The client emailed us on February 27, 2023, asking to serve an inmate at Toronto South Detention Centre. We replied with a quote of $150 + HST.
On February 28, 2023, she emailed us back with the documents to be served. In the same email, she said she would confirm if the defendant had been released from detention so we could serve him at home – see screenshot of our email correspondence below. On February 28, 2023, an invoice was sent to her for the same on – see screenshot below.
On March 2,2023 she sent an email to us saying: the defendant as been released from detention and that we may proceed to serve him at his home address.
As you can see in our email correspondence below and from the invoice above, she didn’t ask for rush service the first time she placed the order, hence, we didn’t include the fee for rush service.
She called and asked for rush service on March 2, 2023, so we sent her an updated invoice, as shown in the screenshot below.
on March 2, 2023, she called the Process Server in charge of serving her document to get a status update for her request. Coincidentally, the process server had just made the first attempt to serve her document at the time she called.
He explained to her on the phone that he rang the bell of the defendant three times, but no one came to answer the door. She asked if he had seen cars on the driveway and the process server said there was a jeep and one other vehicle in the driveway, to which she confirmed that one of the cars belonged to the defendant and the other belonged to the defendant’s daughter. Subsequently, the process server made a second attempt to serve the document within the same hour, but to no avail – no one answered.
The client emailed on March 6, 2023, saying she had just discovered that the defendant hadn’t been released from detention and instructed us to attend a new address to serve the defendant. (see screenshot of our email correspondence below). I replied to her email saying: since this is a new address, we will have to charge her separately, as we only offer up to three attempts at the same address. The logic behind this is to prevent clients from taking advantage of the three-attempts policy. For example, a client pays for service at a Scarborough address and then, later on, decides to change the address to an Oakville address after we have attempted service at the Scarborough address, thus, taking advantage of our three-attempts at one address policy.
However, she agreed to pay the new charges at a different address, so an invoice was sent to her on March 6, 2023. On the same day, the process server attended the new address at the Toronto Detention center, where the defendant was being detained. While the process server was there, the prison officer told him he couldn’t serve the defendant personally as it wasn’t allowed; as such, we dropped off the document with the prison officer and left.
On the same day, the client sent us an offensive email threatening to leave a 1-star review and defaming our company. Before that, she had sent an email saying that she could have sent lots of businesses and left a 5-star review, but because we didn’t accommodate her request to serve the document for free at the new address, she would not recommend us or leave a review (see screenshot of our email correspondence below.)
The client claims that we didn’t complete the job. Please see below commissioned affidavit of service, with details regarding the service of process on the defendant.
As you can see from the above explanation and as evidentiary shown in the screenshots, we did everything we could to serve her documents and acted according to the instructions provided. Despite completing the job, the client is still not satisfied.
The client is spreading false information about a business who thrives to facilitate court proceedings regardless of the risk involve.
Indeed, she is one of those clients many businesses prays to avoid coming across.
Her intent is malicious – deliberately orchestrated to damage our company’s reputation. We are currently seeking legal advice regarding this false information.