Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
You have quite the imagination. Perhaps you should try putting that to better use; making movies.

I wish all this banter was fiction. The facts are that CT has been going down hill for a good number of years now and more and more long time shoppers ( seniors like myself) are moving on to other stores.

It doesn't surprise me one bit that there's more in store shenanigans going on. We all know the auto side's poor reputation, my grandson who worked there can attest to duping seniors of replacing perfectly good parts. Now you refuse legitimate refunds and exchanges and hassle law abiding citizens.

Your stores are lacking good service, products and a good moral compass. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
Absolutely. According to the National Retail Federation in 2007

employee theft accounted for 48%
shoplifting accounted for 32%
administrative errors 14%
vendor fraud 6%

What's interesting is that for 2008 and 2009 in a recession shoplifting actually went down. Employee theft, administrative errors, vendor fraud went up. The dirty little secret is that retail is blaming all the other losses on shoplifting alone. The trend is more and more in-store surveillance cameras are now tracking employees rather than shoppers.

This is only an aggregate of national retail data. I would imagine that some stores have even more employee theft. Wouldn't it be nice if they had a truthful sign that read " We don't know where 80% of our stuff disappears to and our employees are responsible for most of it. So we need to mark everything up :)

2008
employee theft accounted for 52%
shoplifting accounted for 25%
administrative errors 16%
vendor fraud 7 %

2009
employee theft accounted for 57%
shoplifting accounted for 18%
administrative errors 17%
vendor fraud 8 %
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
It's not just the employees who steal, it's the employer too.

The Brantford CT owner was criminally charged. He plead guilty and was fined 160K.

Now before all you arm chair, minimum wage hicks try to sweat your brain over "you can't steal from yourself", let's look at it.

When the store owner was frequently charging his personal expenses to the store ( vacations, luxury renos for his home, to his benz etc.) it has the effect of lowering the stores profit, the same effect as stealing.

And we all know how management will point the finger elsewhere and we can guess how they make up those "losses" right!? So it's not uncommon for them to start cutting back on hours, blaming shitty, lazy employees, to raising prices on some things and, you guessed it! Coming up with policies to screw the customers over.

One more thing. Is your privacy really that safe when you give them your drivers license for an exchange or refund? Is that really a smart thing to do? It's one more thing for them to steal and one more way to screw the customer over.
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
Nice one! While we're on the subject of CT the employer, I see that employees have sued CT and won for various labour no no's. Strong arming employees to either quit or be fired, firing and then threatening legal action to make a young female pay for a mistake and withholding her wages and vacation pay. The squirreliest one yet, trying to get out of paying rent to the property owner. So it's not just the customers they try to screw over, it's the employees and landlords.
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
I would be interested in some PROOF of these claims about the Brantford owner pleading guilty, and the lawsuits of employees to stores. I've heard and seen a few and been involved in two myself, all of which were sided in favour of the owner of the store.


In regards to your claims of owners not paying rent to property owners, clearly you are either making up stories, or have been provided false information and chosen to believe it. Why? Because Canadian Tire store owners do NOT pay rent to property owners. In most cases Canadian Tire Corporation owns the land and the building. In some cases, like major power centers, the land is owned by whoever (smart center etc....) and the building owned by CT. Canadian Tire pays the land owner and there is a financial contract between stores and CT corporation where owners pay a straight percentage rate to the corporation.

I love falsified claims and exagerated information.
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
I would be interested in some PROOF of these claims about the Brantford owner pleading guilty, and the lawsuits of employees to stores. I've heard and seen a few and been involved in two myself, all of which were sided in favour of the owner of the store.


In regards to your claims of owners not paying rent to property owners, clearly you are either making up stories, or have been provided false information and chosen to believe it. Why? Because Canadian Tire store owners do NOT pay rent to property owners. In most cases Canadian Tire Corporation owns the land and the building. In some cases, like major power centers, the land is owned by whoever (smart center etc....) and the building owned by CT. Canadian Tire pays the land owner and there is a financial contract between stores and CT corporation where owners pay a straight percentage rate to the corporation.

I love falsified claims and exagerated information.

