wife was pregnant with child and they anticipated her being off work. They had accumulated some savings and wished to invest them wisely.  The defendant corporation is in the business of selling and servicing vending machines. It provides turnkey business solutions for those people looking for an investment and in providing oneself extra income.  The plaintiff picked up a copy of the September 9 to October 6, 2010 edition of the "Business Exchange" magazine and came across the defendant’s advertisement (Exhibit #1). He had exposure to the vending business, having assisted his uncle in the past. What caught his eye in the advertisement were the statements: "Client Approved Locations" (Exhibit #1). Then upon reviewing the defendant’s web pages, he read: "Guidance on securing profitable locations (Exhibit #2). The plaintiff was of the belief that the defendant was not only in the business of selling these machines, but in placing them in locations where investors were successful. This was also confirmed on the defendant’s web site (extract - Exhibit #7).  With his interest tweaked, on April 10, 2010, the plaintiff cautiously attended at the defendant’s Mississauga office and sat in on an initial presentation given by Marcel Gelineault, director of sales. Following the presentation, the plaintiff met with the owner of the defendant company, Simon Ham and some other representatives.  The plaintiff was very impressed with what he saw and heard as it appeared that it fit perfectly into his budget – both financially and time wise. Key to the plaintiff (which he made clear to Simon Ham) was the assurance that the defendant offered good locations where the vending machines could be installed and produce decent income.  The plaintiff noted at trial that his fear was investing in machines that would be placed in locations that brought no return. Yet (as stated by the plaintiff) he was told that he would net at least $430.00 per month, per vending machine.  When the plaintiff queried Simon Ham regarding what locations he had in mind, Mr. Ham insisted that the plaintiff had first to commit, by paying his deposit ($5,000.00) and then the locations will be provided. Additionally, the plaintiff had to pay the defendant $1,000.00 per location. That done, the plaintiff was introduced to a Fouzia, the defendant’s location manager, who was armed with a catalogue of sites where machines could be placed.  The plaintiff states that based upon the assurances and representations made by the defendant, he entered into an Agreement of Purchase and sale on April 10, 2010 (Exhibit #6) to take delivery of a coffee vending machine and a pop and snack vending machine. In total, the plaintiff invested $23,439.50 (Exhibit #5).  On April 20, 2010, the parties entered into a Location Agreement (Exhibit #3), placing the two machines with Sears in Fairview Mall in North York, Ontario. The machines were installed at Sears on April 25 or 26 of 2010. The day following installation, Sears told the plaintiff to remove the pop and snack machine, as Sears was only interested in the coffee machine.  The pop and snack machine was taken to the defendant’s warehouse as it was not functioning properly, where it remained, until one day, precisely August 21, 2010, without notice, the defendant parked the machine on the driveway of the plaintiff’s residence. As for the coffee machine, that had to be removed from Sears. Fortunately for the plaintiff, he found another location on his own. The unfortunate ending was that second machine has only yielded the plaintiff some $600.00 to July 2011. Discussion and Findings:  I have had the additional input from the parties in reviewing their written submissions, which were most helpful. I am grateful to both the plaintiff’s agent and to Mr. Gelineault.  The evidence at trial was that on April 10, 2010, the plaintiff sat in on Mr. Gelineault’s sales presentation. From there, the plaintiff moved into another room and spoke directly with the owner, Simon Ham and some other representatives of the defendant corporation. In his submissions, Mr. Gelineault indicates (basically), that the plaintiff received no guarantees from himself, nor from Mr. Ham. Perhaps Mr. Gelineault, himself, made no guarantees, but Mr. Gelineault has no idea what took place after his presentation when the plaintiff met alone with Simon Ham. Mr. Gelineault was not present during these "side meetings."  Why Simon Ham and other representatives of the defendant corporation were not called as witnesses at the trial is perplexing – in fact quite damaging to the defendant’s case. Mr. Gelineault was not only being "lawyer" at the trial, but being the only witness for the defendant, was "left holding the bag!"  Based upon the evidence given at trial by the plaintiff and his spouse, I have no reason to disbelieve them when they stated, several times, that the plaintiff entered into this contract with this defendant based upon the representations made through the corporation’s written materials, some of which were filed as Exhibits in this trial and the verbal representations that were made by Simon Ham, the owner. The fact that the owner spoke directly with the plaintiff, adds to the persuasiveness and believability to the unsuspecting ears of a potential investor.  