Canadian scientologist and convicted fraudster Raphael Huppe?

peterstorm · Feb 7, 2016

Raphaël Huppé is a Canadian scientologist from Québec. He was refered to as a scientologist here:

(1) An article where he is said to have helped a woman who was suing a school in Quebec that kicked her kid out because she wouldn't give him ritalin.

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=aadd8c6a-3365-45f8-bcdd-723da2b58d49

and (2) here (WISE magazine issue 5):

https://whyweprotest.net/threads/wise-leaks-numerous.55377/#post-1148944

Now a businessman, he seems to have resurfaced as a fraudster.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/qc/nouv-news/com-rel/2014/04/140424-eng.htm

Montréal, April 24, 2014 – Raphaël Huppé, 36, of Laval, and Manon Chiasson, 38, of Mirabel, allegedly carried out a scam that defrauded hundreds of investors. The investigation revealed that investors injected more than $4 million in Effective Control Transport Inc. (ECT), previously known as Media City Corp, a company listed on the stock market under EFFC, previously MCCY. This financial market fraud was uncovered by the Integrated Market Enforcement Team (IMET).
The pair is scheduled to appear in court in Montréal this morning to face charges of fraud, affecting public market and false prospectus. Manon Chiasson faces three counts of indictment, while Raphaël Huppé faces 15 counts.
False information and misappropriation of funds

The co-accused allegedly provided false information concerning the activities of their company by issuing press releases containing misleading information such as erroneous financial results and unrealized sales. This illegal act is believed to have influenced public market and persuaded investors to purchase shares in the company.
The suspects are also believed to have transferred a large portion of the investors’ funds into other companies belonging to them or for their personal benefit.

https://www.lautorite.qc.ca/en/pres...apha-l-huppe-found-guilty10-10-2014-00-0.html

Raphaël Huppé found guilty

Friday, October 10, 2014
Montréal – On October 8, 2014, Justice of the Peace Louis Duguay of the Court of Québec, district of Joliette, found Raphaël Huppé guilty of 60 offences related to illegal distribution of the securities of Effective Control Transport inc.
More specifically, Raphaël Huppé was found guilty on 20 counts of illegal distribution without a prospectus, 20 for pursuing activities as a securities dealer without being registered as such with the Autorité des marchés financiers (the “AMF”), 19 charges for representing to investors that the securities of Effective Control Transport inc. would be listed on a securities exchange without prior authorization from the AMF, and one charge of making misrepresentations in respect of a transaction in a security.
The AMF’s investigation showed that between June 2008 and June 2010, Raphaël Huppé illegally encouraged investors to purchase securities of Effective Control Transport inc. and/or Corporation Axyomm Technologies and WESPP International/Corporation Vida Pharma International for an amount of $740,000.
Raphaël Huppé should be sentenced on January 15, 2015.
In this same matter, WESPP International/Corporation Vida Pharma International was found guilty on one count of making an illegal distribution and fined $5,000.
The AMF applied to the Bureau de décision et de révision in the summer of 2010 in this matter and obtained cease and freeze trade orders to prevent further solicitation of investors.
The Autorité des marchés financiers (the “AMF”) is the regulatory and oversight body for Québec’s financial sector.

Now, he is at it again, but with another company:

http://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/societe/2014/09/08/003-detecteur-fatigue-volant.shtml

Radio-Canada/CBC
September 8, 2014
Journalist Julie Vaillancourt

An alleged fraudster promotes a fatigue detector for drivers.

Exclusive. A Quebec businessman accused of having deceived investors is trying to bring attention to an invention similar to the one he promoted in the past: a fatigue detector for drivers.
When Clement Proteau saw a CRAM prototype in 2008, he right away bought stocks from the company ECT (Effective Control Transport), who claimed to be on its way to market the invention.
"It was a machine that was able to analyze the eye's pupil when a driver is on the brink of falling asleep and was able to warn him/her. I thought it was genius and the people that presented it to me said that all automotive constructors would be interested in implementing this system", the investor said.
But the product was never put on the market, the company went into bankrupcy after legal troubles and Mr Proteau lost his 100,000$ investment. In 2010, the Autorité des marchés financiers (like the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the U.S.) brought accusations against Raphaël Huppé, the man who heads ECT. He was selling stocks from the company without having the right to. A judgement will be given in this case on October 8.
A new fatigue detector for drivers?
Raphaël Huppé has reappeared recently and is now trying to promote another fatigue detector system, the DADS. This summer, when a Quebec teenager lost her life in a bus accident going to New York, some passengers said the driver had fallen asleep.
At this moment we received an email inviting us to "interview Raphaël Huppé". We were told that he was developing "the DADS, a fatigue detection system that will save lives". We discovered that the new company for which Mr Huppé is working for, InterCore, is trying to recruit investors and inciting them to buy stocks from the company.
InterCore has published press releases since last spring in which it says that some recent road accidents occured because of driving fatigue. The company takes care to say that it is on the verge of putting its new product on the market.

Stocks negociated in a poorly regulated market

All the while, InterCore is offering stocks on a poorly regulated internet stock exchange, the so-called "pink sheets".
Raphaël Huppé was doing the same thing four years ago when he was promoting CRAM, the first system that was supposed to bring wealth to investors like Clément Proteau and some one hundred others in North America who lost their investment in this company. The RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), is accusing Raphaël Huppé of having embezzled 4 million dollars by manipulating financial markets to promote stocks from ECT.
"Mr Huppé has allegedly published false informations on press releases in relation to his company", explains Christian Sabourin, spokesman for the RCMP who adds: "During this time, the ECT company was public and any investor in front of a computer could react upon the news that were published by the company and buy or sell stocks".

The criminal procedures in this case will begin September 19 in the Montreal Courthouse. As for Raphaël Huppé, who really wanted to promote his product in the media this summer, he doesn't want to be interviewed anymore as long as the legal procedures are ongoing.

The marketing of DADS, projected for September, has now been pushed back.

But the company is now in trouble...

http://affaires.lapresse.ca/economie/quebec/201504/10/01-4859775-fermeture-sauvage-dintercore.php

La Presse
April 10, 2015
Journalist Maxime Bergeron

"Brutal" closure of InterCore

Several tens of employees of Recherches Intercore Canada have learned in a brutal way the disapearance of their job, last thursday, when bailiffs entered the offices of the Griffintown company to order everybody to leave the premises.
The company, a branch of the Florida group InterCore, is known for the design of a fatigue detector for drivers. Raphaël Huppé, the businessman behind this invention and one the people heading the group, was charged for fraud, theft, receiving stolen goods, and illegal investment by the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and the Autorité des marches financiers (AMF, or the Quebec SEC). and convicted by the Quebec Court.

"During the last weeks, we saw that things were moving, the directors were having meeting after meeting, told an ex-employee who required anonymity. It was a bit of a brutal closure when the bailiffs arrived thursday".

Under high surveillance

Security gards were posted at each InterCore office entrance when La Presse visited the premises, yesterday afternoon. Employees of EY, the official receiver in charge of clarifying this case, were carrying out computer equipment and boxes of documents.

