NOTE: the following case and comments are important, as Alan has based his new company, HomeRun International / HRI Revolution Corporation, on the same elements that were found to be fraudulent by Canadian authorities in a court case where Alan had the right to defend himself.
Not a single one of the participants received any money from the court case, as Alan hid all his money with other people, including his lawyer.
Alan Neil Kippax is the Mastermind
 A year later, on March 5, 2007, Wilson resigned as a director. On that same day, Kippax was appointed as a director of BIM and Wilson transferred his shares in BIM to Kippax.
 The following day, March 6, 2007, Kippax resigned as director and transferred his shares in BIM to Colin Fox (Fox), who was then appointed a director of BIM.
 On November 4, 2009, Fox resigned as director and transferred his shares in BIM to the defendant Ashif Mohamed (Mohamed), who was then appointed as a director.
 Although Kippax resigned from his position as a director of BIM, he remained in control of the operations of BIM and was an active participant in and promoter of the scheme in question. Kippax held a variety of positions within BIM, including “Global Sales Director.” Indeed, as will be seen, Kippax and BIM were effectively one.
 The evidence establishes that Kippax played a central role in BIM and that they had an identity of interests. Although only a director for one day, Kippax assumed leadership positions within BIM. BIM materials referred to Kippax as “Global Sales Director,” the “Global Director,” the “master mind,” a member of the “Corporate Team,” “the man larger than life himself”, and the “Baron and Consul General at the Helm of Business in Motion.” The promotional materials accompanying The Pedal to the Metal Tour describe Kippax as “the Honourable Lord, Baron of Tranent and Consul General” and asserts that:
Many privileges and immunities – as granted by the Vienna Conventions of Consular and Diplomatic Relations and entered in force 19 March 1967 by the United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 596, p. 261 – have been bestowed upon BIM by way of the Honourable Alan Kippax’s achievements.
 Kippax positioned himself at the center of BIM from the outset, using his special appearance at BIM seminars as a selling point. He featured prominently in BIM materials. The “I Can’t Believe It’s True” brochure and the “We Can Hold Our Heads High” brochure are covered by photos of Kippax with BIM distributors. As noted earlier, Kippax was a shareholder in BIM and the sole director for one day in 2007 before those shares were transferred to Fox. Kippax also assumed personal liability for taxes apparently owed by BIM and was the beneficial owner of the shares held in trust by Mohamed.
 Kippax was also involved behind the scenes in the technical operation of BIM. Kippax registered the internet domain names used as part of the BIM scheme. Kippax was the registrant and administrative contact for bimcorporation.com from July 20, 2007 to January 28, 2008, for earnfirm.com from March 14, 2006 to the present, for icbit.com from June 25, 2007 to the present, and for icantbelieveitstrue.com from March 14, 2006 to the present.
 On February 6, 2009, CBC Marketplace aired a story on BIM. Kippax was interviewed, as were disaffected participants in the BIM distributorship. The Marketplace story was highly critical of BIM and observed that if each generation of BIM Corporate Ladders required eight sales, it would only run for slightly over 20 levels before the entire population of Canada was enrolled. The Marketplace story concluded BIM was a pyramid scheme, and that the Perpetual Motion Products were not worth nearly the price paid.
 ...He [Kippax] countered allegations sales were diminishing and the BIM scheme was on the verge of collapse by saying “the sales have gone through the roof! This is the most exciting thing ever!” He concluded by relating a story about a woman who “couldn’t even get bus fare, and now she’s making $13-15,000 a month, part time.”
 BIM or Kippax suggested BIM distributors tell recruits they could earn $13,000 per month, part time, and that one BIM distributor had earned “$340,000 in less than 6 weeks in the business.”
 394 Class Members filled out a survey distributed by Class counsel. Information provided by the Class Members who responded indicates that of individuals who received compensation, the average amount of compensation was $2,976.52. The compensation represented by Kippax and BIM was, on average, ten fold greater than the value of the product that was being sold. These findings with respect to subsection 55(2.1) also relate to, and reinforce, the characterization of this as a pyramid scheme. The compensation depended on recruitment.
 In this case, it is probable that BIM and Kippax have records which would allow the Court to determine the damages suffered by each of the Class Members with greater accuracy. However, those records are not before the Court, and there is no indication any records once available still exist. Given that Kippax and BIM have not defended it is questionable whether the Court will ever have access to records necessary to precisely tailor the award. However, the defendants should not be allowed to shield themselves from an aggregate assessment of damages simply by ignoring the existence of a certified class proceeding.
 Kippax was the self-described “master mind” behind the BIM scheme, a sophisticated operation that preyed on the hopes of thousands of Canadians. He misled potential participants in the BIM scheme. Kippax made representations to the Class as to generous compensation which would be received when he knew, or can reasonably be concluded to have known, were false. According to the evidence of Mr. Abma, since the collapse of BIM, Kippax has attempted to recruit past BIM distributors into new schemes with the promise that they would be “on top.” Kippax maintains control of the domains earnfirm.com, icantbelieveitstrue.com, and icbit.com – the same domains used in the operation of BIM and Treasure Traders International (TTI) (a previous scheme run by Kippax), providing some evidentiary foundation for the need for deterrence.
Alan – Problems with Canada Immigration
Here is the way the Canada Immigration authorities characterized Alan in Court:
 ...in a decision rendered on December 30, 2012, the Parole Board of Canada imposed additional conditions on the applicant, including residence in a half-way house, having concluded that the applicant’s behaviour demonstrated “the enduring nature of [his] criminal attitudes”.
 On the issue of danger, the [Immigration Division or ID] Board Member held that there had been no significant changes since the prior detention decisions and that all the ID’s concerns remained valid. On this basis, the Member found that there was no reason to depart from past decisions to continue detention, noting that “once that finding is made it stands unless it is overturned by the federal court”. The Member also noted that passage of time did not diminish the danger the applicant presented to the public.
 ...At the April 2012 hearing the ID was not aware of a March 2011 incident which resulted in the applicant being convicted of offences arising from an altercation with the police. At the time of his arrest, he was found in possession of a fraudulent passport from an African state. In January 2013, the applicant was found criminally inadmissible to Canada, lost his permanent resident status, and was issued a deportation order. In March 2013, the bonds posted in April 2012 were forfeited. The applications for judicial review brought by the bondspersons were both dismissed.
Marivic Protacio lied to Authorities:
 ...On January 7, 2013, the Division found him to be inadmissible to Canada on the basis of criminality and ordered him deported, thereby stripping him of his permanent residence status. He has not yet been deported because criminal charges related to section 206 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 (illegal lottery) are pending against him.
 The applicant has a lengthy criminal record, involving 14 criminal convictions. Many of these date from the 1987 to 1994 timeframe and include narcotics offenses, possession of a restricted weapon, impaired driving, driving while disqualified, assault causing bodily harm, failure to appear, obstruction of a peace officer and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle.
 In imposing sentence, Justice Baltman of the Ontario Superior Court, in R v Kippax,  OJ No 2021 at para 33, noted that the applicant.
[…] shows little appreciation or regret for the horrific injuries that followed his driving that night. As the author of the pre-sentence report observed, he requires the structured environment of a correctional institution to drive the point home.
 In making the decision under review, the ID had before it a copy of the Arrest Report for this incident, which indicted that the applicant was repeatedly defiant of direct police orders and had engaged in a physical altercation with a police officer when the officer intervened to try to quiet the party.
 On June 26, 2012, the applicant and one of his bondspersons [Marivic Protacio] were charged with criminal offences related to the operation of a marijuana grow operation at a warehouse owned by the applicant. The warehouse is located outside the boundaries the applicant was allowed to visit under his terms of release. As a result of these charges, the applicant’s statutory release was revoked and recalculated to January 14, 2013.
 On November 7, 2012, the charges against the applicant, stemming from his suspected involvement in the grow operation, were stayed. (The charges against the bondsperson were also subsequently stayed.) The transcript of the hearing before Justice Gorewich of the Ontario Court of Justice indicates that the applicant committed to testifying as part of the Crown’s case against others charged in connection with the grow operation.
 In making its decision, the PBC concluded that the applicant had violated the terms of his statutory release order by going to the warehouse in Mississauga, in contravention of the travel permit his parole officer had issued, and had also associated with individuals he knew or had reason to believe were engaged in criminal activities in violation of his release conditions. The PBC based these determinations on police reports related to the observations that led to the charges in connection with the grow operation. The PBC also expressed a series of concerns related to the danger the applicant posed, noting that he was not frank with his parole officer about the reasons for his attendance at the warehouse or regarding where he went after visiting the warehouse, thereby demonstrating “the enduring nature of [his] criminal attitudes” (Certified Tribunal Record [CTR] at p 47). The PBC also noted that it had concerns about the applicant’s potential for violence due to reports regarding his activities while in prison, where he attacked another offender, causing him to bleed profusely from the head. The PBC concluded as follows (CTR at p 48):
In short, [the applicant’s] persistently violent behavior, when viewed in concert with [his] lack of treatment for the risk factors that contribute to this negative conduct and a record of poor performance during past periods of community supervision, signals a clear need for the highest level of structure, supervision and support that is presently available in the community setting.
 The applicant was released from criminal custody on January 11, 2013. He was then placed in immigration detention, and has been there ever since, with several decisions having been issued finding the applicant to be both a danger, within the meaning of paragraph 58(1)(a) of the IRPA and section 246 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [the Regulations], and a flight risk, within paragraph 58(1)(b) of the IRPA and section 245 of the Regulations. The bonds have also been forfeited (but the decision doing so is subject to an Application for Leave and Judicial Review to this Court).
 The Division then considered the applicant’s criminal history, including the offenses that occurred between 1987 and 1994, and the more recent ones, namely the dangerous driving convictions from 2010 and the 2011 conviction resulting from obstructing a peace officer. The ID found that there had been “a pattern of ongoing criminal behaviour, an indication that [the applicant does] not respect the law.”
 With respect to the second part of the Division’s decision – whether the applicant would pose a danger to the public if released – the ID again considered the applicant’s extensive criminal record, focusing on the recent convictions and, in particular, the seriousness of the driving offence from 2010. The Division was particularly concerned with the lack of apparent remorse or rehabilitation on the part of the applicant, as demonstrated through his attitude at the hearing and through his 2011 conviction for obstructing a peace officer.
 In my view, the Division’s danger finding was grounded in the evidence before it and is wholly reasonable.
 The Division considered the applicant’s attitude and lack of remorse, as demonstrated at the hearing, and through his continuing criminality, and most particularly through his interactions with police in the 2011 obstruction incident, and concluded that he was not rehabilitated. Given the lack of rehabilitation, the Division reasoned that the applicant was “likely [to] engage in similar high risk behaviour if released” and thus found that he presents a danger to the public.