CITATION: Oliver Bajor v. Royal Bank of Canada 2016 ONSC 1450
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-79/14 DATE: 20160307
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Oliver Bajor Appellant
– and –
Royal Bank of Canada Respondent
Oliver Bajor, for the Appellant James Riewald, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: February 24, 2016
Stewart, J.
[1] Oliver Bajor (“Bajor”) appeals from the decision dated January 6, 2014 of Deputy Judge Seevaratnam following a trial in Small Claims Court. Seevaratnam dismissed his action and granted judgment to the Royal Bank of Canada (“RBC”) on its claim for amounts owing under Bajor’s VISA credit card.
[2] RBC submits that there is no basis in law or on the evidence to justify interference with decision of the trial Judge.
Jurisdiction
[3] An appeal lies to the Divisional Court from a final order of the Small Claims Court. Such appeal is to be heard by a single judge (see: s.31 and s.21(2)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43).
Standard of Review
[4] The standard of review in an appeal of an order of a judge is set out in Housen v. Nikolarsan, 2002 SCC 33, [2002] 2 S.C.R. 235. On questions of law, the standard is correctness. On questions of fact, the standard is palpable and overriding error. On questions of mixed fact and law, there is a spectrum. However, with respect to the application of the correct legal principles to the evidence, the standard is palpable and overriding error.
Background Facts
[5] In November of 2008, Bajor was offered an RBC Royal Bank Visa card.
[6] The Visa provided for an introductory interest rate of 2.9% per annum on cash advances which would take effect upon approval of Bajor’s application and remain in effect through the first 9 monthly Visa statement billing periods approximately 9 months from the dates of opening the account.
[7] The Visa card provided for an interest rate of 19.5% per annum on all other interest bearing purchases.
[8] After the expiry of the introductory period, the interest rate was to rise to 19.5% per annum on all transactions.
[9] Bajor signed and returned the Visa card acceptance form to RBC in November of 2008.
[10] Thereafter, Bajor used the Visa card. By September 11, 2009, the outstanding balance on the account was $6,389.08.
[11] Beginning with the August 12 to September 11, 2009 billing period, the interest rate payable on cash advances under the Visa card increased to 19.5% per annum.
[12] On September 12, 2009, Bajor contacted RBC to dispute the rise in interest rate charged on cash advances. He asserted that the interest rate on past balances should remain at 2.9%.
[13] RBC advised Bajor that the introductory rate on cash advances expired on August 31, 2009 and that the correct interest rate was 19.5%.
[14] Despite a continuing dispute with RBC about the applicable interest rate on the Visa card, Bajor continued to use the Visa card to fund a trip and for other expenses.
[15] By September 13, 2010, the amount outstanding for a short time had increased to $11,267.48.
[16] Bajor ceased making the minimum payments or any payments.
dISCUSSION
[17] Bajor’s action against RBC appears to be founded on his description of RBC’s practices as being predatory and unfair.
[18] As a result of this unfairness or unconscionability, Bajor maintains that he should be relieved of his financial obligation to RBC and should receive damages by way of compensation. Bajor asserts that the increased rate of interest should have applied only to the new purchases and transactions made with the card, and not to the outstanding balance still owing.
[19] The trial judge concluded that none of the features or facts to which Bajor referred would operate as to nullify the contractual relationship between, and obligations, of the parties. The trial judge found that Bajor had failed to prove oppressive, unfair or unprofessional conduct by RBC. In my opinion, there was evidence before the trial judge upon which such a conclusion was reasonably available.
[20] The evidence adduced at trial, including the promotional material provided to Bajor by RBC, the contractual language governing the account, and the language on the account statements were considered by the trial judge to support a conclusion that Bajor had agreed to and was bound by the terms of the contract he had made with RBC. The terms of use of the Visa card provide that the 19.5% interest rate would apply to balances carried forward following the expiry of the promotional period. In my opinion, there was ample evidence upon which that conclusion was reasonably available to the trial judge.
[21] On all of the evidence before the trial judge, her decisions are supportable. I can see no palpable or overriding error that would justify appellate intervention.
Conclusion
[22] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.
Costs
[23] If the RBC is seeking its costs of the appeal it may provide written submissions on that subject within 20 days of today’s date. Bajor may provide his written submissions as to costs within 15 days thereafter.
___________________________ Stewart J.
Released: March 7, 2016
CITATION: Oliver Bajor v. Royal Bank of Canada 2016 ONSC 1450
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-79/14 DATE: 20160307
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT
BETWEEN:
Oliver Bajor Appellant
– and –
Royal Bank of Canada Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Stewart J.
Released: March 7, 2016