According to some sources, about 70 people were still working for Huppé & Co. (the company that includes Recherches InterCore Canada, a photography studio, an event production company and other departments) when the bailiffs arrived.

Employees received two letters from the American senior management, given by the bailiffs. One of these letters, received last thursday, was asking them to immediately leave the premises and to give back all material owned by the company. The other letter read that their "employment was ending immediately". (It was impossible to know if all employees received this letter.)

The workers are uncertain as to the real cause of this seizure and the benefits they will be entitled to. "We hope to get news of this because they still owe us pay", said one of them.

EY refuses for the moment to comment on this case for confidentiality reasons. A man representing himself as a manager of InterCore said the company was not closing. "We are just reducing in size", he told La Presse Affaires when met in the group's parking lot, yesterday. He refused to identify himself.

It was impossible to speak to the management of InterCore. Calls made to the Delray, Florida, home office were left unanswered, as well as emails sent to the public relations department. InterCore and SRG International (former canadian branch name) websites are no longer accessible. Nobody was answering the phone at the Montreal office of Huppé & Co.
A troubled past
According to the Quebec business registry, the main administrator and president of Recherches InterCore Canada is Claude Brun. Raphaël Huppé describes himself on his website as the group's director of research and as a philantropist and "trouble maker".

In April 2014, Mr Huppé was charged by the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) of having put in place a "stratagem that enable to defraud several hundreds of investors" in a former company, Effective Control Transport. The fraud would exceed 4M$.
According to the accusation, the man and his alleged accomplice, Manon Chiasson, have published false press releases aiming at inciting investors to buy company stocks. The suspects would have then embezzled a large part of the collected millions "to other companies owned by them or for private gain".

The RCMP has deposed nine new accusation charges against Raphaël Huppé this spring: 3 for not respecting conditions, 3 for fraud, one for producing false prospectus, one for theft and one for receiving stolen goods. "He was arrested in March, kept in detention and released last week", told RCMP corporal François Gagnon.
Raphaël Huppé was found guilty to 60 infractions linked to illegal investment of Effective Control Transport by the Quebec Court, last October. The investigation demonstrated that he had illegally incited investors to buy a value of 740,000$ in stocks between 2008 and 2010.

http://affaires.lapresse.ca/economi...tercore-doit-12-millions-a-ses-creanciers.php

La Presse
April 14, 2015
Journalist Maxime Bergeron

InterCore owes 12 M$ to its creditors

(Montreal) Recherche InterCore Canada (RIC), who has abruptly ceased its activities 10 days ago, owes 12 M$ to its creditors. The Griffintown company will later make a proposition to them and will try to relaunch its activities in a lighter version, La Presse Affaires has learned.

This branch of the Florida group InterCore has been known for having developed a sleep detector for drivers. Its employees had a surprise when they saw bailiffs in their offices on April 2nd who ordered them to leave at once.

Despite this closure, considered "brutal" by several former employees, shareholders believe in a relaunch. "What they have in mind is really the restructuring of the company and the pursuit of operations, told Martin Rosenthal yesterday, first vice-president of EY, the official receiver in this case. It is clear that they will cut expenses and the number of employees, but they see a possibility of having a viable company".

The main creditors will receive a notice shortly, published by vertue of the bankrupcy and insolvency law. RIC, called SRG International until recently, will have at least 30 days to formulate a proposition to them.

Discreet investors

Among the main creditors are found three discreet American investment firms that have all their addresses in the same Rosenberg, Texas, P.O. box. RIC owes 4.6 M$ to Rhines Partners, 3.2 M$ to Topside Partners and 1.4 M$ to Sussex Associates.
At least two of these firms have agreed to invest in InterCore at an annual interest rate of 18%, according to official documents from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which regulates the American financial markets. It was impossible to reach representatives of the creditors, who have no websites.
RIC president Claude Brun is part of the creditors (78,623$), as well as Raphaël Huppé, considered the real head of the company (170,000$). Huppé was charged for fraud, theft, receiving stolen goods and illegal investments by the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) and the Autorité des marchés financiers (Quebec SEC), and convicted by the Quebec Court.

Raphaël Huppé is facing 9 new charges this spring: 3 for not respecting conditions, 3 for fraud, one for producing a false prospectus, one for theft and another for receiving stolen goods. He was incarcerated and was released last April.
The most recent case involving Raphaël Huppé is hit with a non publication order, said his lawyer Danièle Roy. It was therefore impossible to talk to him yesterday.

RIC owes 2.3M$ to Delray, Florida, company InterCore. The spokeswoman Karyn Byrne confirmed yesterday the financial difficulties of the group, adding that InterCore "has every intention of pursuing its activities in Montreal in the near future".
According to a quarterly report deposed on January 21st to the SEC, InterCore has at most 128,000$ in cash. The company says that its financial ressources are "insufficient to pursue its activities". The accumulated deficit surpasses 24M$ on last September 30th.

Karyn Byrne sustains that the company continues to be working on the development of their main product, called the Driver Alertness Detection System (DADS). A half-dozen people would still be working on the project in Montreal, while EY continues its analysis of the company's finances.

Here is his website:

http://raphaelhuppe.ca/

and he also sells an e-book on Amazon on how to get things done :

http://www.amazon.ca/How-Get-Things...?ie=UTF8&qid=1454905960&sr=8-1&keywords=huppé

Here is an overview:

In this book, you will learn about:

- Why you have enemies
- Art of solving problems and why I LOVE PROBLEMS
- How to get things done NOW!
- Matters That Throw Us Off Our Course
- View Your Commitments Differently
- Desperation and Promise
- Recognizing The Issue
- Success Obstacles
- many other useful things!

Ann O'Nymous · Feb 7, 2016

peterstorm said: ↑

http://affaires.lapresse.ca/economi...tercore-doit-12-millions-a-ses-creanciers.php/quote]

InterCore owes 12 M$ to its creditors

(Montreal) Recherche InterCore Canada (RIC), who has abruptly ceased its activities 10 days ago, owes 12 M$ to its creditors. The Griffintown company will later make a proposition to them and will try to relaunch its activities in a lighter version, La Presse Affaires has learned.

This branch of the Florida group InterCore has been known for having developed a sleep detector for drivers. Its employees had a surprise when they saw bailiffs in their offices on April 2nd who ordered them to leave at once.

Despite this closure, considered "brutal" by several former employees, shareholders believe in a relaunch. "What they have in mind is really the restructuring of the company and the pursuit of operations, told Martin Rosenthal yesterday, first vice-president of EY, the official receiver in this case. It is clear that they will cut expenses and the number of employees, but they see a possibility of having a viable company".