Oh no, if it isn't stockboy CT Manager or another lame version of him, coming to the rescue and serving up some CT retail justice. Yawn. Is there not anyone else out there who can offer a different perspective from the retail side?

What was posted was specific about the owner, not owners as you've claimed. Learn to read.

So you're claiming that what was posted was "falsified claims and exagerated information" right? Ok, I'm game. CT Me, care to back that one up? As it were I can easily bring proof to the table. What do you bring?
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
I just did bring you the proof. LEARN TO READ

CT store owners DO NOT PAY RENT TO LANDOWNERS or BUILDING OWNERS.
So your claim of owners not paying rent to landlords is FALSE, WRONG, INCORRECT... call it what you want.
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
I just did bring you the proof. LEARN TO READ

CT store owners DO NOT PAY RENT TO LANDOWNERS or BUILDING OWNERS.
So your claim of owners not paying rent to landlords is FALSE, WRONG, INCORRECT... call it what you want.

Shit for brains, you for real?

You confused my post with someone else's and capitalizing a few words and arguing "NO" isn't proof. Only a moron would think that. No, you need to read and reread to 'get it'. I'll let that other person defend their post on CT labour troubles and the property rent issue.

What are you bringing to the table again? Remember you're the one who called me out and said my post was "exagerated and false".

If you feel that strongly about my post then how about backing it up with a little cash wager? I'll support my post that the CT owner was criminally charged, plead guilty and fined. Trust me, what I bring to the table will be undeniable. And if I can't I'll pay you. It should be easy money for you. I'll let my daughter handle this one. You'll have to wait till she gets back from grade school. I'll even ask her not to use the bigger words so as not to confuse you.
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
First of all, keep your cheap internet insults to yourself. I'm not interested in a discussion with a foul mouth jerk! Your inability to be reasonable without swearing is a reflection of you and how you are. it has nothing to do with me


Having said that;
1) i didn't say your claim that an owner was charged and guilty was false. I said I wanted to see some proof. If you've got it as you claim, show it. Your "wager" is ridiculous. Keep your wallet in your pocket

2) the claim i did say was absolutely false was not paying rent to the landlord. that is not possible, as I have stated before, given that no owners pay rent to a landlord. i am quite familiar with the details of the financial contracts that all owners are bound to. I suspect, you are not!

So, if you can manage to post a reasonable thought, question or response without being an ignorant a$$... i will be interested to see who was charged and guilty of what.
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
First of all, keep your cheap internet insults to yourself. I'm not interested in a discussion with a foul mouth jerk! Your inability to be reasonable without swearing is a reflection of you and how you are. it has nothing to do with me


Having said that;
1) i didn't say your claim that an owner was charged and guilty was false. I said I wanted to see some proof. If you've got it as you claim, show it. Your "wager" is ridiculous. Keep your wallet in your pocket

2) the claim i did say was absolutely false was not paying rent to the landlord. that is not possible, as I have stated before, given that no owners pay rent to a landlord. i am quite familiar with the details of the financial contracts that all owners are bound to. I suspect, you are not!

So, if you can manage to post a reasonable thought, question or response without being an ignorant a$$... i will be interested to see who was charged and guilty of what.


CT me, back pedal much!?!? Why am I not surprised as you're so typical of a CT. Not anyone's fault you're a retard who can't string two thoughts together and then trip over your own posts. You run your mouth and when somebody calls you on it you run and hide because YOU HAVE NOTHING.

Actually, should we be surprised by this? I'm not, when you do the same with your refund policy and crap products.

CTC don't pay rent to land/ building owners you claim? So what, they're just going to occupy some one else's property and not pay anything? Sound "reasonable" to everyone else? Well shit for brains, they tried to do exactly that.

