HomeNewsCourt costs waived for Philips (plus a few choice descriptors of Durkin)    

Comments

Court costs waived for Philips (plus a few choice descriptors of Durkin) — 5 Comments

  1. I hope that 2021 brings a bit of closure for the Phillips . People like Durkin need charges that stick and any funds that he gets should go directly to the victims first and lawyers and courts. It is revolting that people work hard all there lives to be duped by this type of character.

    • Expert taken from court docs (Thanks to SPN for the link)

      https://sooke.pocketnews.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Judge-Basran-re-

      SHH-Management-Limited-v.-Philip-09-22.pdf

      (Accountant) Robin Parker

      [46] Inc. hired Ms. Parker in February 2014. She does all the financial accounting
      for Inc., including payroll, accounts receivable and accounts payable. Throughout
      her evidence, she demonstrated unwavering loyalty to Mr. Durkin. For example,
      when Mr. Philip arrived at her residence on August 27, 2017 to retrieve the laptop
      that contained all of the financial information for the Hotel, she refused to give it to
      him. She knew that Mr. and Mrs. Philip were the owners of the Hotel, but after
      consulting with Mr. Durkin by telephone, she nevertheless refused to give Mr. Philip
      access to the vital financial information required to operate the Hotel.
      [47] In the wake of the injunction, Mr. Durkin was required to provide biweekly
      financial reporting to the Philips. Instead, Mr. Durkin instructed Ms. Parker to provide
      them with only two line items: total revenue and total expenses. She unquestioningly
      complied with this direction.
      [48] Ms. Parker was complicit in attempting to sabotage the Philips’ ability to
      operate the Hotel when they retook it on August 27, 2017. Mr. Durkin instructed her
      to shut down the online reservation system in order to “debilitate them, to stop them
      from being able to do anything.” Ms. Parker concurred with this tactic and seemingly
      did not consider, or otherwise dismissed, the reputational impact on the Hotel of
      taking this action.
      SHH Management Limited v. Philip Page 20
      [49] Another example of Ms. Parker’s bias in favour of Mr. Durkin was her
      unsupported estimate of $100,000 in lost revenue during the period when the Philips
      retook control of the Hotel for 11 days in August and September 2017. Tellingly, she
      admitted that the revenue from the ongoing operation of the hotel and dining room
      during this period went into Inc.’s bank account and that these revenues were not
      subtracted from the $100,000 estimate of lost revenues.
      [50] Ms. Parker complied with Mr. Durkin’s request to redirect all point-of-sale
      purchases using the Square device to Management’s bank account during a
      weekend in October 2019. She told the Hotel’s staff that there was a problem with its
      point-of-sale system. She knew that this was not true, but nevertheless complied
      with Mr. Durkin’s instructions. In so doing, she understood that all of the funds from
      the Square device went into Management’s bank account instead of Inc.’s account
      where they belonged. Similarly, Ms. Parker also knew that payments for events,
      such as weddings or the proceeds obtained from the rental of the premises by a
      television production company, went into Management’s bank account instead of
      Inc.’s bank account.
      [51] At Mr. Durkin’s instruction, Ms. Parker retroactively listed a series of 29
      $8,000 wage payments made to the Philips as debits to their shareholder loan
      accounts. She complied with this instruction and seemingly every other direction
      given to her by Mr. Durkin. As an experienced bookkeeper, she should have known
      better. Her conduct and testimony suggests that she was beholden to Mr. Durkin.
      [52] The tenor of Ms. Parker’s evidence suggests that she bears some
      unexplained animosity towards the Philips and seemingly blind devotion to Mr.
      Durkin. I find that she was complicit in diverting funds from Inc. to Management.
      [53] While I accept Ms. Parker’s evidence in respect of the Square device, I reject
      her negative characterizations of the Philips’ conduct over the past six years. She
      was complicit in Mr. Durkin’s web of lies and deception.

  2. Thanks for highlighting this portion of the Judgment -it’s important that Dim Turdkin’s accomplices be identified & sanctioned accordingly.

    I doubt Robbin’ Perkers’s qualifications include “accountant”. I always preferred “failed bookkeeper”, even as my most gracious descriptor.

    How many local farmers, wineries and other suppliers were short-changed or never paid?

    How many (under-qualified) family members of this group benefited from highly-paid employment positions at Sooke Harbour House during this reign?

    Tellingly,the “bookkeeper” was as promoted to Human Resources Mgr, and then to General Manager.

    Several long-serving employees of the hotel were terminated without notice, just cause, or compensation, and had to file claims with BC Employment Standards Branch and other regulatory bodies.

    Lively-hoods were lost & decent people’s lives up-ended, resulting in enormous stress and unnecessary suffering.

    So many in the Sooke community have been profoundly, adversely affected by the action of these crooks.

    I’d like to see criminal charges, arrests, handcuffs, and jail time until fines are paid -deportation orders notwithstanding.

    Thanks Britt & everyone else for keeping this conversation alive.