Fraudulently Misrepresenting FOOL-ITIS!

December 7, 2012

The strange case of “Kurios Foulidis” and Mr. Caplan

Court file no. CV-09-373099-0000

A Faustian Demise Awaits Mephistopheles on the Boardwalk.

The plaintiff claims against the defendant, George Foulidis for general and special damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy to defraud, inducing breach of contract in the amount of ten million dollars ($10,000,000.00)!

The plaintiff William Malamas is a registered real estate broker, a builder and developer. The defendant George Foulidis (“Foulidis”) is a resident of the City of Toronto. Foulidis is a restaurateur. (Owner, Beaches Boardwalk Café)
Foulidis had established close relationships with several councillors from the City of Toronto who were using their influence to support Foulidis’ requests for amending or extending the lease, between Foulidis and the City, to suit Foulidis’ plans.
The plaintiff and Foulidis were meeting in Foulidis’ restaurants, the one in the beaches and the other one at Woodbine Ave in Markham. The plaintiff did not know much about Foulidis other than that he was in the restaurant business, had close ties with the City of Toronto, got married at about 1994 and then had several children.
The plaintiff, at about the end of November 2001, received, unexpectedly, a telephone call from Foulidis. Foulidis knew that the plaintiff could not afford to retain a lawyer in the litigation. The plaintiff pleads the fact is that Foulidis stated that, out of his desire to help the plaintiff, had spoken to a lawyer (Gary Caplan; McCague Borlack LLP) and, at his request, the lawyer had agreed to assist the plaintiff, without requiring an upfront retainer.
Foulidis’ representation was false and/or was recklessly uncaring whether it was true or false. Foulidis: i) did not have a desire to help the plaintiff. Foulidis pretended that he wanted to help the plaintiff. ii) Mr. Caplan was not just a lawyer. Mr. Foulidis and Gary Caplan had an undisclosed intimate relationship.
The plaintiff pleads and the fact is that Foulidis intended to convince the plaintiff to retain Caplan out of his knowledge and belief that Caplan would follow his directions in the course of the litigation and would lead the litigation to a result that would be beneficial to Foulidis.
Mr. Garry Caplan, in a discussion with the plaintiff in Caplan’s office, admitted of his intimate relationship with Mr. George Fouldis. Caplan said: “George (Fouldis) made me feel so good. I’ll do anything for George (Fouldis).”



2 Responses to “Fraudulently Misrepresenting FOOL-ITIS!”

  1. Anonymous Says:

    Mr. Malamas has been declared a vexatious litigant by the Order of the Superior Court of justice and all of his lawsuits have been stayed by the court. No one in the media is covering Mr. Malamas for the reasons that are self evident from his post.

  2. If Mr. Malamas is a vexatious litigant and all of his former lawsuits have been stayed by the courts. Then the only reason for the courts to allow his lawsuit against Foulidis to be herd is that there must be clearly justifiable merit in Malamas’ favour.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: