AJ Lamba Mississauga Ontario Canada review: terrible real estate agent 10

I am from India. I was offered a job as a virtual legal consultant in his academy. For HR processing, I have shared all the relevant proof issued by Indian government to prove my genuineness and credibility. Post that when the employment contract was issued, address of the Lamba Academy mentioned was fake and the incorporation details were missing. I raised concerns about the discrepancies in the employment contract and sought for a written explanation through mail.He replied to my mail abusing me verbally that I am crazy and not real. He is fake and unprofessional in his dealings.Please do not trust him.

https://canliiconnects.org/fr/summaries/66758

The Contract

As all good mentors do, AL commenced a legal proceeding against KG relying on Clause 11 of their executed Contract – Clause 11 reads as follows:

[9] I agree to commit a minimum of 24 MONTHS. Should this agreement be terminated prior to the 2 YEAR anniversary all current projects and clients become property of the AJ Lamba Team. If you terminate your membership within 2 YEARS your payment for training is agreed as follows:

1. Leaving the team within 6 months of joining $20,000 (Twenty-thousand dollars) will be payable on the release

2. Leaving the team between 6 months and 1 year of joining $15,000 (Fifteen thousand dollars) will be payable on release

3. Leaving the team between 1 year and 2 years of joining $10,000 (Ten thousand dollars) will be payable upon release.

Considering that KG resigned within eight months, AL was seeking damages amounting to a whopping $15,000.00. KG maintains the position that Clause 11 of the Contract is a “penalty clause” and therefore unenforceable in law.

Bad Training

The court found that the training AL provided was not impressive; it was found to have lacked ‘depth and quality’ and was not at all what KG had bargained for. Although Clause 11 is not enforceable, the court still has the power to grant relief for proved damages. It was found that there were dues owed to AL by KG for (i) membership fees, (ii) desk fees (overhead), (iii) lead generation, and (iv) office expenses.

Background

The plaintiff, Amarjot Lamba (“AL”) is a real estate agent with his own Brokerage, Lamba Realty Group Inc. (“Lamba”). AL recruits newly licensed real estate agents and provides them with hands-on training pertaining real estate purchase and sales. AL recruits and trains the up-and-comers with the hope that they would develop their own clientele base; as such, AL reaps a benefit with new clients and the up-and-comer benefits from the hands-on training.

The defendant, Kamal Gurung (“KG”), is a newly licensed real estate agent who began working for Lamba, as a contractor, on January 17, 2012. KG entered into a contract with Lamba in which he agreed to commit to the brokerage for a period of no less than two years (“Contract”). This relationship, unfortunately, did not last – KG quit on September 19, 2012, about eight months after joining the Lamba team.

RECO decisions are not fake…