2013 ONSC 5225, 2013 ONSC 5225

CITATION : Aljamal v. Bell Canada, 2013 ONSC 5225 COURT FILE NO.: 1966/12 DATE: 2013/09/04 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO RE: Farid Khamis Aljamal (Appellant/Plaintiff) (Respondent by way of Cross-Appeal) - and - Bell Canada (Respondent/Defendant) (Appellant by way of Cross-Appeal) - and - Collectcorp Inc. (Respondent/Defendant) BEFORE: Justice A. W. Bryant COUNSEL: Farid Aljamal, Appellant/Plaintiff, appearing in person Lisa Alleyne & Courtney Roedding, for the Respondent, Appellant by way of Cross-Appeal, Bell Canada HEARD: August 7, 2013 ENDORSEMENT [ 1 ] The Appellant, Mr.

Aljamal, received a letter from Bell Canada (“Bell”) offering bundled services (telephone, TV, and internet) for 30 days. Mr. Aljamal accepted the offer but immediately cancelled the services because he found them unsatisfactory. Bell sent invoices and attempted to collect outstanding fees under the alleged contract. Mr. Aljamal issued a claim in Small Claims Court for $5,000 which was subsequently amended to $25,000. [ 2 ]

Section 31 of the Courts of Justice Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43 provides: An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a final order of the Small Claims Court in an action, (

a) for the payment of money in excess of the prescribed amount, excluding costs. The prescribed amount is set out in section 2(1) of O. Reg. 626/00 of the Courts of Justice Act as follows: “For the purposes of clause 31(

a) of the Act, the prescribed amount is $2,500”. [ 3 ] In Action Auto Leasing & Gallery Inc. v. Robillard et al. , 2011 ONSC 3264 , 106 O.R.(3d) 281 , at para. 36 , Heeney J., as a single judge of the Divisional Court, held that the matter in dispute is the amount claimed in the action. Accordingly, I have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

[ 4 ] Deputy Judge MacDonald found that Bell’s offer of services was confusing. The deputy judge needed the assistance of a Bell witness to understand the bills sent to Mr. Aljamal. She found that the Plaintiff failed to prove that he suffered a financial loss as a result of Bell’s billing and collection methods. However, she did find that Bell’s collection letters were aggressive and that the corporation threatened to attack Mr. Aljamal’s credit rating if he refused to pay the corporation’s bills but did not accept Mr. Aljamal’s submission that Bell’s billing practices were dishonest.

She awarded nominal damages to the Plaintiff for mailing costs and the time- consuming efforts made by Mr. Aljamal to rectify and resolve the ongoing demands made by Bell. This is an adequate evidentiary basis for the award of $200 for nominal damages. [ 5 ] With respect to costs, the deputy judge was informed that Bell made two offers to settle, neither of which were accepted by Mr. Aljamal. The offers were more favourable to Mr. Aljamal than the $200 nominal damages award.

The deputy judge awarded costs of $100 to the Plaintiff for the representation fee, expenses, plus disbursements for issuing, serving, and setting the action down for trial. The costs dispensation is entitled to a high level of deference. I see no error in principle. [ 6 ] The appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed without costs. _____________________ Justice A. W. Bryant Date : September 4 , 2013