Reported as: 2018 SKQB 112
Docket Number: QBG 820/17 JCS , QB17500
Court: Court of Queen's Bench
Date: 2018-04-12
Judges:
- Dovell
Subjects:
- Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rules, Part 8
- Civil Procedure � Queen�s Bench Rules, Rule 7-5
- Civil Procedure � Costs � Solicitor � Client Costs
- Debtor and Creditor � Credit Card
Digest: The plaintiff, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, applied for summary judgment pursuant to Queen�s Bench rule 7-2 and rule 7-5. In its statement of claim issued under the expedited procedure as set out in Part 8 of The Queen�s Bench Rules, the plaintiff claimed against the defendant regarding debts owed to it by her on two VISA credit cards and for solicitor-client costs. The defendant had applied for and been granted the first credit card in 2006 with a credit limit of $39,000. The plaintiff defaulted on her payments August 2016 and the balance owing as at December 2017 was $51,750 and interest charged at $29.58 per diem. The plaintiff demanded payment of the total balance in March 2017. In the demand letter the plaintiff informed the defendant that it would seek solicitor-client costs if it was necessary to commence a claim to collect the debt. The second card was acquired by the plaintiff in 2007 and it had a credit limit of $5,500. The plaintiff defaulted on her payments after March 2017. The balance owing as April 2017 was $5,550 with interest charged at $3.00 per diem. The plaintiff demanded payment of the total balance in May 2017 and the demand letter contained the same information regarding its intent to seek solicitor-client costs. The affidavits it submitted to support its application included as exhibits account statements rendered to, and correspondence with, the defendant. The defendant raised pseudo-legal objections to the plaintiff�s claim.
HELD: The plaintiff�s application for summary judgment was granted. The court found that it was an appropriate case for summary judgment that was not precluded by the commencement of the action under Part 8 of The Queen�s Bench Rules, as permitted specifically by rule 8-6(2)(c). The case was based upon documents and the evidence was not contested. There was no genuine issue for trial and the defendant had not raised a valid defence. It gave judgment in the amount of $61,900 against the defendant which represented the total of two credit card...
