Undoubtedly the worst single setback in the short history of Freedom Party occurred when it became involved with a lobby group calling itself Landlords Against Rent Control [LARC].

Formed pursuant to the provisions of the Residential Tenancy Act (R.S.O. 1980, c.452, s.122), the profit-oriented lobby group claimed that: "Our primary objective is to improve legislation, regulations, guidelines and policies which will protect the interests of the landlord. Our purpose is to secure and enforce the rights of landlords in Ontario through effective lobbying, proper legal representation in court, and educating the public."

If it's really true that you can't judge a book by its cover, then it's equally true that you can't judge a lobby group by its intentions. In fact, when it came to LARC, intentions were just a cover.

When LARC president Datinder (Bill) Sodhi wrote (September 18, 1985) Freedom Party asking for permission to reproduce the party's issue papers dealing with rent control and property rights, he also indicated an interest in working with the party to fight rent controls. Naturally, the prospect appealed to us, and preliminary negotiations were undertaken to see what could be done.

Things got off to a good start when, on November 2, 1985 at the Ramada Renaissance Hotel in Toronto, a seminar dealing with "The Future of Rent Controls in Ontario" was officially sponsored by LARC, and supported behind the scenes by Freedom Party.

The seminar, a full-day forum offering legal, political, and economic perspectives on rent control, featured representatives of five fully-registered Ontario political parties, lawyer Ronald J. Farano, and keynote speaker, Dr. Walter Block, senior economist at the Fraser Institute in Vancouver. [Seminar speech to be reprinted next issue!]

Aside from a lower than expected attendance rate, the seminar appeared to be a resounding success. In fact, it was decided that a similar event should be sponsored in London, Ontario where Freedom Party headquarters could be used as a base from which to promote the seminar. Sodhi promised to return the favour by offering office space to Freedom Party in Toronto, when the party was prepared to organize in that area. But the reciprocal part of that offer never came to pass when, after only three days of working beside LARC employees in London, it soon became evident that LARC was not all it appeared to be.

For one thing, LARC's membership was much lower than the plus-thousand figure Sodhi kept using; for another, his "Rental Information Bureau," a tenancy "credit bureau" for landlords, was not in operation and was evidently not computerized, as he claimed. Creditors were constantly at Sodhi's heels and his employees were seldom paid; his favourite method of management seemed to be intimidation.

With the London seminar planned for November 27, and with LARCs promotion of the event beginning only two weeks earlier, sales were far below the number needed to break even or to even have a respectable looking public event staged. LARC employees were beginning to abandon ship --- a consequence of not having Sodhi present each day to intimidate them into action --- and staff morale among LARC employees was dismal.

With the hope that he would take remedial action, Fp president Robert Metz phoned Sodhi from his home one evening to make him aware of the problems that were accruing. Sodhi's reaction to Metz's concern was totally irrational and, needless to say, quite a surprise. Instead of thanking Metz for bringing these problems to his attention, he hurled accusations that Metz was interfering in the operation of his business and that if the London seminar wasn't a success, it would be Metz's responsibility.

In the ensuing telephone conversation, Metz discovered that, contrary to Sodhi's promise, he had no intention of maintaining a permanent LARC representative in the London office. As soon as the London seminar was over, he would move his complete staff and operations to Ottawa to promote yet another seminar.

That having been admitted, all pending agreements and commitments between LARC and Freedom Party were duly terminated, with the exception of seeing the London seminar through to the end. Sodhi's group was given till that time to vacate the London office.

But the story doesn't end there.

During the final week preceding the London seminar, Freedom Party supporters were recruited by Sodhi to help sell the seminar while party executive were commissioned to write, edit, and typeset his group's first newsletter, LARC News Update.

Knowing that our relationship with LARC was about to end (on unfriendly terms, at that) we insisted that he pay for the newsletter service upon receipt, a condition to which he agreed in the presence of many witnesses.

But when the time arrived for Sodhi to pick up the newsletter material we prepared for him, he began to evade the subject of payment by insisting that he was not satisfied with the product and that it was of no value to him. (This, despite the fact that everything, including corrections, had been prepared precisely according to his specifications, and that he was fully aware, in advance, of what he was getting.)

Metz fully expected Sodhi to behave in this fashion (it was becoming a pattern) and thus offered him an out: if Sodhi wasn't satisfied with the product and/or couldn't use it, then he was under no obligation to pay for it --- but of course, he wouldn't be permitted to remove the material from our offices either.

It was at this point that Sodhi was finally forced to reveal his true intentions, upon which he physically attacked Metz from behind and pulled him down to the floor pinning him in a choke-hold that forced his own staff members to come to Metz's rescue.

Police were called and Sodhi fled the office --- typeset work in hand. Sodhi was later arrested at a printers shop where police laid assault charges based on statements given by Metz and one of Sodhi's staff. Following the attack, Metz promptly evicted LARCs staff from Freedom Party's offices --- only five days before LARC was to host its London seminar at the Holiday Inn.

Ironically, two days later, Metz was contacted by a member of the media who was curious to find out if Freedom Party was involved in any way with LARC. Fortunately for us, the relationship was over. Because Datinder S. Sodhi, LARCs founder and president, we were informed, had a criminal record spanning a decade: obtaining goods by false pretenses, fraud by impersonation, and using mails to obtain money under false pretenses.

On May 12, 1986, assault was added to the list when Sodhi was tried and convicted on the charge involving his attack on Metz.

Freedom Party's brief involvement with LARC was a tremendous setback for the party. But had the relationship worked for the best (i.e., if LARC was run by reputable people), it would have been a tremendous advance for the party. With an opportunity to expand into the Toronto political market, and with the potential to be seen by Ontario landlords as a political alternative clearly opposed to rent controls, we would have been less than remiss had we not accepted the risk.

But as things turned out, we got the short end of the stick while LARC accrued all the benefits resulting from the work and input supplied by Freedom Party and its supporters.

In addition to providing Sodhi with the contact for his first seminar's keynote speaker, Dr. Walter Block, Freedom Party lost two of its most valuable supporters when Sodhi hired members Doug Forder and Lisa Miles (Miles was working full-time in our office) as part of his own full-time staff at LARC. Normally, such an event may have been considered good news, except for the fact that Miles and Forder were never (and have never been) paid by Sodhi, despite the hard work they did on his behalf over a gruelling four week period.

Freedom Party members Gordon Mood and Steven Sharpe were similarly never paid their promised commissions for seminar sales they made. Fp president Robert Metz was not paid for speaking at Sodhi's Toronto seminar, as promised, or for the expenses involved in attending the seminar, also as promised. The cost of phone installations and incidental set-up costs on LARCs behalf were also absorbed by Fp president Robert Metz. Staff writer Murray Hopper was never paid for writing virtually every article in LARC's newsletter, and Metz was never paid for editing and typesetting same.

Although our direct relationship with LARC spanned but a few short weeks, the momentum of that involvement has carried us to the present. The time lost in getting involved with LARC can never be recovered.

We hope that Freedom Party members and supporters have not lost faith in us, because throughout it all, we never stopped doing what we do best: promoting freedom of choice in our community and educating the public on the benefits of living in a free society.

e-mail

Page last updated on April 28, 2002