2014 QCCQ 11500, 2014 QCCQ 11500

Singh c. Canadian Consumer Credit Assistance (CCCA) 2014 QCCQ 11500 COURT OF QUEBEC Small Claims Division CANADA PROVINCE OF QUEBEC DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Civil Division No: 500-32-139561-130 DATE: November 11, 2014 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDED BY THE HONOURABLE DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ JATINDER SINGH […] Lachine, Qc […] Plaintiff v.

CANADIAN CONSUMER CREDIT ASSISTANCE (CCCA) 7015, Tranmera Drive, unit 20 Mississauga, Ontario L5S 1T7 Defendants ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT ______________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] Jatinder Singh, a former client of Canadian Consumer Credit Assistance (CCCA), a firm in Mississauga, Ontario, sues for the recovery of $ 700.00 that he advanced to CCCA, in the early part of 2011. [ 2 ] Mr Singh alleges that he advanced this money so that CCCA would assist him with his insolvency.

He asserts that nothing was done to assist him that he eventually obtained services from a trustee in bankruptcy and he therefore claims back the $ 700.00 he advanced. [ 3 ] Mr Singh obtained a default judgment in his favour, on June 9, 2014.

Mr Jasbir Hundal had attended Court the day of the trial but arrived late because he had misunderstood the convocation which was written in French, a language he does not understand. [ 4 ] At the hearing, the Court permitted the revocation of the default judgment and heard the case again on its merits. [ 5 ] CCCA is, according to Mr Hundal, registered with the Superintendant of Bankruptcy as a registered credit counsellor. Mr Singh had an insolvency problem because he had failed to pay credit cards in 2009.

He owed approximately $ 30,000.00. [ 6 ] He approached CCCA for advice and was told that there would be a fee of approximately $ 1,100.00. He advanced several amounts over time and eventually had paid approximately $ 700.00. [ 7 ] Mr Singh was under the impression that CCCA would, for a fee, obtain a solution where he could pay a certain amount per month and restore his credit situation. [ 8 ] Mr Singh understood that for the fee, he would be permitted to pay approximately $ 250.00 per month toward his debts and this would solve the problem.

He did in fact advance a total of $ 700.00 over a period of time, but he did not understand what the contract entailed as he had nothing in writing from CCCA. [ 9 ] He received request from CCCA’s office for additional payments but decided to stop. He requested receipt of the documents he signed and refused to pay any more money when these documents were not forthcoming. [ 10 ] Much later, on July 17, 2013, he wrote to CCCA claiming the return of the $ 700.00 he had paid previously. [ 11 ] Mr Singh eventually engaged a trustee in bankruptcy and went through personal bankruptcy proceedings.

[ 12 ] Effectively, he received no services from CCCA. [ 13 ] Mr Jasbir Hundal, representing CCCA, asserts that his office prepared the documents so that Mr Singh could file a Consumer Proposal and he then attempted to have Mr Singh meet with Arthur Blumer, the trustee that Mr Singh eventually met on his own to file for bankruptcy. [ 14 ] Mr Hundal asserts that his office made appointments for Mr Singh to sign up documents at the trustee’s office, but that Mr Singh neglected to attend. [ 15 ] CCCA does not make any counterclaim but asserts that it is entitled to keep the money that was advanced to it because it did some preparatory work.

ANALYSIS [ 16 ] The Court must determine whether in fact the contract between the parties was formed, what that contract provided for and whether any amounts are owing under the contract. [ 17 ] This task is made extremely difficult by virtue of the fact that no written contract was submitted to Mr Singh for his consideration.

Then, it becomes very difficult for CCCA to prove that it gave him any advice or even that it clarified with him the object and goals of the contract, what services would in fact be given and what the required result would be. [ 18 ] As a consequence, Mr Singh is completely confused about what CCCA was going to provide for him. He tells the Court that he would make monthly payments and his credit situation would be corrected.

He is not really clear on whether the payments he made were part of the contract price owed to CCCA or whether they were some form of payment of his debt to his creditors. [ 19 ] He asked for but received no documentation and really has no idea what occurred. [ 20 ] He eventually solved his problem in a different way by filing for bankruptcy.

He used the same trustee that CCCA had referred him to. [ 21 ] In the event that a company such as CCCA refers a costumer to a trustee, one is hard pressed to understand what service CCCA is providing other than that referral. [ 22 ] In the case before the Court, there is insufficient evidence of the existence of a contract between CCCA and Mr Singh because it is impossible to establish what the content of that contract would be. [ 23 ] Mr Singh consented to pay money but he has no idea what he was paying for. The contract is a nullity because of lack of consent.

Mr Singh should receive reimbursement of the money he gave. He was informed neither of why he had given the money, nor why it would not be given back to him. [ 24 ] It would have been simpler and clearer if CCCA had given him some written information about the process, explained in writing what it intended to do for him, and spelt out for him what was expected of him and what result he could hope to achieve. [ 25 ] Because none of this was done, the money was received without there being any benefit provided and it should be returned.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: CONDEMNS the Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $ 700.00, together with interests at the legal rate of 5% per anumn, as well as the additional indemnity provided at

article 1619 of the Civil code of Québec , calculated from the date of institution of the proceedings. ______________________________ DAVID L. CAMERON, J.C.Q. Date of hearing: September 9, 2014