Capital One Bank (Canada Branch) v. Schaus, (December 6, 2010), Guelph SC-10-000314-0000 (Ont. S.C.J. Sm. Cl. Ct.).

Capital One (Canada Branch) v Dennis Eugene Schaus

Guelph SCC # SC-10-00314


Ontario Superior Court of Justice


Donald G. Kidd D.J.


Heard: December 6, 2010

Judgment: December 6, 2010

Docket: Guelph SCC 10-00314




Judgment after submissions for $14,884.71 and post judgment [sic] interest at 21.7%.  This order is made pursuant to the binding decision of the Divisional Court in Capital One v Matovska et al. Sept 4, 2007 and that court clearly determined that the pre-proceeding collection expenses even though contingent constituted a liquidated sum therefore being a liquidated demand for money that can be awarded as such by this court and I am bound by that decision as are the staff of this court and default judgment in these circumstances can be granted by court staff.  Costs of today allowed at 350.00.


Transcribed by Todd R. Christensen on December 20,2010.  Original available below.

Contingency based collection means that payment for our work is contingent upon our success. If we are unsuccessful in our attempts to collect, you pay no fee.


Collectrite Credit Bureau Collections referred our office to the Christensen Law Firm after recovering $42,000 of a $140,000 delinquent debt owed to us by a commercial customer. Due to the poor results that we had in the past with paying lawyers by the hour, we were leaning towards writing off the remainder of the debt. Mr. Christensen put his money where his mouth is and offered to work on a contingency fee basis and charge only for upfront court costs. They assumed we were paying Mr. Christensen by the hour and would fold, but he was true to his word and didn’t charge any hourly fees; just a percentage of what he recovered. Mr. Christensen first won a motion for summary judgment on our behalf in Superior Court. Christensen Law Firm recovered $117,000 on our original debt of $98,000. Using Christensen Law Firm not only obtained the money that was owing to us; but it also gave us the satisfaction to see someone who had lied to us, cheated us and made false accusations against us; be held accountable and proven wrong in court.

- Tom Smith, Registered Insurance Broker, John F. Smith Insurance Brokers Ltd.