What were the plaintiff’s expectations after taking his life savings and investing in the defendant’s product? He made it very clear: He wanted a "sure thing." And in order to achieve this, he understood that he was going to be given good locations that would yield him decent profits and he would be given the support. I find that he got neither. The fact that the defendant was charged an additional $2,000.00 for two locations, which in the end amounted to dead ends, perhaps "nothing" is a better word, coupled with the myriad of unanswered phone calls placed to the defendant corporation and Mr. Ham, by the plaintiff, truly gives this "investment" the appearance of a sham.  In his written submissions, Mr. Gelineault makes statements that are simply not supported by the evidence given at the trial I was presiding at. Statements were made by the both the plaintiff and his wife, which could not be refuted, as the defendant produced no first hand witnesses (non-hearsay). On the other hand, I concur with the majority of the contents set out in the plaintiff’s written submissions. The plaintiff’s agent goes into much more detail with more examples surrounding the various breaches made by the defendant to which I also concur.  Although I laud Mr. Gelineault in his attempt to put forward a "good case" for his company, in the end, it was certainly not Mr. Gelineault who failed, but the defendant corporation. I find that the defendant was in breach of its own "standard form contract." I find that through its representation, both verbally and in writing, the defendant was – purportedly selling more than just a "product" (vending machines) – it also sold "assurances" of success in the form of a second income. I cannot believe that the plaintiff would have otherwise invested his life savings of $23,000.00 in this "adventure."  For the reasons give, I find judgment for the plaintiff. Order  The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $22,000.00 by way of bank draft or certified cheque; to be paid on or before September 2, 2011. I am taking into account that one of the machines is still being used – not very profitable, but none the less, in operation.  The plaintiff is successful in his claim and therefore entitled to costs, which I fix at $1,500.00, also to be paid on or before September 2, 2011.  Upon receipt of these two payment by the plaintiff, the two venting machines shall be returned to the defendant. Arrangements will be made by the parties (and if need be through the plaintiff’s agent) for the defendant to pickup the two machines with any product that the plaintiff may still have. If issues arise, the matter may be brought before me on notice, and without the necessity of paying the required court fee.
Reason of review
Not as described/ advertised
Canadian vending Distributors known scam and fraud artists
CVDI used to be all of the following company names Java max, javamax, Equilease Indcom, Pj coffee, Panama Joe coffee, Starz, Starz1, Iphoto24, Iphoto, Semi tech, X Com Here are the names of the fraudsters: Marcel Gelineault, Simon Ham, Robert, Imran Khan They change the company name when ever things get too hot. Do research you will find endless fraud stories.. They lie and make things sounds too good to be true. Its all a load of rubbish. They prey on helpless immigrants and abuse their staff. Do some research and do not do business with them. Please read the following for further details. They have stolen from thousands. They ask their own employees for credit cards and drivers licenses as ID when they hire, only to scam them and have them victim of identify theft. They hire mostly non Canadian staff simply because it is far simpler to manipulate and control and or take advantage of. Search any of the company names on any type of rip off reports posted on the net.
Do Not be fooled. This is just a new name!
Marcel Gelineault, SImon Ham, and their goons Iraj Khan and others .. all crooks and thieves. I cannot believe they are not in JAIL yet. POLICE - Start an investigation. If you check the internet with the below noted company names i am going to provide you with. You will be able to search and find hundreds of people that have been scammed over the years! Dont be fooled they have changed their company name and location many times. They were in Mississauga and now moved to Vaughan. Marcel has been working with Simon for almost a decade - Simon is the owner but Marcel is the facilitator. Both equally guilty. They have used the names of Javamax, Panama Joe Coffee, Starz1, Starz Canada, Semi Tech, Z-Com, Moneta, PJ Coffee, IPHOTO, Extreme Net Kiosks, Alpha Multi Media, Canadian Vending Distributors and many more. Whether is was Marcel who was previously on his own or in the last 7 years joined up with Simon and used his company names - it does not matter. Both are Equally devious. Both will one day pay the ultimate price. BEWARE. And police start your investigation - they should have been behind bars years ago.
Canadian Vending Distributors (CVDI). (Javamax)
Alert to all! Canadian Vending Distributors (CVDI) aka Javamax and crew example, Marcel Gelineault, Simon Ham, Iraj, and there may be more. They used to be Javamax on Ambler Drive in Misisssauga Ontario Canada and when the heat was on with their scmas they moved incognito to Vaughan Ontario from which they are operating from now, they have quire a history . Check out reviews and comments on Javamax . They sell coffee machines and locations with huge promises of lucrative returns that will only bankrupt your investment. Be very careful before you proceed and don't give them any money at all. You will be sorry
Companies Similar to Canadian Vending Distributors
Unemployment Expert Tips
Thank You for Your Reply!
Thank You for Your Reply! We are processing your message.
11Thank You for Your Submission
Your comment is successfully posted.
Canadian Vending Distributors