Since you were so adamant about it I had my little girl do some checking on a few more things for me. So now I have two things to bring to the table :) What are you bringing besides running your mouth? Tell you what, throw down some hard cash in trust to KPMG or some other big 4 auditor who can render a fair and impartial decision. You'll have to take out a 2nd mortgage on your trailer/ house because I don't deal in small change. Loser pays costs. Since you're such an expert on "details of the financial contracts that all owners are bound to" it should be a very very easy win for you. Or are you that full of shit!?!?!?
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
First of all, keep your cheap internet insults to yourself. I'm not interested in a discussion with a foul mouth jerk! Your inability to be reasonable without swearing is a reflection of you and how you are. it has nothing to do with me


Having said that;
1) i didn't say your claim that an owner was charged and guilty was false. I said I wanted to see some proof. If you've got it as you claim, show it. Your "wager" is ridiculous. Keep your wallet in your pocket

2) the claim i did say was absolutely false was not paying rent to the landlord. that is not possible, as I have stated before, given that no owners pay rent to a landlord. i am quite familiar with the details of the financial contracts that all owners are bound to. I suspect, you are not!

So, if you can manage to post a reasonable thought, question or response without being an ignorant a$$... i will be interested to see who was charged and guilty of what.

Actually if I may cut in here, Ct Me you did say a few times the posts were false, incorrect, exaggerated and so on. We can all see what you've written. Now your saying different.
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
Okay genius, you're right, I haven't backed up anything. Oh wait, i have asked you repeatedly for proof of the claim you made against the Brantford owner and you have provided zero!

So let me tell you how the financial "rent" works, and how the owner does not pay rent to the landlord

Canadian Tire Corporation owns many of the properties and buildings occupied by CT stores. The store owner pays rent to the Corporation based 100% on sales. if they sell 1 million, they pay small a percentage of those sales to the Corp. If they sell 20 million, they pay the same small percentage of the sales to the Corp. That is all of the rent a CT owner pays. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the case where the Corp is not the landlord and it's a company like SmartCentre or FirstGulf or whoever that owns the property/building, the owner of the store STILL pays the same percentage rent based on sales to Canadian Tire Corporation. The Corporation holds the lease on the building from the landlord and pays them whatever agreed upon amount. There is no financial payment from a store owner to a third party landlord in any case anywhere in the Country.

************************************************

For the record, here is the cut and paste of what i said to begin this line of questioning.

I would be interested in some PROOF of these claims about the Brantford owner pleading guilty, and the lawsuits of employees to stores. I've heard and seen a few and been involved in two myself, all of which were sided in favour of the owner of the store.


In regards to your claims of owners not paying rent to property owners, clearly you are either making up stories, or have been provided false information and chosen to believe it

***********************************************************

1) I asked for proof of the Brantford information
2) i stated clearly that your claims of owners not paying rent to property owners is false. Two seperate paragraphs. Two seperate thoughts.

So, I might suggest that it is YOUR reading comprehension that needs some improvement. Hey look, I strung more then two thoughts together.

So hot shot, what did you "little girl" dig up?
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
Oh and before I forget, since you're convinced that it is I that can't form a thought and have decided that you are the judge and jury for such..... I might point something out.... your statement "Why am I not surprised as you are so typical of a CT..." doesn't make sense. I am typical of a Canadian Tire?

Well said Captain Intelligence.

I anticipate I will not being hearing any further intelligence insults from you unless of course you are comfortable playing the role of hypocrit.

Have a great day
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
Oh and before I forget, since you're convinced that it is I that can't form a thought and have decided that you are the judge and jury for such..... I might point something out.... your statement "Why am I not surprised as you are so typical of a CT..." doesn't make sense. I am typical of a Canadian Tire?

Well said Captain Intelligence.

I anticipate I will not being hearing any further intelligence insults from you unless of course you are comfortable playing the role of hypocrit.

Have a great day

You can't read, you can't understand and you can't do a basic search!?!? Fucking waste of skin. No surprise there.

What are you afraid of? Just have your parents and grand parents co-sign for you. Tell them it's money in the bank. Big bad CT toady afraid that a little girl will beat you? I can't give you more of a handicap than that.

My youngest read your post and asked "why is she so dumb when she's a grown up?" And before I could respond my daughter answers " so doctors can experiment on them before they get to the smart people" lol.

Along the way she found a few more interesting cases before starting her homework. It turns out CTC has done some wrong, including fined for violating the Canadian Environmental Protections Act, 3.5 million dollar award for a personal injury, even trade mark infringement.