The main creditors will receive a notice shortly, published by vertue of the bankrupcy and insolvency law. RIC, called SRG International until recently, will have at least 30 days to formulate a proposition to them.

https://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-158.html

SEC Charges Houston-Area Businessman in Ponzi Scheme

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
2015-158
Washington D.C., Aug. 3, 2015 —
The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged a Houston-area businessman with operating a $114 million Ponzi scheme that defrauded investors, some of whom were told that their money would fund technology to prevent accidents caused by drowsy driving.
The SEC’s case filed in federal court in Houston charged Frederick Alan Voight of Richmond, Texas with defrauding more than 300 investors in multiple offerings of promissory notes issued by two partnerships he owns, F.A. Voight & Associates LP and DayStar Funding LP. While Voight’s latest offering promised investors returns as high as 42 percent a year from loans to small public companies, most of the funds went to pay earlier investors, the complaint alleges. Approximately $22 million of Voight’s allegedly ill-gotten gains remain unaccounted for to date.
[...]
The SEC named F.A. Voight & Associates, Rhine, Topside, InterCore, and InterCore Research Canada as relief defendants for the purpose of recovering any allegedly ill-gotten gains they received from the fraud. F.A. Voight & Associates, Rhine, and Topside have agreed to asset freezes and other emergency relief and to return allegedly ill-gotten gains in amounts to be set by the court. The SEC will litigate its claims against relief defendants InterCore and InterCore Research.

Seems that Mr Voight is a Jehovah Witness and got money from his "brothers" (https://www.reddit.com/r/exjw/comments/3g33hs/texas_brother_accused_of_running_114_million/).[/quote]

Quentinanon · Feb 8, 2016

I wonder if Huppe' is a protege' of Reed Slatkin.

It seems that an inordinate number of scientologists run scam businesses that benefit the scientology organization until they get shut down for multiple counts of fraud.

peterstorm · Feb 9, 2016

Quentinanon said: ↑

I wonder if Huppe' is a protege' of Reed Slatkin. View attachment 256182

It seems that an inordinate number of scientologists run scam businesses that benefit the scientology organization until they get shut down for multiple counts of fraud.

They sure teach scientologists on how to lie.

Quentinanon · Feb 10, 2016

peterstorm said: ↑

They sure teach scientologists on how to lie.

Only when it is "the greatest good for the greatest number of dynamics".

Random guy · Feb 11, 2016

Quentinanon said: ↑

It seems that an inordinate number of scientologists run scam businesses that benefit the scientology organization until they get shut down for multiple counts of fraud.

Well, it the bright side the help clean the pond of small fry.

Quentinanon · Feb 11, 2016

Random guy said: ↑

Well, it the bright side the help clean the pond of small fry.

Except pond scum is so toxic it kills or sickens all fish around it.
Did I just equate scientologists with pond scum?

Drittner · Apr 9, 2016

I was one of those that fell for EFFC. Is there any way to recover my money?

peterstorm · Apr 9, 2016

Drittner said: ↑

I was one of those that fell for EFFC. Is there any way to recover my money?

I don't know, but I will try to get some infos.

Hcubidms · May 6, 2016

I am searching for information regarding Rapheal Huppe. I believe he is now in the sugar daddy/sugar baby business with a website www.huepps.com I think he is talking to investors in a escort vacation business in Mexico.What was his sentence and is he in prison?

JohnnyRUClear · May 8, 2016

It seems to me that the human race has not yet developed a very good defense against scammers. They don't do enough damage to threaten our existence as a species, but still, I hate seeing them succeed at all. In this case, the mere fact that this guy got busted for running a huge scam should dissuade anybody from trusting him in the future, but he keeps finding more suckers.

*sigh*

peterstorm · May 10, 2016

Hcubidms said: ↑

I am searching for information regarding Rapheal Huppe. I believe he is now in the sugar daddy/sugar baby business with a website www.huepps.com I think he is talking to investors in a escort vacation business in Mexico.What was his sentence and is he in prison?

Don't have access to the link you gave.

Hcub · May 12, 2016

It is www.houpps.com

peterstorm · May 18, 2016

http://www.tvanouvelles.ca/2013/09/15/il-a-cache-les-preuves-dans-des-pots-de-peinture

He hid proof in paint cans

TVA News, September 15th, 2013
Journalist Micheal Nguyen

A lawyer that hid hard drives in paint cans to avoid them from being seized under a court order was given a three month disbarment for this "most serious" fault.
It was in July 2009. Mario Naïm, a lawyer since 1996, was in legal dispute against his former employer.
He was blaming the boss of Effective Control Transport Inc., a computer service company, for having committed fraudulent stock exchange manipulations/transactions. Mario Naïm and other executives were fired.
But things turned badly when alleged false declarations from boss Raphaël Huppé had apparently prevented the attorney from obtaining a severance pay and unemployment benefits.
Lawsuits were filed between the attorney and boss Raphaël Huppé, as well as a destitution attempt against the later.
"The table was set for a merciless war", as noted by members of the Disciplinary Board.

Authorized seizure
It is in this situation that a judge authorized a seizure at Mario Naïm's home. But things didn't go as planned, because at the arrival of a bailiff, Mario Naïm hid two hard drives from his computer into paint cans.
"Moreover,(Mario Naïm) takes documents and hides them in an overcoat that he just put on", indicates the Disciplinary Board in his recently given judgement.
Nobody was duped.
"The clothing that he wore was showing clearly that he was hiding documents", the three members of the Board emphasize.

A serious fault
These actions by Mario Naïm prompted a request for contempt of the Court. This request was rejected, but a complaint was filed at the Bar. The attorney ended up pleading guilty for not having acted "with dignity, integrity, honor, respect, moderation and courtesy".
"In objective gravity, the actions committed (...) are serious, noted the discipline Board in its judgement. Contravening to an order of the Court is without a doubt one of the most serious faults for an attorney. By acting like he did, (Mario Naïm) disconsidered the administration of justice."
The attorney, who did not have disciplinary precedents, was finally given a three months bisbarrement . During the hearing, he also showed remorse.
"In hindsight, (Mario Naïm) recognizes wrongdoing and he bitterly regrets his conduct", noted the Board.

Huppé sure goes to court often.

peterstorm · May 18, 2016

Raphael Huppe is a really great guy.

Here's why.

This is a judgement by a Quebec worker's rights Court from March 2016.

Fouad Mallouk is a former InterCore employee who was fired after being submitted to psychological harassement by Huppé.

Admin tech at its best.

The original document is in french. I haven't translated the whole thing. Only what I thought was relevant and interesting.

The document was found (search words: Raphael Huppe) at:

http://soquij.qc.ca/fr/english

Mallouk et 9244-7010 Québec inc.
2016 QCTAT 1600

TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF DU TRAVAIL
(Division des relations du travail)

(Workers relations division)

Region :
Montréal

File :
CM-2015-0651 CM-2015-4981

Employer file :
283883

Montréal,
March 15, 2016
______________________________________________________________________

DEVANT LA JUGE ADMINISTRATIVE :
Dominique Benoît
(Administrative Judge)_____________________________________________________________

Fouad Mallouk

Partie demanderesse (plaintiff)

c.

9244-7010 Québec inc.

