Magik Transport vs. Marnor Holdings Limited

A new small claims case against Marnor Holdings, Limited. The allegations very similar to other small claims allegations against Craig Nicholson/Marnor/MHL/Road Rider/Rite Way that have appeared in previous claims.

In this one, Magik Transport v. Marnor Holdings, the plaintiff alleges the following:

1. BREACH OF CONTRACT AND WITHHOLDING OF FUNDS: Marnor Holdings Ltd. broke the signed contract by charging fees that were not part of the signed contract, these fees were called Yard Fees and were retroactively charged (see EXHIBIT B). When challenged on the fees, the defendant offered to return half the money but only if the claimant agreed to sign a document waiving his right to any further monetary claim. Marnor Holdings Ltd. also did not return the Hold Back Fee taken from the claimant, which should have been returned by November 15, 2016.

2. INFLATING OF CHARGES FROM THE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA: The defendant was not passing through the monthly insurance costs from ICBC, but instead was inflating the costs by $167.00 to $208.00 per month without telling the claimant. When the claimant requested copies of the companies ICBC paperwork the defendant failed to provide copies despite multiple assurances that it would be forthcoming.

3. FAILURE TO PAY AGREED UPON LOAD RATE: Marnor Holdings Ltd. short paid the claimant for a load that was delivered under Marnor Holdings Ltd. Trip #32193 which went from Aldergrove, BC to Hidalgo, TX and was to be paid at a rate of $6,700.00, but the payment received by the claimant was only $5,700.00.

4. FAILURE TO CANCEL ICBC INSURANCE AS REQUESTED. Marnor Holdings Ltd. did not cancel the ICBC Insurance on the claimants tractor as requested and which should have been done September 1, 2016. The defendant did not cancel the ICBC Insurance until October 4, 2016 which has resulted in additional insurance charges to the claimant.

 

Attached to the claim are two emails to support the claim. They were from an exchange between Marnor CEO Craig Nicholson and the plaintiff, Magik Transport. These are really interesting.

 

In Exhibit A, Nicholson is clearly furious that the plaintiff intends to leave the company. All the grammatical errors and disjointed English are verbatim from his email.

He suggests the plaintiff is leaving “because you think you can do better” and “your obvious passion to get ahead, so much that your abut to take a MAJER step back.” It’s hard to ascertain what he means by “Do I u detest and why , your. It leaving on enter terms.” Your guess is as good as mine.

It seems from the email that Nicholson is simply angry at the plaintiff for wanting to make more money driving his truck — “Your own broker. WhT a bunch of bullshit.”

He ends by calling the plaintiff “Arrogant.”

Wanting to better your life seems like something most of us would classify as a normal desire. Why it triggered such an angry outburst is beyond me, but personally I would run screaming from anyone who composes emails like this. I find it disturbing and creepy.

 

In Exhibit B, Nicholson’s follow-up email seems to have been written whilst he was in a more composed state. The content of the email is fantastic because it reads like an emotional rollercoaster. It starts with “hope you guys are good, we certainly miss you both!!” and gets right into explaining the mysterious “Yard Fees” that the plaintiff is currently suing to have returned. According to Nicholson’s own admission, he created the “Yard Fees” immediately after the plaintiff gave his notice to the company, and he makes sure to let the plaintiff know that these fees ONLY APPLY TO HIM. How’s that for passive-aggressive?

“the drivers that stayed a year from August  1 and on , do not have to pay it. Unfortunately   , you guys decided to move on, and I was not going to mention it  to you, except too let you know what was going on, and you would of just worked your year, and no worries, because I decided too not a charge anyone who stayed, I actually purposely did not tell you, as I worried for the safe delivery of our loads, and I also worried about any anger that may have resulted from you , being upset.”

So in the above excerpt from the email, Nicholson admits that he didn’t tell the plaintiff that he was going to be keeping his money because he claims he was worried the plaintiff might get angry. You know, angry that Nicholson was withholding the plaintiff’s money based on “Yard Fees” that he admits creating only when the plaintiff gave his notice to the company, and fees which oddly only apply to the plaintiff(!).

Mmm…okay. I’m super curious to see how that holds up in court.

Then, after that explanation, Nicholson circles back in his email and makes the plaintiff an offer:

“Anyway in the spirit of being reasonable ,and not heavy hearted, I will reduce this in half to 1250 dollars, if you will  agree to sign off that you have no further interest in Said company and moneys owed.”

So, get this: The offer is agree that I don’t owe you any money and I will give you back half of the “Yard Fees” that I decided you owed.

What a deal! Apparently the plaintiff didn’t take it up though, because he’s suing.

Nicholson ends his email telling the plaintiff that they both have beautiful wives, that the plaintiff is a hard worker and that “Its human nature for people to think it’s better somewhere else” — another reference to the plaintiff leaving the company for greener pastures. It doesn’t take a psychologist to see that Nicholson was clearly upset by the plaintiff’s departure.

The Exhibit B email ends with an offer for the plaintiff:

“if you ever decide to want to come back, I will deduct 1250 off your pro rate something. So the door is always open for you.”

I will presume that now that the case is in the courts, that job offer is rescinded.

What one discerns from these emails is this:

  • Nicholson was extremely angry at the plaintiff for leaving his company.
  • Nicholson explains that the plaintiff is not getting all his holdback money returned because of a brand new “Yard Fee” policy that was implemented immediately after the plaintiff gave his notice.
  • That these new “Yard Fees” only apply to one person: The plaintiff. All other owner/operators are off the hook for these new fees because they didn’t leave the company.
  • The defendant was hoping the plaintiff would sign off on owing any money if he agreed to getting some of his holdback money returned.
  • The plaintiff must have been a valuable employee, because he’s welcome back anytime!

With regard to the other parts of the claim: Inflating ICBC fees, not paying agreed-upon load rates, and not canceling the insurance promptly — that will all depend on evidence that will be presented in court which I do not yet have access to.

I will follow up on this case as it makes its way through the system.

 

Leave a Reply