Fightback, complain to the Law Society maybe?
Here's the link http://www.lsuc.on.ca/public/a/complaints/faqs---complaining-about-a-lawyer/

They get enough complaints maybe they'll cool her jets for a while.

Mainlandmom are you from NF? If so, Natale isn't even allowed to practise law there since she isn't licensed for NF!

Anyways for ON the limitation is 2 years from the day of last activity. It has been legislated since 2004.

you could try to ask them for debt validation, however they likely won't respond.... i sent them a letter asking for my entire file with them under PIPEDA on Jan 13/10 after I discovered my file went back to them (long story there, feel free to read up on it).... Here it is, the end of March and I have not gotten a thing from them.....

We have been receiving calls on our answering machine for 4 weeks now, it is a grainy recording....telling us there is an urgent business matter that we must call about. The message goes on to say that it is of the utmost importance that we call or else.

Today we received a letter from Natale Law Offices, and of course the phony statement of claim. This is for a cell phone bill with Rogers from 5 years ago. Of course the actual bill is not for service it is for what Rogers thinks they are owed because we apparently did not fulfil our contract.

Anyway, I worked for many years in collections at a bank... not an agency and for the amount they are claiming, we would have taken our lumps. The phony statement of claim is hilarious! If they are so serious why would they not send a real one and I believe they have passed the expiration on this account.

I want to be sure of what the limit is in Ontario, does anyone know for sure? As well I do know that we are not to sign anything or send them even a minimal payment or we reactivate the claim, is this still the case in Ontario? Any info would be appreciated.

I received a letter threatening to sue me so what i did i used it for ass wipe.

I think that "Canadian Tire Purchase, 2000" may indicate they bought the account off Canadian Tire from a debt owing to them in 2000. That would explain the 7 years. Also Natale used to work for Canadian Tire Bank while she was the in-house lawyer at Total Credit Recovery.

The Alberta Limitations Act came into force on March 1, 1999, so the limitation period on your account is probably 2 years, instead of 6. A moot point because it's now 7 years later.

Natale is a collection lawyer and not a collection agent, and as such, she's not bound by the same rules collection agents are. The latter are supposedly governed by the Collection Agencies Act of Ontario - not that they pay much attention to it either. The only professional constraint on Natale when acting as a collection agent under the Law Society of Upper Canada is:

"COLLECTION LETTERS

5.01 (5) No collection letter shall be sent out over the signature of a lawyer, unless the letter is on the lawyer's letterhead, prepared under the lawyer's supervision, and sent from the lawyer's office."

That's it. No wonder so many lawyers are gravitating toward collections and using it as a happy hunting ground.

The "Form 7A" you likely got, with the stupid red seal in the upper left hand corner is a standard collection agency bluffing tool in Ontario.

No, the onus is not on you to prove you don't owe them; the onus is on them to prove you owe them. Send them nothing - except some toilet paper. I'm sure her and husband/fellow lawyer, Luigi can use all they can get.

Yes, her office is a real building (the Motorola Building) and she, unfortunately, is also very real. Give her a call at her office, but you'll probably get a couple of incorrigible characters sporting the names/aliases?, "John MacDonald" and "Jen", both of who have a deep admiration for this forum. In fact, blogger Erin Morales discloses some cogent circumstantial evidence why

Monty won't let people post her home phone number on the forum ever since she called him up and sweet-talked him,

with respect to any correspondence she has sent you, just make a paper airplane out of it and send it by "Gobal Express" to Thornhill, Ont.

For more info on Natale, see my post of Feb. 21 on thread 457.

Ray

I did receive the letter about February.

I received one letter on letterhead and attached documents that start out with "Plaintiff's Claim - Superior Court of Justice" and it goes on to Plaintiff and Defendant, etc. Now if they are not trying to pass those off as court documents then what would you say they are?

Hey Benny,
I'm surprised that we're still getting people who are receiving these letters from Deanna Natale...

People started to complain about her back in February, and quite frankly, we're still getting alot of people who are searching for her, and finding our website because of her.

As was previously posted, those are letters of solicitations. They're not court documents as you've pointed out.

I'm wondering if Deanna Natale has sent out a fresh batch of these letters?!!

When did you receive your letter?

I have been one of those victims of the Natale Law Offices they claim I owe $800 for an old "Canadian Tire Purch 2000" (is that even a real company? I know Canadian Tire is but not the later). Now they have said the owness is on me too dig up my proof of payment, even if the bill is over 7 years old. I live in Alberta and through the Collection and Debt Reayment Practices Regulation have found out that under Prohibited Practices for collection agencies

- they cannot give any person, directly or indirectly, by implication or otherwise, any false or misleading information, including, but not limited to, references to the police, a law firm, prison, credit history, court proceedings or a lien or garnishment;

-they cannot charge any fee to a debtor beyond the debt that is due and owing from the debtor to the creditor

-they cannot refuse to provde sufficient information on request to te debtor to ensure that the debort is aware of the identlty of the original and current creditor of the debt and details of the debt;

-they cannot pursue a non-judgement debt where the last payment or written acknowledgement by the debtor is more than 6 years previous

Natale Law Offices has in fact sent notices that look like court proceedings, they are charging interest, they will not forward information on the debt, and the debt is over 6 years old. Breaking the Collection and Debt Repayment Practices Regulations of Alberta. Though I do not know how it works between the province of Ontario and Alberta.

That is some of the information I was forced to find to fight these big scammers.

So, I have been contacted at work, they refused to send me any information to back up their claim of such debt owing. I refused to acknowledge this claim, they now threatened garnishment.

The information that I was sent is
Natale Law Office 8133 Warden Avenue, Suite 405, Markham, Ontario L6G 1B3 1-866-653-1524 email natalelawoffices@gmail.com I noticed some of the other things written about her have different contact information. Is this even a real place?

Is there anyone out there who has got these scammers off their back and what did you do? Why are these people allowed to continue with these types of practices?

Canada's rich get richer, poor get poorer, study finds
advertisement
Canadian Press
May 11, 2007

OTTAWA (CP) - A new study says the gap between rich and poor is widening in Canada, appearing to confirm that the rich do indeed get richer while the poor get poorer.

Statistics Canada found that inequality in after-tax family incomes has increased over the past 15 years.

It says the tax system is not to blame; it says the gap is due to changes in family earnings from all sources - employment and self-employment incomes, investment incomes, and private retirement incomes.

The study says that while the tax-transfer system changed in many ways throughout the 1990s, it reduced income inequality by as much in 2004 as it did in 1989.

It says the trend appears to be driven in part by changing family characteristics, such as the rise in the number of families with two highly educated earners.

The study found that incomes among the top 10 per cent of earning families rose by 22 per cent between 1989 and 2004, while at the same time incomes fell 11 per cent among the poorest families.