Partie défenderesse (defendant)

______________________________________________________________________

Decision
______________________________________________________________________

Even if duly summoned, the employer did nor provide a valid motive for his absence. The plaintiff is present and testifies.

The facts

The plaintiff was hired in January 2014 as the marketing vice-president.

He has worked for the employer before. In 2013, he has his own company, Phoenix Media, and bills his fees as an independant business owner. One of the conditions for being hired is the sale of his company to the employer.

He explains that the employer is a publicly traded firm that is related to a parent company, Jamil Investment, and has interests in a wide variety of other companies in different domains. The primary acitivity of the company is the marketing of a fatigue detection device for drivers, a technology owned by one of the employer's companies, InterCore.

His mandate is to add value to the company's trademark image and to manage all of the company's visual communications. Considering the many entities, there is no effort made in marketing. He has to change this situation.

To start with, he has a team of 4 employees. In principle, the plaintiff is the one directing this team, but the reality will show otherwise.

The work area is approx. 35,000 square feet, open area with large windows. The creation area is approx. 2,000 square feet. The plaintiff is entitled to a workstation with his whole team beside him.

He sets the start of his troubles in April or May when his direct superior, the one he describes as the "real" president of the company, Raphaël Huppé, removes from him his directing powers by saying: "Now, you will do as I say."

At the beginning, these are little things that mat seem meaningless, but they accumulate: lack of toilet paper, lack of coffee for employees. The plaintiff pays himself for more supplies, which he is harshly called on by the employer in front of everybody.

However, things degenerate rapidly and the plaintiff will not see it coming and won't have the time to react.

He was promised a 125,000$ per year salary, added with a refund of reasonable business expenses and 750$ a month car allocation.

A contract was written and planned, but was only prepared in August 2014. It was finally never signed even with the repeated demands of the plaintiff to do so. He claims that even with an agreement on the working conditions, M. Huppé always has an excuse not to sign.

(There are screwups with the pay, refunds and allocations.)

Changes in the working area

Beginning in May, the plaintiff claims that his work station has been changed 5 or 6 times without telling him. He comes in the morning to find his work material and his personnal belongings packed in boxes that are put near a different work station than the day before. He has to unpack everything to get back to work. Sometimes, there are no workstations for him and he has to manage.

He feels ridiculed in front of the other employees and "not being taken seriously". Members of his team don't understand what is happening, because they are also subjected to the employer's pangs. He doesn't know what to tell them.

The security system

In the middle of summer 2014, the employer installs in the offices a very sophisticated security system that includes HD cameras at each couple of meters and smart cards that give access to the premises. The plaintiff is convinced that the objective is to spy on employees during work and, notably, to watch comings and goings to the bathroom.

The cameras are pointed at him under the pretext that since the company is publicly traded, there is a risk for its commercial secrets to be stolen. He feels like a "lab rat."

The working atmosphere becomes very negative. The plaintiff tries to reassure his team, but the employees can see that he has no control anymore. They scoff at the situation, try to lighten the atmosphere.

The more time passes, the more things deteriorate. The employer talks behind his back using humiliating and insulting terms.

A closed office

One July morning, he arrives at work and finds that his workstation has been transformed in an enclosed space, a cubicle-type space surrounded by four drywalls with a door for access. He has been litterally confined and doesn't have any outside view. The plaintiff is the only one targeted by this mesure. He is humiliated and asks himself "what did I get myself into?"

He thinks it's a joke, but quickly realizes that it's not the case. His team, who is outside the cubicle, tries to make fun of the situation by putting a sign on the wall that reads "The Wall", in reference to a Pink Floyd album.

He complains several times but nothing changes.

He finally gets out of the cubicle, but them he finds himself working alone. His team has been moved elsewhere, in a garage, where they work in production instead of creation. He finds it impossible to work in these conditions not suited for creation according to him. The garage is named "The Dark Side" because of the black painted walls.

At this point, his area is a storage room. Practically, the plaintiff doesn't manage the team anymore and he stays with the surveillance cameras pointed at him.

A change in function

Sometime later, a person named Bob Lanteigne, friend of Mr Huppé, tells the plaintiff that from now on, he is responsible for business development. He is longer on brand development because it's Mr Lanteigne who will assume this responsability as vice-president.

--------------
Note: Robert Lanteigne is a scientologist

http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/r/robert-lanteigne.html

http://www.xenu-directory.net/documents/corporate/stop-wise.biz/Prosperity_67.html

--------------

The plaintiff is extremely disappointed, unhappy and understands that this decision comes from Mr Huppé. He doesn't want to do this work because it is not his domain of expertise. Moerover, he is not given his new job description so he doesn't know what is asked of him.

His role is to empty boxes, fill others and accomplish unimportant tasks. He adds that, for him, it's " a real personal vendetta to ridicule me. They are spending money to ridicule me."

He is made to change tasks constantly without having time to do the work. When he reacts, Mr Lanteigne tells him: "shut your trap and do this." He is even told to hand out prospectus downtown.

The discharge

At the time, the atmosphere is such that every time Mr Huppé speaks to the plaintiff, he calls him a "piece of shit" (in english).

Exchanges between the two men are, to say the least, acrimonious. The boorish vocabulary and aggressive attitude of Mr Huppé manifest themselves many times. If the plaintiff has the misfortune of answering back, Mr Huppé becomes more and more aggressive towards him.

The plaintiff is shocked by this behavior. In all of his career, he has never been treated like this. He doesn't know how to react, because Mr is "imposing", with a 6' 4" stature and a powerful voice. He can never anticipate how he will react.

Things aggravate. The plaintiff feels that he's being pushed to the side.

He explains that on his nomination in January 2014, his company, Phoenix Media, owns a Facebook account that he administers himself. He accepts then to give Mr Huppé admin rights to the account since he's committed to acquire the company. As an administrator, Mr Huppé has then unlimited access to the account and can do any change he wants.

Now, the sale of Phoenix Media never happened.

Taking into account the deterioration of their relations, the plaintiff fears that Mr Huppé would seize his company's Facebook account and would refuse him any access to it. He then decides to remove Mr Huppé's admin status, which prevents him from modifying the account parameters and taking control of it.

During the week begining October 7, 2015, the plaintiff goes to the office and notices that his personnal belongings are in a box in the garage and that he no longer has access to the office. Moreover, all his access codes to systems are deactivated, even his access to personal emails.

He communicates with Mr Brun to get an explanation and is told: "We are doing construction work. You better work at home this week." He isn't duped, he understands that Mr Huppé knows about the changes to the Facebook account and that it is a bad omen.

On October 9, 2014, the two businessmen square up on Facebook. M. Huppé demands that the his admin status be given back and the plaintiff castigates him about breaking his engagements and preventing him from having access to the office.

The exchange ends with these words from Mr Huppé (in english as is):

"you will stay on the page as an editor

I have no intention to change that, dont remove me from my shit because you know me enough to know what gonna happend
f
missing word here

Have to run for a meeting, I expect to see my name as admin when I get back"

The plaintiff doesn't answer this message.

