The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision arising from a dispute with a telecommunications provider over billing following the cancellation of bundled services.
The deputy judge had found the provider’s billing communications confusing and its collection letters aggressive, but concluded the plaintiff failed to prove financial loss caused by the billing practices.
Nominal damages of $200 were awarded for mailing costs and the time spent addressing the collection efforts, together with modest costs.
On appeal, the court confirmed that jurisdiction existed because the amount claimed in the action exceeded the statutory threshold under s. 31 of the Courts of Justice Act.
The court found no reversible error in the deputy judge’s findings or the costs disposition and dismissed both the appeal and the cross‑appeal.