CTC vs McFadden WIPO
Resch vs CTC
The Queen vs CTC

And what do you have ct me? Still nothing huh.Do yourself a favour, sign an organ donor card and then swan dive off something no higher than 4 stories. Don't worry about your organs. Your useless brain will provide enough of a cushion so that your organs don't get ruined for deserving people.
 

Guest-0339

Posted by an unregistered user
So your daughter is reading this and getting involved? Great, i'm sure she is learning a lot from her role model father who can't string together a few sentences without a bunch of f*ck you's and insults that belong to hooligans on playgrounds and in bar fights. You're a real super star sir.
If this is the kind of people this site attracts, bring 'em on. If clowns like you hate CT, GOOD.... I have no interest in my team serving loud mouth, unreasonable people such as yourself.

Now on to the task at hand. CT employs over 55,000 people in Canada. We have 480 Ct stores, plus hundreds of gas bars and however many PartSource stores. This is a mega corporation.... $9 billion dollars. Of course there will be lawsuits. Google the same with any company.... you'll find lawsuits. Loblaws, Shoppers DRug Mart, Walmart Canada, Tim Hortons, Home Hardware... take your pick. Thats why companies have lawyers. Lawsuits happen in the world of business. Clearly you have zero comprehension of what happens in the business world. 55,000 people is the size of a small city. Suggesting that we should not do any wrong and that we're bad because we've been sued is like saying a city of 55,000 people needs no police officers. With that many people, products, buildings and transactions, there will be problems. GUARANTEED

Your specific points of mention. McFadden was not us being sued. It was us attempting to gain control of a website domain. We lost. Big deal. Dude still owns crappytire.com your point = fail
Rensch vs ? majority fault found to be the responsibility of ProCycle, the manufacturers of CCM bicycles. Now what? Are you going to go say CCM sucks because they got sued lol

I also noted you haven't responded to the rent issue. You've clearly been beat on this topic. I know the facts. You don't. Can you provide any information about your claim that an owner failed to pay rent to a landlord or can we call that a dead issue in which you've been beaten?

Also, still awaiting your much bragged about information on the Brantford claim you made. I personally know the aforementioned owner from the Fort Erie bicycle lawsuit and am interested in the Brantford one having known two Brantford owners personally.
 

DavidLeR

New member
You can't read, you can't understand and you can't do a basic search!?!?

So, about Canadian Tire: does it ever suck, eh?

I need to buy a new faucet for my mom's house in Niagara Falls. Do you think I should go to the Home Depot, Rona, Home Hardware or plumbing store in my home town? Or, should I wait until I get to NF, and buy it at the HD/Rona/HH down there?

Either way, there's zero chance that I'll buy it you-know-where, just in case it doesn't fit, and the CT returns clerk has a hissy fit about "repair only" warranties or open boxes.

Yup, good ol' Crappy Tire. Won't be seeing me in there any time soon.

I'm sure their draconian return policies are savin' them loads of money, by driving away customers.
 

Guest-0276

Posted by an unregistered user
Yawn. A CT moron who likes to bully and bullshit. So typical. You reek of such desperation to win and be right. Why is that? You can deny those two specific cases all you want retard. The facts are that CTC thought they could push people around in an underhanded way. I'll say this again, maybe for the last time. Those and other cases are all in the public records for everyone to see. You fail.
...am interested in the Brantford one having known two Brantford owners personally.
Then why don't you call them to find out?!?!? The truth is you don't know them. Another fail. Getting bored already.
If this is the kind of people this site attracts... you hate CT
I hate CT?!?! Here, on this site? Really?!?!? Somebody want to smack some hallelujah her way?!? Yawn. CT's dumbest getting dumber. Recaler.
This is a mega corporation.... $9 billion dollars.
Oh no 9 billion whole dollars. Really!!! I'm surprised you didn't round it up to 10 billion. I wonder what you call Tim Hortons, a much bigger company by valuation. How about mega mega Tim Hortons.

