COURT FILE NO.: 471-07

DATE: 20080304

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

B E T W E E N:

VAHE KETENJIAN

Plaintiff/Appellant

• and -

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO

Defendants/Respondents

In Person

Shama Ansari, for the Defendant/Respondent, The Attorney General of Ontario

HEARD at Toronto: March 4, 2008

CUMMING J.: (Orally)

1On September 12, 2007, the respondent Attorney General of Canada was awarded judgment in Small Claims Court against the appellant, Mr. Vahe Ketenjian (self represented on this appeal), for $3,167.82, plus post-judgment interest for monies owing for an outstanding Canada-Ontario integrated student loan issued January 7, 2005.

2This judgment was given by Deputy Judge L. D. Wheatley by endorsement at a settlement conference held that day. She also struck Mr. Ketenjian’s defence and claim without leave to amend at that time, pursuant to Rule 13.05(1) and (2) of the Small Claims Court Rules.

3The appellant appeals to this Court. His appeal largely restates the issues first raised in his defence and defendant’s claim made before the Small Claims Court. It does not appear that he disputes he received the loan in question, or that it was received by York University, the educational institution he was attending.

4The appellant has filed a 408 page Compendium. The Compendium contains a great deal of irrelevant material presented in a manner that makes understanding the appellant’s position difficult. The Compendium contains inter alia: the Notice of Appeal of some 47 pages, a Statement of Claim against York University of September 9, 2005; a list of proposed witnesses for the action brought re the student assistance loan which includes the names of many judges, lawyers, police officers and employees and officers of York University, a copy of an article with the title “Somalia Cover-up”, materials re family counselling, materials from lawyers relating to a family dispute between Mr. Ketenjian and his spouse, court materials in respect thereof, and academic materials relating to courses at York University.

5The Notice of Appeal asks for relief inter alia of $850,460.85 as special damages, $580,405 as general damages and $10 million in punitive damages. This is somewhat above the prescribed limit of $10,000 in jurisdiction for the Small Claims Court under s.23(1) of the Courts of Justice Act.

6Mr. Ketenjian seems to be claiming a “Torts Legal Case” on the basis of a “malice, conspiratorial, tortuous [sic] undertaking(s)”. In his 46 page factum he states that he is asking inter alia on this appeal for (at para. 30, pages 28 and 29):

“An order that the appellant forthwith be absolved of any and all of the respondent and co-respondent conspiratorial tortuous illegally consummated “state prostitute” covert marital cohabitation undertaking(s) and consequences as such, direct or indirect and incidental and/or otherwise, inclusive of the “Marriage Licence”.

7The appellant’s oral argument emphasized that he believes that he has been a target of the Government of Canada since he left high school in 1974.

8Compendium of the Attorney General of Canada (Tab 2, pages 13-20) includes the relevant documentation, being the Certificate of Loan Approval and Eligibility, dated January 7, 2005 and the Loan Agreement, signed by the appellant, Mr. Ketenjian.

9The appellant’s main argument seems to be that there is a single contract in the Canada-Ontario Integrated Student Loans Program and that it is illegal and an abusive process for the Attorney General of Canada alone to take action to collect its purported loan without the participation of the Attorney General of Ontario.

10I disagree. In my view, and I so find, Canada has an independent, enforceable, legal contract with Mr. Ketenjian, entered into pursuant to the authority of the Canada Student Loan Act and Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and the regulations made under that legislation.

11Pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the Canada-Ontario Integrated Student Loan Agreement, Mr. Ketenjian became liable to pay interest accruing on his loan from the first day of the month after the month in which he ceased to be a full-time student, being April 1, 2005. Interest accrued at the floating rate of prime plus 2.50%.

12Mr. Ketenjian did not sign a so called “Consolidation Agreement” as stipulated by condition No. 3(a) of the Additional Terms and Conditions for Full-Time Students (see page 15 of the Attorney General of Canada’s Compendium).

13Thus, he was in default and there was an acceleration such that the entire outstanding balance became immediately due (Condition #6(a) of the Additional Terms and Conditions for Full-Time Students). The principal of $2,640 and interest accrued thereon was due and owing. No payments were made toward the amounts due.

14I can find no real defence to the Attorney General of Canada’s claim.

15In my view, Deputy Judge Wheatley had jurisdiction to make the endorsement she made.

16She had jurisdiction to deal with the plaintiff Attorney General of Canada’s claim: s.23(1) of the Courts of Justice Act. She did not have jurisdiction to deal with Mr. Ketenjian’s claim as a defendant, as it vastly exceeded the Small Claim Court’s prescribed jurisdiction.

17There was no request by Mr. Ketenjian under s.107(1)(d) of the Courts of Justice Act to transfer the proceeding to the Superior Court of Justice. However, this failure to make such a request is of no import as it is apparent that in all events, the plaintiff Attorney General of Canada would not consent to such transfer. The Attorney General of Canada’s consent is a mandatory requirement under s.107(2) of the Courts of Justice Act.

18Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal of the appellant, Mr. Ketenjian, is dismissed.

COSTS

19The Attorney General of Canada seeks costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the total amount of $4,301.97 but as submitted by the Attorney General’s counsel, these costs have in fact been marked down from the actual time incurred in dealing with the matter. That amount is inclusive of disbursements and GST. The Attorney General for Ontario has requested costs in the amount of $1,000 on a partial indemnity scale inclusive of GST and disbursements. A written Bill of Costs was submitted by the Attorney General for Canada which has been filed.

20In my view, and I so find, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of Ontario are properly entitled to the costs requested. Costs normally follow the event and the exceptional scale of substantial indemnity is called for in this instance given the lack of merit to the appeal. I award costs to the Attorney General of Canada in the total amount of $4,301.97 inclusive of all disbursements and GST and costs to the Attorney General of Ontario in the amount of $1,000 inclusive of GST and all disbursements. All such costs are payable forthwith.

CUMMING J.

Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 4, 2008

Date of Release: March 7, 2008

COURT FILE NO.: 471-07

DATE: 20080304

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

MOTIONS COURT