On October 2014, 1:53am, Mr Huppé again writes on Facebook (original in english):

"That’s the way you want to fix this

Are you sure?"

On the same day, he writes a final message at 4:50pm (original message in english):

"Be ready my friend, Im coming to get what’s mine, this will cost you everything you have"

The plaintiff doesn't answer these messages either.

On October 12, 2014, the conflict hits its peak when Mr Huppé accuses the plaintiff of theft. At 11:08pm, by text massaging, he starts hostilities like this (original message in english):

"Hey fucking piece of shit

Dont wait until tuesday, do it now because I already started my side

You stole from me, you’re done man, I will bankrupt you watch me

[…]

You are just fucking done, nobody steal from me

Watch me

And I have everything on file, from paypall, bluehost and facebook

This is call corporate stealing"

Accusations fly on each part. The plaintiff denies everything and Mr Huppé announces to him that he is suspended without pay and that he has to give back his laptop.

After this exchange, the plaintiff says that he is "freaked out". He knows he's fired. He has seen what happened to others who have crossed swords with Mr Huppé: he destroyed them and they lost everything.

Ten days later, Mr Huppé signifies to him that a request for an injunction has been filed regarding the access of Phoenix Media's Facebook page. The plaintiff has to defend himself against this lawsuit and will spend 52,000$ to do so. The dispute ends with a judgement that recognizes that Mr Huppé's request is abusive.

The plaintiff claims that this experience has had important effects on his life. He has never been humiliated like this. This situation has impacted his health and his family. He's had difficulties taking care of his daugther, he's been afraid of losing his company and has not been the same person since. He has even described this episode as worse than the bullying he was victim back in school.

He was subjected to a lot of stress and felt burned out. He wants this episode to end.

Analysis and Motives

The proof convinces the Court that the plaintiff was a victim of psychological harassement.

It is difficult to imagine a more unhealthy environment than the one described by the plaintiff. All has been done to prevent him from accomplishing the objectives linked to his contract.

For these motives, the Workers' administrative Court:

Welcomes the complaints;
Invalidates the discharge imposed on October 15, 2014;

Orders 9244-7010 Québec inc. to reintegrate Fouad Mallouk in its employment, with every rights and privileges, within 8 days from the notification of the present decision.

Declares that Fouad Mallouk was a victim of psychological harassement;

Reserves its competence to determine appropriate compensation mesures

__________________________________

Dominique Benoît

Me Jessica Laforest
PAQUET TELLIER
Pour la partie demanderesse (for the plaintiff)

M. Claude Brun
Pour la partie défenderesse (for the defendant)

Date of hearing : December 21st, 2015

/dk

JohnnyRUClear · May 19, 2016

Wow!

I worked for a verbally abusive boss for a while. It was *very* stressful. Any mistake or shortcoming on my part was thrown back in my face to humiliate me.

I'm glad that Canadian case turned out that way, assuming the write-up here is even remotely close to accurate!

peterstorm · May 20, 2016

Hcubidms said: ↑

I am searching for information regarding Rapheal Huppe. I believe he is now in the sugar daddy/sugar baby business with a website www.huepps.com I think he is talking to investors in a escort vacation business in Mexico.What was his sentence and is he in prison?

I'm still looking. Can't find yet.

But according to this acticle, the prosecution was asking for a fine that would amount to three times the minimum that is stated in the law.

http://www.conseiller.ca/nouvelles/un-pseudo-conseiller-face-a-une-kyrielle-d’accusations-38949

B E · Dec 14, 2020

Hello
Is there any updated information regarding this scoundrel?? Has he managed to scrub himself from the internet? How could an investment group be so ignorant as to bring him on well he was being investigated for fraud at another company?? Has the intercore trial occurred?

peterstorm · May 20, 2021

B E said: ↑

Hello

B E said: ↑

Is there any updated information regarding this scoundrel?? Has he managed to scrub himself from the internet? How could an investment group be so ignorant as to bring him on well he was being investigated for fraud at another company?? Has the intercore trial occurred?

Why the piece of shit Raphaël Huppé is hiding (google translate):

Quebec Labor Board (CNESST) vs 9244-7010 Québec inc.

2019 QCCS 2792

Superior Court

Laval, Quebec, Canada

N° :
540-17-012273-164

DATE :
July 10th, 2019

Under the Honorable Judge Pierre Nollet, J.C.S.

Quebec Labor Board (CNESST), Plaintiff

Vs

9244-7010 QUÉBEC INC.
et
HUPPÉ ETCO INC.
et
HUPPÉ STUDIO INC.

Defendants

Judgement

OVERVIEW

[1] The plaintiff (CNESST) can, on behalf of employees, claim from their employer the sums due under the Act respecting labor standards (the Act).

[2] In this case, the CNESST is looking for three companies for the salaries owed by Recherches InterCore Canada inc. or one or the other of the defendants alleging that they can all be considered as the employer of the employees given the confusion on this subject maintained by these companies.

[3] The Tribunal finds that the defendant 9244-7010 Québec inc. has direct responsibility as a paying agent and that the other two defendants also have direct responsibility towards certain employees and may be associated with the definition of employer within the meaning of paragraph 7 of section 1 of the Act.

1.THE CONTEXT

[4] A large proportion of the employees affected by this claim worked for Recherches InterCore Canada inc.

[5] The research company InterCore Canada inc. was registered on July 5, 2012, under the name 9265-6784 Québec inc. On October 10, 2014, it changed its corporate name to SRG International inc., Then on March 9, 2015, it changed its name to Recherches InterCore Canada inc.

[6] This company specialized in the development of applications and software, including the software Drowsiness Assistance Detection System (DADS).

[7] To facilitate understanding of the debate, Research InterCore Canada inc. will be described as the Employer without however the use of this term having, in itself, a legal implication with regard to the other parties hereto.

[8] The defendant 9244-7010 Québec inc., Also known as Jamil, Entreprise Jamil, Huppé Studio, or Jamil Investments inc. (Jamil), is a company incorporated in 2011, whose activities are described as a) Real Estate Investment Trusts and b) Business Services.

[9] In this case, Jamil, for several months, issued pay checks to employees of the Employer or other related companies.

[10] In 2014 and 2015, Mr. Claude Brun is the sole director and officer of Jamil and the Employer.

[11] The defendant Huppé Etco inc. (ETCO) registered in September 2014, at its domicile rue Russell in Laval. It is described as a holding company whose main shareholder, sole director and manager is Ms. Danielle Beauchamp, Mr. Brun's spouse.

[12] The defendant Huppé Studio inc. (Studio) registered in April 2011, also has its domicile on rue Russel in Laval. It is described as a commercial video and photography production company. Its main shareholder is ETCO and the sole director and manager is Ms. Danielle Beauchamp.

[13] Studio, ETCO, Jamil and the Employer house their commercial activities in the same place, at 1390 rue William, Montreal.

[14] On April 6, 2015, The Employer gave notice of its intention to make a proposal under subparagraph 50.4 (1) of the Bankruptcy Act.

