Court of Queen ’ s Bench of Alberta Citation: Canada (Attorney General) v. Chak, 2010 ABQB 816 Date: 20101220 Docket: 0103 04598 Registry: Edmonton Between: The Attorney General of Canada Plaintiff - and - Nagham Mujahid Chak, also known as Naghman Mujahid Chak Defendant _______________________________________________________ Reasons for Judgment of the Honourable Mr. Justice J.J. Gill _______________________________________________________

Summary [ 1 ] In this

Summary Trial the Plaintiff is seeking Judgment for amounts it claims are owing under student loans.

Background [ 2 ] The Plaintiff commenced an action in February 2001 claiming Judgment for the sum of $22,626.44 plus interest, arising from six student Loan Agreements entered into by the Defendant. Particulars of the agreements were as follows: Date of Agreement Amount of Loan January 3, 1991 $1,205 September 3, 1991 $2,750 September 10, 1993 $3,570 August 25, 1994 $5,015 September 1, 1995 $4,655 September 3, 1996 $4,780 [ 3 ] The Plaintiff brought an application for

Summary Judgment on November 7, 2005 in front of Master Wacowich.

Summary Judgment was granted for $7,525 plus interest with respect to the three

(3) Student Loan Agreements dated January 3, 1991, September 3, 1991 and September 10, 1993. [ 4 ] The Defendant denied signing the other three

(3) Student Loan Agreements dated August 25, 1994, September 1, 1995 and September 3, 1996, (“the Loan Agreements”). The Master determined that these matters could not be decided on a

Summary Judgment application as credibility was an issue and directed a trial. [ 5 ] The Defendant appealed the Order of the Master. The appeal which was heard by Mr. Justice Yamauchi on February 6, 2008 was dismissed with costs. Evidence [ 6 ] In support of this

summary trial the Plaintiff filed eleven Affidavits. These include Affidavits sworn by Mr. Michel Lafleur an officer of the federal Department of Human Resources Development, and Ms. Christine Gibson a Supervisor with Financial Services at the University of Alberta. The Affidavits document the student loans and the distribution of the funds. The Defendant testified. [ 7 ] The Loan Agreements all contain the following information: (

a) The name of the Defendant.

(

b) An Edmonton address for the Defendant which he acknowledges was the address that he has lived at for approximately 30 years. (

c) The Defendant’s social insurance number. (

d) The Defendant’s student ID number. (

e) The Defendant’s date of birth. (

f) The new loan amount distributed ,the amount if any, brought forward from previous loans and the total principal carried forward. [ 8 ] The Defendant testified that he registered and attended the University of Alberta in the Fall of 1993, the Winter of 1994, the Winter and Fall of 1995, the Fall of 1996, and the Winter of 1997. He started at the University in 1992. [ 9 ] The Defendant agreed that the amounts shown on the Loan Agreements as being remitted directly to the University of Alberta were actually paid on his behalf to the University. These amounts are as follows: (

a) Under the Loan Agreement dated August 25, 1994 (loan number 0507309) the amount of $1,067.44. (

b) Under the Loan Agreement dated September 1, 1995 (loan number 0621250) the amount of $1,855.92. (

c) Under the Loan Agreement dated September 3, 1996 (loan number 1491247) the amount of $1,012.58. [ 10 ] The Defendant denied receiving the balance of the new loan amounts which are set out in the Loan Agreements. [ 11 ] The Defendant had misplaced all his bank records and was unable to afford replacements. [ 12 ] Each of the Loan Agreements has two student signatures. The signature in the middle of the document instructs the lender to remit certain funds to the educational institution.

The signature at the bottom of the document appears below a statement in which the student certifies the information on the form is correct and agrees to the conditions. [ 13 ] In his testimony the Defendant denied that the signature at the bottom of the Loan Agreement dated August 25, 1994 (loan number 0507309) was his signature. During an Examination for Discovery on November 22, 2001 he admitted that this was his signature. [ 14 ] In his testimony the Defendant denied that the signature at the bottom of the Loan Agreement dated September 1, 1995 (loan number 0621250) was his signature.

During an Examination for Discovery on November 22, 2001 he admitted that this was his signature [ 15 ] No explanation was provided for these discrepancies in his testimony.

[ 16 ] In regards to Loan Agreement dated September 3, 1996 (loan number 1491247) the Defendant denied that it was his signature at the bottom of this Loan Agreement. [ 17 ] Demand letters were sent to the Plaintiff in September ,1997 and February 1998. Issues 1. Did the Defendant sign the Loan Agreements dated August 25, 1994, September 1, 1995 and September 3, 1996(“the Loan Agreements”)? 2. What is the amount of indebtedness owing under the loan agreements? Analysis 1.

Did the Defendant sign the Loan Agreements dated August 25, 1994, September 1, 1995 and September 3, 1996? [ 18 ] I find the Defendant’s evidence to be not credible or trustworthy for two reasons. [ 19 ] Firstly he gave conflicting evidence under oath in relation to two of the Loan Agreements. [ 20 ] Secondly the circumstances surrounding the transactions strongly support the inference that he signed the Loan Agreements. All his personal information appears on these forms. He was attending the University of Alberta during the time period.

He acknowledged receiving the benefit of at least part of these loans ,as certain amounts identified in the Loan Agreements were paid directly to the University of Alberta on his behalf. [ 21 ] This evidence overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that the Defendant signed the Loan Agreements and received the amounts distributed under the Loan Agreements. 2. What is the amount of indebtedness owing under the Loan Agreements? [ 22 ] The Defendant raised an issue in relation to the amounts outstanding under the Loan Agreements.

He noted that the loans were actually managed and disbursed by the CIBC Bank and he pointed to a document which appears to indicate that the total amount that the Plaintiff was responsible for was between $12,000 to $13,000 pursuant to the subrogation provision (section 30) of the Canada Student Loans Act , R.S., 1985, c. S-23.

However the evidence of the Plaintiff contained in the Affidavit of Michael LeFleur, satisfies me that this argument is without any merit as the amounts claimed by the Plaintiff are with respect to both guaranteed student loans and risk loans. [ 23 ] The amounts claimed are owing under the Loan Agreements.

Summary

[ 24 ] Judgment is granted in the amount claimed of $14,450 plus interest calculated pursuant to the Loan Agreements and taxable costs. Heard on the 15 th day of December, 2010. Dated at the City of Edmonton, Alberta this 20 th day of December, 2010. J.J. Gill J.C.Q.B.A. Appearances: Kanchana Fernando Department of Justice Canada for the Plaintiff Arman Chak for the Defendant