Maybe I am missing something here, but it certainly appears that the refusal of counsel for Leon Frazer & Associates, Inc., to permit William Tynkaluk to be examined under oath, in the suit against the company, where there is a demand for access to account records of the plaintiff, Lawrence Heath, et al vs. Leon Frazer & Associates, Inc. is without a basis in law. While they are obviously following the instructions of their client, I have a problem with their actions. Allow me to explain.
The undisputed facts are these:
(1) Tynkaluk was noticed to testify twice in the caae, but Leon Frazer's counsel prevented him from appearing. indeed, after he was physically served, he was placed in a resort, making him unavailable.
(2) Tynkaluk was noticed to appear to testify, as an individual, and NOT in a representative capacity. Leon Frazer has no right to interfere with his testimony. he was not summoned as a corporate officer with the most personal knowledge of the plaintiff's account.
(3) According to Leon Frazer, Tynkaluk retired as a director several months ago. Therefore, he has no standing as an officer, director, staff member or employee, and Leon Frazer cannot prevent him from testifying.
(4) Tynkaluk was the personal financial adviser to the plaintiff, and the information sought by the plaintiff regards his own personal conduct towards the plaintiff.
This is just one aspect of conduct that can only be described as a bad faith defense of a civil action.
Contributed by Kenneth Rijock
Posted by Andrei Slavenkov