He masterminded an auto insurance fraud ring that featured staged accidents.

He created the equivalent of an “automotive Frankenstein” cobbled together out of uncommon parts for a swindle that endangered the public.

He is “without conscience,” one judge concluded.

Meet Gurnek Singh, owner, operator and the brains behind Brampton Auto Collision Centre on Stafford Drive in Brampton.

Business is brisk at the collision centre for the 50-year-old industry veteran, former used-car salesman and convicted con man.

Fines, penalties and a judge’s blunt rebuke don’t faze Singh, an unlicensed mechanic with body repair training and a flair for storytelling.

“I’m okay,” he said at his shop the other day. “I’m busy. Business is good.”

The judge who found that Singh acted fraudulently described him as “unblinkingly dishonest” with “no aptitude for the truth” and “incorrigible.” Mr. Justice Joseph Quinn of Ontario Superior Court said he should not even be in business.

“Singh should not be permitted to conduct any commercial business in the province of Ontario that brings him into contact with members of the public,” he wrote in a recent judgment that detailed a wide range of infractions and efforts to hide them.

But Singh knows that nothing can legally stop him or anyone else from opening an auto body repair shop in Ontario.

The Liberal government says it protects consumers in many ways under several pieces of legislation. But advocates for legislation specific for the auto body shop industry argue there is a need for regulations for accreditation and performance standards that could reduce fraud and provide more safety protection on the road.

Vehicles sometimes crowd the front of Singh’s narrow lot below a shop sign that offers customers “guaranteed workmanship” and “complete collision repairs.”

In his colorful ruling, Quinn ordered Singh to pay a customer, who got stuck with a creaky car patched together from non-matching parts, more than $83,000, including $50,000 in punitive damages.

Singh faces further sentencing for contempt of court for ignoring a deadline in production of documents in that civil case, which dragged for 10 years primarily because of Singh’s tactics, according to Quinn.

At one time, Singh also sold used cars as Sarwan Auto Sales from the same location. Ontario’s regulator for car dealers cancelled Singh’s sales license in 2001 because he lied about his criminal past.

In Singh’s latest caper, the court heard that Dr. Kalimuddin Pirbhai of St. Catharines paid $32,913.20 for a dark brown 1998 Lexus LS400 luxury car that the body shop operator bought for him at an auction. Unbeknownst to Pirbhai, Singh actually paid $27,065.65 and the car was seriously damaged.

When the family learned about the damages, Singh promised to turn the car into “showroom condition” for $5,000 at his Brampton shop. But Singh rang up charges of $16,235 and when Pirbhai finally took possession months later he noticed it didn’t handle well.

“He (Pirbhai) noted the vehicle swayed, swerved, wobbled and emitted unusual noises,” Quinn said in his judgment. “He also observed that it seemed to have a number of body parts that did not match.”

Quinn mused that the car had become “something of an automotive Frankenstein” – put together out of disparate parts.

Pirbhai’s wife took the car to a Lexus dealership, where a check showed it would not pass a safety test. The doctor returned the car to Singh for a refund and signed over ownership.

Singh initially denied the transfer but a forensic document examiner looked at the papers and refuted his testimony. Singh conceded the point later with an explanation “that fell somewhere between a yarn and fairy tale,” Quinn said.

“If lies were clothes, Singh would have been considerably overdressed for the trial,” the judge added.

Singh did not sell the car and Pirbhai never saw a refund. Exasperated, Pirbhai retook possession of the Lexus and a reputable shop inspected the car.

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

It found a major structural misalignment, numerous poor repairs and shoddy paint work. It concluded that the car would put occupants “in a dangerous situation.”

In the end, the judge ruled that Singh deliberately misled Pirbhai by overstating the auction price by almost $6,000 and overcharged for repairs by $6,235 more. It needed another $15,565 in repairs.

“It is not enough to describe his conduct in this regard as being negligent; it was fraudulent and grossly so,” added Quinn. “Singh exposed the plaintiff and his family to a significant safety risk.”

He ordered Singh to pay damages of $33,465.77 to Pirbhai for breach of contract, deceit and misrepresentation, and added another $50,000 in punitive damages.

Singh, who is appealing the judgment, said in a brief interview he had never experienced a problem with a customer until the Pirbhai case.

But Singh pleaded guilty to swindling Progressive Casualty Insurance Co. of more than $5,000 and conspiracy to commit fraud in 1997. The court fined him $15,000 in that case where police said Singh appeared to be the leader of the scheme.

A police investigation found Singh bought vehicles at auctions that industry officials classified as damaged and insurance writeoffs. Singh fixed the vehicles at his Brampton shop to minimum standards and then sold them through his used car dealership.

The vehicles were soon involved in staged crashes where both parties knew an accident would occur. The vehicles were sent back to Singh’s shop for repairs and people allegedly involved would claim compensation for “soft tissue” damage. However, police said, those people were never in the crashes.

The police probe found that Singh himself claimed compensation from the insurance company even though he was not present at the accident.

Singh applied for renewal of his registration to sell used cars in 2001 but the registrar, which enforces the Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, revoked it because the legislation requires sellers to operate a business “with integrity and honesty.”

The registrar found that Singh had checked “no” on a question asking whether he had any convictions. Singh denied the handwriting on the application belonged to him.

Singh appealed that decision at a licence tribunal and in court during 2002 and 2003. The tribunal and courts dismissed his requests.

Read more about: