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.


When Todd approached me, I offered him a trial as one of the firms we used. A year into the scheduled 18-month pilot, he had delivered impressive results. His firm was collecting two to three times as much as the average of the other four law firms we used in Ontario. We dismissed the lowest performing law firm, giving all its business to Todd’s firm. At the end of the 18 months, we boosted Christensen Law Firm’s share. . . to 80 percent, the maximum we will allow.

- Wayne McLeish,B.A., LL.B, President & CEO, DRN Commerce (now FCT Default Solutions)