Shoppers Drug Mart threatens parent with lawsuit after son accused of stealing $15

[Tommycoupons]

CALGARY — The phone call from a drugstore telling a Calgary woman that her son was a shoplifter was bad enough.
But what really surprised Cassie was the threatening letter she received from the company’s lawyer.
Her son was recently charged for stealing a $15 pair of earrings from a local Shoppers Drug Mart. She was at work and he was supposed to be in school at the time.
Days later, the woman received a letter from a Toronto lawyer saying the retailer held her personally responsible for the offence because she “as parent or guardian of the young person (failed) to provide reasonable supervision of the young person.”
The letter said she owes $500 by Dec. 24 or else the company could sue her and claim recovery costs of $900.
“I was kind of shocked,” said Cassie, who cannot be named because doing so would identify her son who is facing a charge under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Curious about her legal obligation, she googled the lawyer’s name and found dozens of complaints about the same form letter.
“I’m shocked that Shoppers Drug Mart is trying to demand payment,” said the mom.
However, Shoppers Drug Mart spokeswoman Lana Gogas said in a statement civil recovery is a common practice among North American retailers.
“Civil recovery is a process that enables retailers to charge shoplifters for the actual costs associated with the crime they have committed,” she said.
“The major benefit of a civil recovery program is that the thief pays for the cost of the crime, not the public, government agencies, legal aid or the retailers.”
The lawyer’s letter claimed that the industry loses billions of dollars to shoplifting and that by pursuing shoplifters, the number of such incidents could decrease.
But critics of the practice say the letters are a cash grab.
British Columbia lawyer Gerry Laarakker has made a hobby of challenging the few Canadian lawyers who send letters like these for recovery of civil damages.
Over the years, Laarakker has represented 160 people who have received threatening letters demanding payment.
“This relies more on intimidation than law,” he said.
Laarakker advises clients not to pay the money and said none have been sued, so far.
“Look at the economics of (suing),” Laarakker said. “He would have to retain a lawyer in Calgary. He’d have to file in small claims (court). How much money have we spent so far? The economics aren’t there.”
But while Laarakker calls the letters “a bit of a hollow threat,” he also notes “these guys recently have started to turn to reporting this to credit agencies and credit bureaus have haunted people.”
University of Calgary law professor Alice Woolley said while nothing in law is certain, it’s difficult to prove a legal claim against a parent for a shoplifting incident by their child.
Even claims of damage against the shoplifters themselves are difficult to prove when the item was quickly recovered.
“The key point is, there is no legal claim here that is likely to succeed,” Woolley said.
[email protected]

© Copyright (c) The Calgary Herald


Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Sh...#ixzz2F2fTmYoN

[sisyphe]

If only the kid had an Optimum card he could get free stuff from Shoppers the way the rest of us do, but I don't suppose they give Optimum cards to minors.

$500 by Dec 24th -- what a scrooge.

[SavenRaven]

if only the kid had an optimum card he could get free stuff from shoppers the way the rest of us do, but i don't suppose they give optimum cards to minors.

$500 by dec 24th -- what a scrooge.

lol!

[luckbealady]

It's kind of interesting, because whenever I hear about theft I think about the cost of the item, not all the costs that also come out of it.

But I agree that it's just intimidation. Like the article says, it would cost more for Shoppers to actually pursue civil action against the parent of the thief, than what they are claiming.

[FallenPixels]

It is intimidation, but you can bet her kid will never steal again...
It isn't supposed to cover legal costs, its based on the higher cost of security for a store etc, she pays $500 without prejudice or she goes to court and they issue a judgement against her and the kid which stays on record?

[FallenPixels]

And don't kid yourself that they wont sue, Walmart have sued people over far less than $15 items

[pawkeys]

Interesting. I have a different point of view. Everyone seems to be forgetting that the person who stole the earrings did something illegal and unethical. The consequences of that action costs more than $15.00. Retailers have to pay for security cameras and personnel to keep their merchandise from being stolen. It is costly but it also ensures that the retail price stays reasonable. If they were losing a lot of merchandise they would have to raise prices to make ends meet. Now, for the boy. I am surprised that no one has said that he should be paying for this. The consequence of stealing ended up being a $500.00 bill. So, the boy should be earning and working to pay off that bill. Why should it be costing SDM and, in turn, us consumers, for that boy's action. That will be a consequence that might make him think about the unethical thing he did. As for the legal side, it is for a judge to decide. it is likely he will get a warning, or some community service.

[leavitts77]

We all can agree that stealing is wrong and should be a punishment . Do we cover the cost of cameras and security items when we pay for items in the store ? Kinda funny how it doesnt cost the public nothing . Oh thanks i would rather pay that than some of these outrageous millions we spend on Bernardo and Williams and all the other crooks out there who abuse the system and make us pay . I think they should pay the $15 plus some community service for the elderly and wear a sign outside at the Sdm were he stole saying i stole from here and i will never steal again

[FallenPixels]

Usually it is pay this and it doesn't go on your record - lesson learned with no long term consequences other than you know better than to steal
Community service means a judgement against them instead of a kind of settlement

[redhdlois]

I guess they couldn't afford SDM's high prices

[Miss Molly]

I'm glad SDM and other companies do this. There is no reason why we as the public and they as the store providing the goods should have to pay for what this kid did. I have a small business and I've had 3 clients refuse to not pay me for reasons I won't go into and I had all the documentation as proof that they owed me money for services rendered. Instead of suing them I sent a collector after them and got most of my money back. In all 3 cases it wasn't a lot of money, between $40 and $90 so it was more the principle of the thing and even though I spent way too much time being pissed off about it and getting the paperwork to the collector, I got most of what was owed to me instead of raising my rates and having my innocent clients pay for what these people did.

[sisyphe]

It sort of seems like extortion. I wonder how much of the $500 would even actually go to recovery costs for Shoppers rather than just lining the pockets of that grinch lawyer.

[abbasgirl]

Interesting. I have a different point of view. Everyone seems to be forgetting that the person who stole the earrings did something illegal and unethical. The consequences of that action costs more than $15.00. Retailers have to pay for security cameras and personnel to keep their merchandise from being stolen. It is costly but it also ensures that the retail price stays reasonable. If they were losing a lot of merchandise they would have to raise prices to make ends meet. Now, for the boy. I am surprised that no one has said that he should be paying for this. The consequence of stealing ended up being a $500.00 bill. So, the boy should be earning and working to pay off that bill. Why should it be costing SDM and, in turn, us consumers, for that boy's action. That will be a consequence that might make him think about the unethical thing he did. As for the legal side, it is for a judge to decide. it is likely he will get a warning, or some community service.

Yeah, I guess so. But I kind of miss the good old days when the store/police would have called the parent, not a lawyer, and the parent would have dragged the kid by the ear to the store to apologize and pay for what they stole.

[Miss Molly]

Yeah, I guess so. But I kind of miss the good old days when the store/police would have called the parent, not a lawyer, and the parent would have dragged the kid by the ear to the store to apologize and pay for what they stole.

My cousins shoplifted once when they were around 10 years old and my aunt forced them to go to the store, take the stuff back and apologize. If the same thing happened now, sadly, the parent would be angry in denial and say her son/daughter would never do that, so I'm glad SDM is doing this and I'm even happier that it's made the paper. Too bad it's turned into a story about the evil lawyer.

[Autum]

Surprised the fine has to be paid by a certain time.Why couldnt they phone the parent & arrange for the kid to give back the property & work off the fine somehow in weekly payments..Shoplifters should be fined as we all have to pay for these stolen items in the long run.