Royal Bank of Canada v Pauls, 2021 MBCA 86

Citation: Royal Bank of Canada v Pauls, 2021 MBCA 86 Date: 20211008 Docket: AI21-30-09614 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Madam Justice Freda M. Steel Madam Justice Diana M. Cameron Madam Justice Jennifer A. Pfuetzner BETWEEN : ROYAL BANK OF CANADA ) E. Pauls ) on his own behalf (Plaintiff) Respondent ) ) J. R. Seavers - and - ) for the Respondent ) EVAN PAULS ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: (Defendant) Appellant ) October 8, 2021 PFUETZNER JA (for the Court): [ 1 ] The defendant appeals the motion judge’s granting of

summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff in respect of outstanding principal and interest under a line of credit and a VISA credit card account. [ 2 ] The facts are not in dispute. Before the motion judge, the defendant conceded that he entered into contracts with the plaintiff providing for the line of credit and the VISA credit card account. However, he disputed changes made to the interest rates on both accounts on the basis that the plaintiff did not provide sufficiently specific notice of the changes in accordance with the terms of the contracts.

He argued that the notice provided in the monthly statements was not adequate. [ 3 ] The motion judge agreed with the defendant that the notice given was deficient in that the interest rate changes were made retroactive by 30 days prior to the notice provided in the monthly statements on both accounts. He granted

summary judgment to the plaintiff for the amounts claimed under the line of credit and the VISA credit card account, reduced by the amount of the increased interest that was charged during the 30-day period prior to the defendant receiving notice of the increase. [ 4 ] Despite this success, the defendant appeals, arguing that the motion judge erred in not further reducing the interest charges in light of what he characterizes as the plaintiff’s bad faith and breach of contract. [ 5 ] We are all in agreement that, in exercising his discretion to grant

summary judgment as he did, the motion judge made no error in principle, nor was his decision so wrong as to amount to an injustice. He considered all of the defendant’s arguments and accepted that the notice of the interest rate changes was deficient. His decision was reasoned and proportionate. [ 6 ] There is no basis for this Court to intervene. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed with costs. JA JA JA