Digest: The Bank of Nova Scotia v Radoux, 2018 SKQB 111

• Date: April 12, 2018

Reported as: 2018 SKQB 111

Docket Number: QBG 819/17 JCS , QB17499

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 Bank of Nova Scotia, brought an application pursuant to Queen�s Bench rules 7-2 and rule 7-5 for summary judgment allowing its claim against the defendant with regard to his debt to the plaintiff. The defendant had applied for and been granted a VISA credit card by the plaintiff in 2014. The card had a limit of $20,000. The balance owing on the card as at March 2017 was $23,000 and the interest charged was at 24.99 percent. The last payment made by the defendant was in September 2016 and the plaintiff demanded payment of the total balance in March 2017. The plaintiff issued its statement of claim in June 2017 under the expedited procedure set out in Part 8 of The Queen�s Bench Rules. The affidavits it submitted to support its application included the account statements it rendered to the defendant and their correspondence with him. 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 requiring a trial and the defendant had not raised a valid defence. The plaintiff was awarded judgment in the amount of $28,700. The court found that it was entitled to solicitor-client costs as the defendant had received notice from the plaintiff that if the VISA debt was not paid, it would seek such costs.

Rules Considered:

• QB Rule 1-3(1)
• QB Rule 1-3(2)
• QB Rule 7
• QB Rule 7-2
• QB Rule 7-3
• QB Rule 7-4
• QB Rule 7-5
• QB Rule 8-6(1)
• QB Rule 8-6(2)(c)

Cases Considered:

• Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v Hartloff, 2016 SKQB 155, 266 ACWS (3d) 614
• Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v Flesch, 2011 ONCA 764, 108 OR...