[15] On April 7, 2015, InterCore inc., The Employer's parent company, informed a portion of the employees for whom the CNESST is claiming here, of the end of their termination.

[16] On June 19, 2015, the employment of other employees ends.

[17] On June 20, 2015, the Employer made an assignment of its property.

[18] Several employees of the Employer then demanded unpaid wages, unpaid vacation and compensation to take the place of the notice of collective dismissal.

[19] The employees for whom the CNESST claims are: RÉMY BABIN, PASCALE BELANGER, CHLOÉ BERTRAND, CHRISTIAN BOHNING, HUGO BOMBARDIER, KATHRIN BOTKIN, KARYN BYRNE, KARINE CLEMENT, ANDRÉ-PAUL DAMPHOUSSE, PATRICK DION, JULIAN DRAGUT, PASCAL DUFF, SYLVAIN FOLLENFANT, MICHELI FRANCO, JULIAN FRASER, BRIAN GILLESPIE, SERGE GUILBERT, HARVEY JEAN, IRINA KAN, MIA LAVALLÉE, KATHERINE LEE, CAMERON MACKEY, SHAH NAHID MAHMUD, MICHEL MELOCHE, FELIX
MERCIER, NAVID NABAVI, DANILO NAVARRO FERREIRA, QUANG TUAN NGO, FRANK NWANKWO, PETER OPEL, JENNA PACIFICO, SHIVAJI PATIL, ANNIE ROBILLARD, FRANCOIS ROCHEFORT, SYLVIA SCHADE, GUILLAUME SIMPSON, LAVANYA SINGH, GUY ST-AMOUR, ABDENOUR TOUABI, TONG WANG, DENIS ZAWADZKI et FAYÇAL ZERROUKI.

[20] She claims from the defendants the payment of indemnities due to employees as compensation for termination of employment notice (collective dismissal), certain unpaid wages, unpaid vacation, vacation pay and certain other sums that it deemed due in accordance with the provisions of the Act respecting labor standards.

[21] Defendant Jamil did not respond to the request.

[22] In addition to the CNESST investigator, the Employer's bankruptcy trustee, the person responsible for human resources at the Employer, the directors of each of the three defendants, the Court heard from more than one ten employees. The situations of each of them are different and can be divided into various categories, applicable to other employees.

[23] In a spirit of sound administration of justice and respect for the rule of proportionality, the parties agreed that if all the other employees were to come and testify, they would repeat the testimony of one or the other of the employees. heard according to the category to which they belong.

[24] The categories of employees are established according to the division where they worked (IT department, call center, maintenance, studios, etc.) and the sums that were not paid to them (salaries, vacation, compensation in place of notice of dismissal, etc.).

2.THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE

[25] What are the amounts due?

[26] Are the defendants responsible for paying the amounts due under section 95 of the Act?

[27] Can the defendants be considered as the employer within the meaning of Article 1 para. 7 of the Act?

3. THE ANALYSIS

3.1 What are the amounts due?

[28] The amounts claimed were explained by the testimony of the CNESST inspector.

[29] His calculations are based on the following documents:
• Jamil's 2014 and 2015 salary register;
• Employer call center 2014 and 2015 salary register;
• Records of Employment (ROE) issued by the Employer in July and October 2015;
• Amounts received by employees from the (federal) Wage Protection Program (PPS);
• Pay stubs from Jamil and the Employer.

3.1.1 Objections

[30] The defense raised several objections to the production of these documents. It was agreed that the objections would be analyzed globally without requiring that they be reiterated for each document of the same nature.

[31] Protected objections can be grouped into four broad categories: a) not the best evidence, b) the wrong witness, c) non-original and unsigned document, and d) irrelevance.

[32] Let's start with the latter. The defense submits that none of the documents produced under P-15 (up to P-59) are relevant since they do not target either of the two defendants, Studio or ETCO.

[33] The argument fails. Jamil's name (not shown) is found mostly on pay slips.

[34] As for the defendants ETCO and Studio, it does not matter that these documents do not originate from them or that their names do not appear in them. They are being prosecuted because the CNESST believes that there is confusion between them and the Employer.

[35] The sums owed by the Employer must be established and the documents produced are used to establish them. The link between ETCO, Studio and the Employer may be established by different facts and documents, including those whose production is requested. The documents are therefore relevant.

[36] The other three objections must be dealt with together since they all flow from the same arguments.

[37] The documents produced are the only ones available. The CNESST has established that the originals disappeared when the Employer moved its homes. The CNESST obtained the documents from reliable sources, either the bankruptcy trustee in possession of some of them or even having established them (ROE) and the former director of human resources who participated in the entry of data in the SAGE system from which some of the documents were extracted, such as payslips.

[38] The employees concerned also came to testify about their employment with the Employer, ETCO or Studio, acknowledged having handed over the documents in their possession to the CNESST investigator, established that no signed copy of several documents ( especially employment contracts, confidentiality agreements or property rights over intangible assets) was not delivered to them.

[39] They finally proved what they received from PPS and the fact that they did not receive any other money in respect of the amounts claimed.

[40] In the circumstances, the documents produced constitute the best evidence available. The investigator is not the right witness to testify as they neither emanate from him nor were they designed by him. However, the director of human resources, the bankruptcy trustee and the employees are all witnesses who could have filed said documents, each according to his role in their preparation or as recipient or co-contractor of the document.

[41] They were all able to confirm the authenticity and veracity of the documents. They could and have been cross-examined on these. The objections are therefore unfounded.

3.1.2 Proof of amounts due.

[42] For each of the employees, the evidence shows the unpaid wages, vacations and sometimes statutory holidays and expense accounts.

[43] The CNESST also claims a collective dismissal indemnity as provided by law when an employer carries out a collective dismissal of more than 10 and less than 100 employees.

[44] The two collective dismissals of April and June 2015 have not been contradicted.

[45] The original claim has been amended as follows and the following amounts are therefore due:

