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

I supervised the legal work of Todd Christensen for The Bank of Nova Scotia’s Regional Collection Centre in Ottawa, Ontario back in 1994-1995. . . . The collection agencies we usually used for the files assigned him regularly settled the claims for a discount and often generated complaints from our customers whose business we hoped to win back when times were better for them. On files agencies would have compromised, Todd recovered not only 100 percent of the amount owing, but also collection costs. And we had not one complaint from our customers about how he treated them.

- Robert Kirby