The funny thing is CTC financials and the markets say differently. Let's not have those facts get in the way. You're only off by 4 billion and change. Again, all in the public records. Since you're already up there scraping facts out of your ass, try looking for your head.
Yawn...escabechar.
Clearly you have zero comprehension of what happens in the business world
This coming from a fat ass middle aged retail clerk? Most kids quit retail and then get into a profession when they're all grown up. Were your parents mean to you in the trailer? Did you even make it past high school? I didn't think so. Do something quick you ain't getting younger. Before long you'll be another lady living with cats. Maybe you already are. Frustrarse. Zzzzzz
McFadden was not us being sued. It was us attempting to gain control of a website domain. We lost. Big deal.
It must've been a big deal as your legal team spent piles and piles of money and well over a year preparing for it and bullying him along the way. He had only 20 days to prepare. You guys could've gotten the name from the start but too slow and stupid to jump on it. Versagen.
Rensch vs CTC ...Now what? Are you going to go say CCM sucks because they got sued lol
A boy was left permanently disfigured and brain damaged because you knowingly sold him a defective bike. Angamia.

I've had enough of CT stupidity to last a life time. This is over. When you jump off the roof of your store, aim for the soft concrete head first. Before you jump make sure some kids have their cell phones out. It'll go viral on youtube.
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
You want public records... here read this. It`s called an annual report
http://corp.canadiantire.ca/EN/Investors/FinancialReports/Annual Reports Library/CTC_AR_2009.pdf
Corporation annual revenue is actually 10 billion, perhaps I should have rounded up. 9 billion was low

As far as I can see you have proven nothing. All you`ve been successful at is dodging the losses you face and throwing insults in retaliation.

I don`t and didn`t deny the lawsuits. I clarified them with real facts. Makes them far less impactful and terrible then you attempted to make them out to be. My point on the Brantford owner was WHO? YOu know the ct owners move from store to store frequently? It could be anyone for the last 20 years or more.

Hilarious that you call me bully lol You began the argument, you made your claims, now you're calling me a bully because you have been unable to step up to the plate. None of your i hate ct counterparts have piped up to come to your aid because you're wrong. All you can do is run your mouth with insults.

step up and play or sit down and shut your mouth.

that will be all

next
 

CT Me / Lawguy

Posted by an unregistered user
PS: Tim Hortons annual revenue is $2.2 billion. less then 1/4 of CTC so no i would not call them mega mega corporation.

public records again
 

DavidLeR

New member
Corporation annual revenue is actually 10 billion, perhaps I should have rounded up. 9 billion was low

Oh, what a relief it is to hear the CT doesn’t actually suck, and this whole web page can just simply be removed because, since CT has the annual revenue you claimed, and not the lower revenue somebody else claimed, surely CT can’t suck at all.

Oh, wait a second. Isn’t it the case that bigger companies are more likely to suck than smaller ones? Darn, maybe CT still does suck after all.

I don`t and didn`t deny the lawsuits. I clarified them with real facts.

Well, at least I can feel good about that, now can’t I? Some un-named lawsuits with some store or other were resolved in CT’s favour, or didn’t exist at all (I lost track), or something. Well, obviously a “mega corporation” with teams of lawyers who win cases can’t suck, now can they? Some good news there, clearly.

Oh, hang on. What about all those personal experiences I’ve had about how CT really does suck for customer service, dispute resolution, shoddy vehicle repairs, selling crappy product they don’t stand behind and (where have I heard this before?) a “Stupid return policy”?

Gosh, I guess there’s a slim chance they still do suck.

None of your i hate ct counterparts have piped up to come to your aid because you're wrong.

As an “I hate CT counterpart”, my not piping up sooner doesn’t mean that you are right, that somebody else is wrong, or that CT doesn’t actually suck big-time.

It just means that I already know that CT sucks in multitudinous ways, and these lawsuits and their outcomes in no way change that fact. And, knowing very little about these cases, I didn’t have anything to contribute.

step up and play or sit down and shut your mouth.

Um, do you have any more “real facts” about these cases, or is that annual report all you've got?

Isn’t this the report CEO Stephen Wetmore was referring to when he said (in essence) that Canadian Tire sucks? See article at this link: "Canadian Tire chief shuffles management, tells employees to shape up - thestar.com".

that will be all

I sure hope so, but somehow I doubt it.


That wouldn’t be me, would it?
 
Top