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

The Capital One matter is a severe blow to an already battered body and the various individuals who were calling me on it ran the gamut from cold to indifferent to abusive. Not one of them responded to me with the idea of working together to solve the problem. Not one of them responded to my primary concern… I am writing this note to you, Mr. Christensen, to simply let you know that people like myself, who are going through a rough period, truly appreciate a voice on the other side of the telephone that sounds like a fellow human being.

- Ken G.