Names
Amounts due
AJOUT
RETRAIT
BABIN, RÉMY P-15 - 1

70 320,94 $

BELANGER, PASCALE P-16 - 2

15 853,33 $

BERTRAND, CHLOÉ P-17 - 3
8 535,36 $

BOHNING, CHRISTIAN P-18
18 130,00 $

BOMBARDIER, HUGO P-19
5 710,33 $

BOTKIN, KATHRIN P-20 - 6
21 371,91 $

BYRNE, KARYN P-21 - 7
33 252,00 $

CLEMENT, KARINE P-22 - 8
17 485,10 $

DAMPHOUSSE, ANDRÉ-PAUL P-23
5 728,84 $

273,04 $

DION, PATRICK P-24 - 10
13 625,31 $

48,02 $

DRAGUT, JULIAN - P-25 - 11
30 342,00 $

DUFF, PASCAL P-26 - 12
12 676,00 $

FOLLENFANT, SYLVAIN P-27
26 895,08 $

(150,00) $
FRANCO, MICELI P-58 - 14
3 190,40 $

FRASER, JULIAN P-28 - 15
8 411,67 $

GILLESPIE, BRIAN P-29 - 16
15 820,20 $

GUILBERT, SERGE -P-30 - 17
7 054,31 $

JEAN, HARVEY P-31 - 18
23 492,00 $

KAN, IRINA P-32 - 19
5 707,38 $

LAVALLÉE, MIA P-33 - 20
1 720,32 $

LEE, KATHERINE P-34 - 21
5 276,49 $

MACKEY, CAMERON P-35 - 22
25 638,48 $

MAHMUD, SHAH NAHID P-36
8 330,00 $

MELOCHE, MICHEL P-37 - 24
8 554,31 $

MERCIER, FELIX P-38 - 25
25 177,44 $

NABAVI, NAVID P-39 - 26
23 956,00 $

NAVARRO FERREIRA, DANILO P-40
3 925,30 $

NGO, QUANG TUAN P-41 - 28
5 128,36 $

NWANKWO, FRANK P-59 - 29
9 533,31 $

OPEL, PETER P-42 - 30
13 986,00 $

PACIFICO, JENNA P-43 - 31
6 390,90 $

(3 173,90) $
PATIL, SHIVAJI P-44 - 32
9 449,12 $

ROBILLARD, ANNIE P-45 - 33
14 312,17 $

ROCHEFORT, FRANCOIS P-46
5 880,55 $

SCHADE, SYLVIA P-47 - 35
3 232,38 $

(265,20) $
SIMPSON, GUILLAUME P-48
6 452,00 $

SINGH, LAVANYA P-49 - 37
7 007,51 $

ST-AMOUR, GUY P-50 - 38
62 160,33 $

TOUABI, ABDENOUR P-51 - 39
5 771,24 $

WANG, TONG P-52 - 40
13 965,85 $

2 600,00 $

ZAWADZKI, DENIS P-53 - 41
7 154,57 $

ZERROUKI, FAYÇAL P-54 - 42
12 300,00 $

TOTAL Claims DII

628 904,79 $
2 921,06 $
(3 589,10) $

[46] The additions and withdrawals were made immediately after the investigator discovered some miscalculations.

[47] In total, the Employer owes $ 628,236.75 to the CNESST. No conviction will be pronounced against him since he has made an assignment of his property and is not a party to these proceedings.

3.2 Are the defendants responsible for paying the amounts due under section 95 of the Act?

[48] Section 95 of the Act reads as follows:
95. An employer who enters into a contract with a subcontractor or a subcontractor, directly or through an intermediary, is jointly and severally liable with this subcontractor, this subcontractor and this intermediary, for the pecuniary obligations fixed by this law. or regulations.

[49] The uncontradicted evidence supports the conclusion that Jamil (Quebec inc.) Was an intermediary of this ilk. She was the one who paid the employees, no matter who they worked for. It is therefore responsible for the pecuniary obligations.

[50] Jamil did not respond to the action and offered no defense.

[51] Defendant Jamil established itself as a principal debtor by agreeing to pay employee benefits.

[52] The change made in the last month of operation by which the Employer made the payment of wages with regard to several employees does not have the effect of eliminating the responsibility of Jamil who remains liable for wages, unpaid vacation and even collective redundancy compensation.

[53] The defendants ETCO and Studio cannot, however, be held liable for the amounts owed, at least not under section 95 of the Act.

[54] These defendants are sometimes signatories or parties to certain confidentiality or non-competition contracts.

[55] The employment contracts signed on behalf of ETCO or Studio are as follows: Serge Guibert (Studio), Katherine Lee (Studio), Michel Meloche (Studio), Félix Mercier (ETCO) and Peter Opel (Studio) . In these particular cases, the employer named in the contract is directly responsible for the payment of the amounts claimed in addition to Jamil who has been added as a debtor by acting as an intermediary.

[56] Thus ETCO or Studio, as the case may be, is directly liable to the CNESST for the following amounts:

Names
Sums owed
EMPLOYER
GUILBERT, SERGE -P-30 - 17
7 054,31 $
Studio
LEE, KATHERINE P-34 - 21
5 276,49 $
Studio
MELOCHE, MICHEL P-37 - 24
8 554,31 $
Studio
MERCIER, FELIX P-38 - 25
25 177,44 $
ETCO
OPEL, PETER P-42 - 30
13 986,00 $
Studio

[57] The sole director and shareholder of ETCO, also director of Studio, Ms. Beauchamp, testifies that she never authorized the signing of these employment contracts.

[58] His role in ETCO and Studio is nebulous. She has clearly agreed to be a director of these two companies. These, like the Employer, had as their main directing soul, Mr. Huppé.

[59] For considerations known to Ms. Beauchamp, namely Mr. Huppé's inability to sit as a director or act as a shareholder due to certain charges brought against him, she agrees to play the role of director and shareholder. . She hopes to benefit from it when Mr. Huppé's project has taken off. Unfortunately, everything collapses before she can realize the expected profits.

[60] The signatories of the above contracts mentioned in paragraph [55], when they are identifiable, did not come to testify. Ms. Beauchamp recognizes certain signatures although she denies having given them the mandate to sign. It was Mr. Huppé, she said, who authorized these people to sign.

[61] Ms. Beauchamp worked for the accounting department. She prepared all the checks to be signed, usually by Mr. Brun, her spouse, or for the authorization of Mr. Huppé. She was familiar with the different structures in place.

[62] It is possible that she was not personally informed of each of the contracts signed. It appeared, however, that she agreed to have Mr. Huppé pulling the strings and authorizing all payments. By giving him this mandate on behalf of the company, Mr. Huppé could designate the signatory he wanted.

[63] Ms. Beauchamp cannot, on behalf of these companies, hide behind a certain ignorance of the facts since it is willful blindness, a risk that she accepted by playing the role of administrator, for someone she knew was in trouble with the law. Despite everything, she left the field open to him to act on behalf of the two defendants.

3.3 Can the defendants be considered as the employer within the meaning of Article 1 para. 7 of the Act?

[64] Beyond the written commitments of Studio or ETCO with regard to certain employees, the CNESST wants them to be declared the employer of all the salaries concerned.

[65] The CNESST is based on an interpretation of the concept of employer, generally used in matters of accreditation, when employees work for various employers indifferently.

[66] The Court of Quebec has taken up this concept in claims by the CNESST against people who have confused the real employer.

[67] The Law is social legislation having as its object the protection of employees.

[68] The CNESST acts for the benefit of employees.

[69] The author Jean-Yves Brière raises the need for reform of the Law “when it comes in particular to identify the real employer of an employee working within the same network of companies or a group comprising several distinct legal entities at the corporate level, but belonging to one and the same corporate purpose ”.

[70] It is therefore not inappropriate to draw inspiration from the interpretation made in other contexts which nevertheless come under labor law to clarify the definition of employer provided for in the Act.

[71] It is up to the employee (or the CNESST) to demonstrate indistinct and interchangeable use by the employer of all means of production. This demonstration makes it possible to apply the concept of osmosis which leads to the determination of a single employer, each employer then being jointly and severally liable.

