Rules? Regs?   Really?

When Yvan wanted money, he usually just phoned. As far as details were concerned, they might or might not be forthcoming later, and in any case were usually incomprehensible to the extent that the clients learned not to ask. Occasionally, he would actually provide an invoice and it would usually look like this. More often that not, these invoices were indecipherable. In this one, the 2nd line is a demand for a 25% advance on the milestone payments for the 1st and 3rd floor half-baths. No one knows what the 1st line is for.

a rare receipt including HST for a non-existent company

Besides not knowing what some of the items were for, the clients had other issues with these invoices:
HST was included in the invoice, but no GST # was given. The clients asked Haince for this number, and after a few days Haince gave them 822 168 621 RT0001.

A visit with the Canada Revenue Agency revealed that this GST number was assigned to BH & K Construction of Chester NS, a partnership which at one time included Yvan Haince.
The Registry ID for the partnership is 3229974.

However, the Yvan Haince partnership was revoked in September 2009 for non-payment and as such no longer exists.

Prior to 2000, there was Yvan Haince Excavating and then Yvan Haince Excavating Limited, which was struck from the register - for non-payment - in 2000 . Prior to 2000, there was also Genesis General Contractors Ltd, for which Haince was president, secretary and director. It started up in 1985 but was struck off in 2000. From 1983 to 1994, Haince partnered up with Dr. George Burden to form ISSIS Holdings Ltd.

As far as we know, there is no business registered in Nova Scotia containing the name Yvan Haince.

Haince was shut down by an HRM building inspector for being non-compliant with building codes and for not having the correct building permits to begin with. One of those shut downs lasted over a month.

Haince was cited for 7 violations by Occupational Health and Safety. He accepted 5 of them but decided to appeal the other two. His defense was that he wasn't really responsible for the activities of people working on the project. However, when the workers referred to him as their "boss", the appeal collapsed and was dismissed.

Return to Main Page         Next Page