Briones v. National Money Mart Co. et al.,

• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Judge: Perlmutter
• Neutral Citation: 2013 MBQB 168
• Date: 11 July 2013
• Court: Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba (Canada)

Briones v. Nat. Money Mart (2013), 295 Man.R.(2d) 101 (QB)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. JL.057

Jenny Briones (née Bejarano) (plaintiff) v. National Money Mart Company and Dollar Financial Group Inc. (defendants)

(CI 12-01-76868; 2013 MBQB 168)

Indexed As: Briones v. National Money Mart Co. et al.

Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench

Winnipeg Centre

Perlmutter, A.C.J.Q.B.

July 11, 2013.

Summary:

The defendant Money Mart moved for an order staying this action on the basis that Briones' claims against it were subject to the arbitration provisions in the "Fast Cash Advance Agreements" used to provide payday loans. The central issue was whether, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act and the Consumer Protection Act limited the applicability of the arbitration clause.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed Money Mart's motion.

Arbitration - Topic 2512

Stay of proceedings - Bar to stay - Action respecting validity of contract with arbitration clause - The plaintiff (Briones) claimed that the cost of each payday loan provided by the defendant (Money Mart) to her was excessive and each payday loan transaction was harsh and unconscionable within the meaning of the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act (UTRA) - Briones claimed on her own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class - Money Mart moved for an order staying the action and compelling Briones to proceed with arbitration - Money Mart argued that Briones' claims were subject to the arbitration clause in the "Fast Cash Advance Agreements" (the FCA Agreements) used to provide payday loans - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion - The UTRA manifested a legislative intent to intervene and provide consumers with a right to seek relief in the Court of Queen's Bench - To the extent that Briones brought her case within s. 2 of the UTRA, the legislative override in s. 3 relieved her of the arbitration clause in the FCA Agreements - The ability to apply to a judge under s. 4 of the UTRA was also consistent with that interpretation - See paragraphs 30 to 40.

Arbitration - Topic 2512

Stay of proceedings - Bar to stay - Action respecting validity of contract with arbitration clause - In her statement of claim, the plaintiff sought, on her own behalf and on behalf of a proposed class, an accounting and repayment of all cheque-cashing fees received by the defendant Money Mart from her and others upon their repayment of "payday loans" - She also sought declarations that the "Fast Cash Advance Agreements" used to provide the payday loans failed to comply with the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) - Money Mart moved for an order staying the action, on the basis that the claims were subject to the arbitration clause in the payday loan agreements - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench dismissed the motion - Section 96 of the CPA conferred a right to recover "in the court" moneys paid under or by reason of an agreement that limited the application of the CPA - The word "court" was defined in s. 1(1) to mean the Court of Queen's Bench - The court rejected the argument that the CPA did not exclude arbitration but rather created concurrent jurisdiction - See paragraphs 42 to 50.

Arbitration - Topic 2512

Stay of proceedings - Bar to stay - Action respecting validity of contract with arbitration clause - The plaintiff signed a "Fast Cash Advance Agreement" (FCA Agreement) each time she obtained a fast cash advance - In her action, she claimed that the FCA Agreements failed to comply with the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) and constituted unconscionable transactions under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act (UTRA) - She also claimed on the basis of unjust enrichment, constructive trust, restitution and conspiracy - The defendant Money Mart moved for a stay, on the basis of the arbitration provisions in the FCA Agreements - The claim against the defendant Dollar Financial (not a party to the FCA Agreements), was framed in unjust enrichment, conspiracy, and joint and several liability - Money Mart argued that it was reasonable to have bifurcated arbitration and litigation proceedings - The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench refused to grant a partial stay - A partial stay should be granted only if it was reasonable to separate the matters subject to arbitration from the other matters in the litigation - The claims against Money Mart under the UTRA and the CPA, and those against Dollar Financial (which the court had concluded were not subject to arbitration) were inextricably linked to the claims against Money Mart outside of the UTRA and the CPA (which were subject to arbitration) - It would be unreasonable to separate those claims and have parallel proceedings in the court and before an arbitrator - See paragraphs 52 to 61.

Arbitration - Topic 2514

Stay of proceedings - Bar to stay - Multiplicity of proceedings - [See third Arbitration - Topic 2512 ].

Cases Noticed:

Scott v. Avery, [1856] V.H.L.C. 809, refd to. [para. 17].

Bloomer Hotel Corp. et al. v. Boehm Hotel Corp. et al. (2009), 240 Man.R.(2d) 69; 456 W.A.C. 69; 75 C.P.C.(6th) 150; 2009 MBCA 68, refd to. [para. 23].

Bisaillon v. Concordia University, [2006] 1 S.C.R. 666; 348 N.R. 201, refd to. [para. 24].

Dell Computer Corp. v. Union des consommateurs et al., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 801; 366 N.R. 1; 2007 SCC 34, refd to. [para. 24].

MacKinnon v. National Money Mart Co. et al. (2009), 267 B.C.A.C. 276; 450 W.A.C. 276; 304 D.L.R.(4th) 331; 2009 BCCA 103, refd to. [para. 24].

Muroff v. Rogers Wireless Inc., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 921; 365 N.R. 177; 2007 SCC 35, refd to. [para. 25].