[72] When there is serious evidence that employees of the same company can easily confuse their real employer, it seems appropriate to us that the conclusion adopted for these employees applies to all employees without regard to the fact that some of them may have been more specific about their actual employer.

[73] Jamil established herself as an employer by agreeing to pay the wages of the employees. Mr. Brun, the director of Jamil, specifies that the latter did not receive any remuneration for acting as an intermediary. In this context, it is difficult to understand the benefit that Jamil derived from his role as a paying agent. There is no business reason for doing so, which makes its involvement even more suspicious and tends to show that the employer was trying to hide behind various facades.

[74] The name Huppé appeared everywhere in the building where the employees worked, whether it was Huppé & Co, Huppé Studios, Huppé records or Huppé ETCO.

[75] Mr. Huppé was generally the one who did the hiring, who had the business vision and who gave the directives. He approved all expenses.

[76] Jamil's name was on all employee paychecks.

[77] Several of the employees interviewed signed contracts with SRG International Inc., the Employer here.

[78] According to the contracts, it appears that there are two companies using the same name. One in Quebec and the other in Delaware (US).

[79] The employees of either were paid by Jamil.

[80] Mr. Brun signed a contract of employment on behalf of SRG International inc. (US). He claims he never realized he was signing for an American company. Yet it is written in black and white, just above his signature. It's hard to go wrong unless you sign everything presented to us without looking.

[81] Mr. Brun is also the sole director of the Employer.

[82] He is in-house counsel for SRG International inc. (Quebec) which signs most of the contracts on behalf of the latter. Mr. Brun did not delegate any power to him. It would be Mr. Huppé who would have delegated the signing authority to him. Mr. Brun, any director, was not opposed to it any more than Ms. Beauchamp.

[83] Mr. Brun has delegated his authority to sign checks with the Employer to his spouse, Ms. Beauchamp. She signed some of the paychecks in evidence.

[84] It is difficult to believe Ms. Beauchamp when she claims to have ignored everything, that neither ETCO nor Studio had any activities and that they are in no way related to the Employer.

[85] The defendants' defense says in paragraph 2: "The defendants acted only as agents and consultants for the Société Recherches Intercore Canada inc. and did not have in their service any salary other than their leaders ".

[86] These warrants have never been declared. The mandataries are therefore also liable under articles 2157 and ss C.c.Q.

[87] It was clearly established by some witnesses that a studio was indeed built in the premises occupied by the Employer, that at least one of the activities was to prepare publicity documents and take photos for the Employer. Witnesses also identified employees who worked at Studio.

[88] A list of employees with their telephone extension numbers and email addresses, dated January 12, 2015, was available to all employees. The list in question is entitled "Huppé & Co / SRG Int". The employees for whom the CNESST claims here appear almost all.

[89] The names of Ms. Beauchamp and Mr. Brun do not appear there, although all confirm that they were regularly present at the scene at that time. One can wonder about the reasons for this absence from the list of employees.

[90] Both Mr. Brun and Ms. Beauchamp know that the dozens of people present on the scene every day work in the box under the direction of Mr. Huppé. They also know that the employees are, at one time, all paid by Jamil.

[91] In a letter of July 26, 2016 to the CNESST investigator, Mr. Brun wrote the following:
[…]
9244-7010 Qc inc. paid the bills and pay of all the employees of SRG then of InterCore and of Huppé Studio .....
In 2015, if there was to be a transfer of payroll to Cie InterCore and those for other Cies ..... We did not have time to do so. Each company would have made its own payroll, which was not the case.
[…]

[92] This is an element which tends to demonstrate the employers' confusion.

[93] From an employee perspective, the situations vary. For some, it is difficult for them to say who they worked for. Others are more specific. All of them noticed that they were generally not paid by the company that hired them. As long as the wages were paid, no one cared.

[94] As Ms. Beauchamp and some other witnesses said and this is the climax, all were working for the ultimate goal of completing and marketing the DADS software. However, this software was developed by Mr. Huppé and SRG International.

[95] Under certain contracts, Huppé ETCO claimed certain intellectual property rights or the right not to be in competition with its employees.

[96] Taken as a whole, the evidence shows that the initiator of the project, Raphael Huppé set up a network of companies, a group comprising several distinct legal entities at the corporate level, but belonging to one and the same purpose. business. The CNESST succeeds in demonstrating an indistinct and interchangeable use, by the employer, of all the means of production which involves Jamil, ETCO and Studio. They all fall within the definition of an employer.

[97] During deliberation, the CNESST waived claiming the discretionary penalty provided for in section 714 of the Act,.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT:

[98] WELCOMES the amended statement of claim;

[99] CONDEMNS the defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff the sum of $ 628,236.75 including:

$ 628,236.75 with interest in accordance with section 114 of the Act respecting labor standards, as of September 15, 2016;

[100] WITH legal costs against the defendants jointly and severally.

__________________________________PIERRE NOLLET, J.C.S.

Me Lucie Martineau
TELLIER PACKAGE
For the plaintiff

Me Marc Galletta
GALLETTA LAWYERS
For the defendants

Date of hearing: May 27 to 30, 2019

Viens me poursuivre, Raphaël Huppé l'osti de fraudeur.

DeathHamster · May 23, 2021

I didn't see this link, so here:

https://archive.macleans.ca/article/2006/5/15/a-new-war-over-ritalin

Scientology gets involved in a school board battle

At first glance, it seemed like a classic David-and-Goliath punch-up: Danielle Lavigueur, a separated mother of two living in Longueuil, on Montreal’s South Shore, claims the high school her 12-year-old son Gabriel attends is pressuring her to medicate him with Ritalin for hyperactivity. She refuses to yield to the alleged demand, and eventually someone calls in the Children’s Aid Society. Feeling besieged, Lavigueur confides in a friend, who introduces her to Raphaël Huppé, head of research for the Montreal-based National Parents Association (NPA). With the group’s help, she finds herself a lawyer, and soon she’s heading up a class-action suit for $11 million, claiming parents have the final say when it comes to whether a child should be given drugs. But what appears to be a story of a woman of modest means standing up to a school board is actually much more. It is also the tale of Quebec school boards confronted by the controversial Church of Scientology.

peterstorm · Oct 20, 2022

Mofo is now dead.

https://www.fox3now.com/canadian-co...und-with-throats-slashed-at-playa-del-carmen/

Log in or Sign up

Canadian scientologist and convicted fraudster Raphael Huppe?

peterstorm Member

Ann O'Nymous Member

Quentinanon Member

peterstorm Member

Quentinanon Member

Random guy Member

Quentinanon Member

Drittner

peterstorm Member

Hcubidms

JohnnyRUClear Member

peterstorm Member

Hcub

peterstorm Member

peterstorm Member

JohnnyRUClear Member

peterstorm Member

B E Member

peterstorm Member

DeathHamster Member

peterstorm Member

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Predefined Skins