Quick Auto Lease Inc. v. Nordin, 2014 MBCA 32

• Judge: Mainella, J.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Manitoba)
• Case Date: March 13, 2014
• Jurisdiction: Manitoba
• Citations: 2014 MBCA 32;(2014), 303 Man.R.(2d) 262 (CA)

Quick Auto Lease Inc. v. Nordin (2014), 303 Man.R.(2d) 262 (CA);

      600 W.A.C. 262

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2014] Man.R.(2d) TBEd. AP.001

Quick Auto Lease Inc. (claimant/appellant/applicant) v. Bonnie Nordin (defendant/respondent/respondent)

(AI 13-30-08096; 2014 MBCA 32)

Indexed As: Quick Auto Lease Inc. v. Nordin

Manitoba Court of Appeal

Mainella, J.A.

March 25, 2014.

Summary:

In a small claims appeal, Quick Auto Lease Inc. sought to recover from Nordin $5,969 plus pre and post-judgment interest at 25% which it said was owing under the terms of a car lease.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, in a decision reported at (2013), 298 Man.R.(2d) 251, exercised its jurisdiction under s. 2 of the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act to dismiss the claim. Quick Auto sought leave to appeal.

The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Mainella, J.A., dismissed the application.

Practice - Topic 9762.2

Small claims - Appeals - Procedure (incl. leave to appeal) - In a small claims appeal, Quick Auto Lease Inc. sought to recover from Nordin $5,969 plus pre and post-judgment interest at 25% which it said was owing under the terms of a car lease - The small claims appeal court determined that some of the items that made up the amount claimed were unenforceable as the transaction was a sale, rather than a lease, and aspects of the contract did not comply with the disclosure requirements of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) - The court exercised its jurisdiction under s. 2 of the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act to dismiss the claim - Quick Auto sought leave to appeal - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Mainella, J.A., dismissed the application - Consideration of the requirements of the CPA and the unique language of used car contracts raised a question where the facts and the law were inextricably intertwined - This issue did not raise an appealable question of law - See paragraphs 6 and 7.

Practice - Topic 9762.2

Small claims - Appeals - Procedure (incl. leave to appeal) - In a small claims appeal, Quick Auto Lease Inc. sought to recover from Nordin $5,969 plus pre and post-judgment interest at 25% which it said was owing under the terms of a car lease - The small claims appeal court exercised its jurisdiction under s. 2 of the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act to dismiss the claim - Quick Auto sought leave to appeal, asserting, inter alia, that the court erred in law by invoking s. 2 to relieve the debt in the absence of one of the statute's prerequisites: demonstration of an inequality of bargaining positions - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Mainella, J.A., dismissed the application - Section 15 of the Small Claims Act limited appeals to the Court of Appeal to questions of law that were of sufficient importance to merit the court's attention and had arguable merit - This issue did not raise such a question - The proper application of the Act did not need to be revisited by this court - The judge's decision had not altered the law - Nordin had not been unjustly enriched by the decision below - Refusing leave would not create an injustice - See paragraphs 8 to 11, 14 and 15.

Practice - Topic 9762.2

Small claims - Appeals - Procedure (incl. leave to appeal) - In a small claims appeal, Quick Auto Lease Inc. sought to recover from Nordin $5,969 plus pre and post-judgment interest at 25% which it said was owing under the terms of a car lease - The small claims appeal court exercised its jurisdiction under s. 2 of the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act to dismiss the claim - Quick Auto sought leave to appeal, asserting, inter alia, that the proposed appeal was significant because the small claims appeal court's decision that the cost of the loan was excessive had serious implications to subprime lenders - The Manitoba Court of Appeal, per Mainella, J.A., dismissed the application - The decision below was the result of the particular facts here - The small claims appeal court did not determine, nor could it, a maximum interest rate that could be charged for a car loan - See paragraphs 12 and 13.

Cases Noticed:

Bomek and Bomek v. Bomek and Dauphin Plains Credit Union (1983), 20 Man.R.(2d) 150 (C.A.), leave to appeal denied (1983), 52 N.R. 234; 27 Man.R.(2d) 239 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 3].

Granville Savings and Mortgage Corp. v. Slevin et al. (1992), 78 Man.R.(2d) 241; 16 W.A.C. 241 (C.A.), revd. [1993] 4 S.C.R. 279; 160 N.R. 243; 88 Man.R.(2d) 145; 51 W.A.C. 145, refd to. [para. 3].

Calgary (City) v. Northern Construction Co. (1985), 67 A.R. 95 (C.A.), affd. [1987] 2 S.C.R. 757; 80 N.R. 394; 82 A.R. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 4].

Housen v. Nikolaisen et al., [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235; 286 N.R. 1; 219 Sask.R. 1; 272 W.A.C. 1; 2002 SCC 33, refd to. [para. 4].

Penta Protective Coatings Ltd. v. Scott, [2006] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 30; 2006 MBCA 50, refd to. [para. 5].

Schultz v. Kopp Farms et al., [2010] Man.R.(2d) Uned. 14; 2010 MBCA 30, refd to. [para. 5].

King v. Operating Engineers Training Institute of Manitoba Inc. (2011), 270 Man.R.(2d) 63; 524 W.A.C. 63; 2011 MBCA 80, refd to. [para. 7].

Milani v. Banks (1997), 98 O.A.C. 322; 32 O.R.(3d) 557 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 13].

Mintage Financial Corp. v. Shah (2005), 363 A.R. 243; 343 W.A.C. 243; 2005 ABCA 86, leave to appeal denied (2005), 347 N.R. 193 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 13].

4784881 Manitoba Ltd. v. Khidir (2008), 228 Man.R.(2d) 81; 427 W.A.C. 81; 2008 MBCA 49, refd to. [para. 15].

Counsel:

R.I. Holloway and T.J. Webber, for the applicant;

B. Nordin, no appearance.

This application was heard in Chambers on March 13, 2014, by Mainella, J.A., of the Manitoba Court of Appeal, who delivered the following decision on March 25, 2014.