Mikhelidze v. Bogomazov, (2015) 482 Sask.R. 317 (PC)

• Judge: Metivier, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 04, 2015
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2015), 482 Sask.R. 317 (PC);2015 SKPC 72

Mikhelidze v. Bogomazov (2015), 482 Sask.R. 317 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Sask.R. TBEd. OC.030

Nana Mikhelidze v. Igor Bogomazov

(File: SC No. 478; 2015 SKPC 72)

Indexed As: Mikhelidze v. Bogomazov

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Civil Division

Metivier, P.C.J.

May 4, 2015.

Summary:

The plaintiff was a certified immigration consultant. The plaintiff and defendant entered into an Agency Agreement, drafted by the defendant, under which the defendant agreed to act as the plaintiff's agent in Saskatchewan for the purpose of providing immigration related services. It was agreed that the fees would be paid to the plaintiff who would transfer 50% to the defendant. The defendant advised the plaintiff that he knew of a Saskatchewan employer, Olga Enterprise, that could hire 10 foreign workers. The plaintiff entered into Retainer Agreements with seven clients in Georgia and Armenia that wished to apply for residence in Saskatchewan under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP). The Retainer Agreement was drafted by the defendant. The plaintiff completed the applications and submitted them to SNIP. The clients paid approximately $49,000 to the plaintiff, who transferred $24,358 to the defendant. SINP rejected the applications, advising that the job offers provided by Olga Enterprise were not approved. The plaintiff honoured the refund policy container in the Retainer Agreement and returned the fees to the clients. She demanded that the defendant reimburse her for his share of the fees ($24,358). The defendant refused.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that there was a collateral agreement between the parties that the defendant would be bound by the refund policy in the Retainer Agreement. The plaintiff was granted judgment against the defendant in the amount of $20,000, which was the monetary limit under the Small Claims Act.

Contracts - Topic 1484

Formation of contract - Collateral contracts - What constitutes a collateral contract - [See Contracts - Topic 8406 ].

Contracts - Topic 8406

Collateral agreements - General - What constitutes - The plaintiff was a certified immigration consultant - The plaintiff and defendant entered into an Agency Agreement, drafted by the defendant, under which the defendant agreed to act as the plaintiff's agent in Saskatchewan for the purpose of providing immigration related services - It was agreed that the fees would be paid to the plaintiff who would transfer 50% to the defendant - The defendant advised the plaintiff that he knew of a Saskatchewan employer, Olga Enterprise, that could hire 10 foreign workers - The plaintiff entered into Retainer Agreements with seven clients in Georgia and Armenia that wished to apply for residence in Saskatchewan under the Saskatchewan Immigrant Nominee Program (SINP) - The Retainer Agreement was drafted by the defendant - The plaintiff completed the applications and submitted them to SINP - The clients paid approximately $49,000 to the plaintiff, who transferred $24,358 to the defendant - SINP rejected the applications, advising that the job offers provided by Olga Enterprise were not approved - The plaintiff honoured the refund policy in the Retainer Agreement and returned the fees to the clients - She demanded that the defendant reimburse her for his share of the fees ($24,358) - The defendant refused - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that there was a collateral agreement between the parties that the defendant would be bound by the refund policy in the Retainer Agreement - The terms of the refund policy were set out in the Retainer Agreement and were not inconsistent with the Agency Agreement - The defendant's intention to be bound by the refund policy was demonstrated by emails he sent to the plaintiff acknowledging the debt - The defendant was fully aware of the refund policy and intended to be contractually bound to return his portion of the fee if the applications were rejected by SINP - Accordingly, the plaintiff was granted judgment in the amount of $20,000, the monetary limit under the Small Claims Act.

Counsel:

Justin Luddington, for the plaintiff;

Defendant, self-represented.

This claim was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before Metivier, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment on May 4, 2015.