Seidel v. Telus Communications Inc., [2011] 1 S.C.R. 531; 412 N.R. 195; 301 B.C.A.C. 1; 510 W.A.C. 1; 2011 SCC 15, appld. [para. 25].

Hopkins v. Ventura Custom Homes Ltd. (2013), 294 Man.R.(2d) 168; 581 W.A.C. 168; 2013 MBCA 67, refd to. [para. 25].

Communities Economic Development Fund v. Canadian Pickles Corp. et al., [1991] 3 S.C.R. 388; 131 N.R. 81; 76 Man.R.(2d) 1; 10 W.A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 35].

Young v. Dollar Financial Group Inc. et al. (2012). 550 A.R. 114; 356 D.L.R.(4th) 346; 2012 ABQB 601, refd to. [para. 40].

Zwack et al. v. Pocha et al., [2013] 3 W.W.R. 194; 404 Sask.R. 275; 2012 SKQB 371, dist. [para. 44].

Desputeaux v. Editions Chouette (1987) Inc., [2003] 1 S.C.R. 178; 301 N.R. 220; 2003 SCC 17, refd to. [para. 46].

Murphy v. Amway Canada et al. (2011), 401 F.T.R. 18; 2011 FC 1341, refd to. [para. 49].

Hammer Pizza Ltd. v. Domino's Pizza of Canada Ltd., [1997] A.J. No. 67 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 54].

Javor et al. v. Francoeur et al., [2003] B.C.T.C. 350; 13 B.C.L.R.(4th) 195; 2003 BCSC 350, affd. [2004] B.C.A.C. Uned. 56; 25 B.C.L.R.(4th) 114; 2004 BCCA 134, refd to. [para. 54].

Shaw Satellite G.P. v. Pieckenhagen et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 4360; 337 D.L.R.(4th) 369; 2011 ONSC 4360, affd. [2012] O.A.C. Uned. 157; 347 D.L.R.(4th) 452; 2012 ONCA 192, refd to. [para. 54].

Rivergate Properties Inc. v. West St. Paul (Rural Municipality) (2001), 161 Man.R.(2d) 50; 2001 MBQB 325, refd to. [para. 56].

Chrysler Canada Inc. v. Eastwood Chrysler Dodge Ltd. et al. (2010), 262 Man.R.(2d) 1; 507 W.A.C. 1; 2010 MBCA 75, refd to. [para. 56].

New Era Nutrition Inc. v. Balance Bar Co. (2004), 357 A.R. 184; 334 W.A.C. 184; 245 D.L.R.(4th) 107; 2004 ABCA 280, refd to. [para. 58].

Radewych v. Brookfield Homes (Ontario) Ltd. et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. D70; 158 A.C.W.S.(3d) 523 (Sup. Ct.), affd. [2007] O.A.C. Uned. 403; 161 A.C.W.S.(3d) 185; 2007 ONCA 721, refd to. [para. 59].

Griffin v. Dell Canada Inc. (2010), 259 O.A.C. 108; 98 O.R.(3d) 481; 2010 ONCA 29, leave to appeal refused (2010), 409 N.R. 378; 275 O.A.C. 398 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 60].

Frambordeaux Developments Inc. v. Romandale Farms Ltd. et al., [2007] O.T.C. Uned. O13; 162 A.C.W.S.(3d) 711 (Sup. Ct.), refd to. [para. 60].

Toronto Community Housing Corp. et al. v. ThyssenKrupp Elevator (Canada) Ltd. et al., [2011] O.T.C. Uned. 4914; 19 C.P.C.(7th) 280; 2011 ONSC 4914, refd to. [para. 60].

Burns and Roe of Canada Ltd. v. Deuterium of Canada Ltd. et al., [1975] 2 S.C.R. 124; 1 N.R. 607; 7 N.S.R.(2d) 601, refd to. [para. 65].

Cable & Wireless plc v. IBM United Kingdom Ltd., [2002] E.W.H.C. 2059, refd to. [para. 66].

Computershare Ltd. v. Perpetual Registrars Ltd. and Ors (No. 2), [2000] V.S.C. 233, refd to. [para. 66].

3130231 Manitoba Ltd. v. Burntwood Regional Health Authority Inc. (2000), 98 A.C.W.S.(3d) 106; 2000 MBQB 106, refd to. [para. 66].

Statutes Noticed:

Arbitration Act, S.M. 1997, c. 4; C.C.S.M., c. A-120, sect. 7(2), sect. 7(5) [para. 9].

Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. U-20; C.C.S.M., c. U-20, sect. 2, sect. 3, sect. 4 [para. 13].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Sullivan, Ruth, Sullivan on the Construction of Statutes (5th Ed. 2008), p. 210 [para. 35].

Counsel:

Paul R. Bennett, Mathew P. Good and Gavin Wood, for the plaintiff;

John P. Brown and David J. Kroft, for the defendant, National Money Mart Co.;

No one appeared for the defendant, Dollar Financial Group Inc.

This motion was heard before Perlmutter, A.C.J.Q.B., of the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, Winnipeg Centre, who delivered the following judgment, dated July 11, 2013.