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

 

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

 

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.

DOWNLOAD

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.

Testimonials

Since commencing work for us in 2003, Christensen Law Firm has consistently demonstrated that they are an extremely capable third-party collections service provider. The level of persistence, service and results they provide to us is unparalleled. Christensen Law Firm often goes the extra distance to provide us with Collection and Legal answers without invoicing us for their efforts. Christensen Law Firm has even handled an important appeal for us resulting in a valuable Divisional Court ruling without charging us for the appeal.

- Steve Cardinali, Capital One Bank