Grant v. Equifax Canada Co. et al.

[Indexed as: Grant v. Equifax Canada Co.]

Ontario Reports

Court of Appeal for Ontario,

Rouleau, van Rensburg and Benotto JJ.A.

June 23, 2016

132 O.R. (3d) 318 | 2016 ONCA 500

Case Summary

Limitations — Consumer reporting — Two-year limitation period in Limitations Act, 2002 not applying expressly or by implication to Consumer Reporting Act — Application judge correctly dismissing application for order that consumer reporting agencies remove debts over two years old from applicant's credit report where no legal action had been commenced or judgment obtained in respect of those debts — Consumer Reporting Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.33 — Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B.

Relying on the Limitations Act, 2002, the applicant applied for an order that two consumer reporting agencies remove debts over two years old from his credit report where no legal action had been commenced or obtained regarding those debts. The application was dismissed. The applicant appealed.

Held, the appeal should be dismissed.

The Limitations Act does not apply to the Consumer Reporting Act ("CRA") either expressly or by implication. As the passing of a limitation period does not extinguish a debt, but only precludes the commencement of a court proceeding for its enforcement, the reporting of debts after a limitation period has passed is not inconsistent with the purposes of the CRA. Moreover, this reporting is expressly contemplated by the CRA. [page319]

Statutes referred to

Consumer Reporting Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.33 [as am.], ss. 9(1), (3)(f) [as am.]

Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B [as am.]

APPEAL from the judgment of Barnes J. of the Superior Court of Justice dated November 2, 2015.

Gary Grant, acting in person.

Stephen Schwartz, for Equifax Canada Co.

Alan Melamud, for Trans Union of Canada.

Domenico Polla, for Ministry of Government Services and Consumer Services.

Mahmud Jamal and Raphael Eghan, for intervenor Canadian Bankers Association.

[1] Endorsement BY THE COURT: -- The appellant brought an application in the Superior Court seeking an order that two consumer reporting agencies remove debts over two years old that were shown on his credit report, where no legal action had been commenced or judgment obtained in respect of the debts. He relied on the provisions of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sch. B, and in particular the basic limitation period of two years applicable to the commencement of a proceeding in respect of a claim.

[2] The appellant argued in the court below, and on appeal, that this two-year limitation period should apply in interpreting the provisions of the Consumer Reporting Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.33 ("CRA"). He asserts that, in requiring consumer reporting agencies to adopt all procedures reasonable for ensuring accuracy and fairness in the contents of their consumer reports (s. 9(1) of the CRA), the Act anticipates that debts will not be listed where a limitation period for their enforcement through legal action has expired. The most accurate record of a debt, he says, is one that has been or can be confirmed by an order or judgment of the court. When debts are included in consumer reports, where no legal action is possible, consumers are adversely impacted in their efforts to borrow money and to conduct other business.

[3] The respondents assert that the application judge did not err in his dismissal of the appellant's application, on the basis that the basic limitation period has no application to the statutory framework for consumer credit reporting in Ontario, and that there was no violation by the consumer reporting agencies of the requirements of the CRA.

[4] We agree. [page320]

[5] The CRA provides for a regulatory scheme for the fair reporting of information regarding an individual's history of credit activities. The CRA requires the registration of consumer reporting agencies, permits consumer reporting information to be provided only for certain prescribed purposes, and sets out standards for consumer reporting.

[6] The Limitations Act, 2002, by contrast, applies to bar "claims pursued in court proceedings" that are commenced outside the applicable limitation period. The Act does not apply to the CRA, whether expressly or by implication. Indeed, the CRA contains its own specific provisions prohibiting the inclusion of certain information in consumer reports, including debts or collections more than seven years old, unless confirmation that the debt or collection is not barred has been obtained. The CRA expressly contemplates that debts not reduced to judgment that are up to seven years old may be reported (see s. 9(3)(f)). This makes sense, as the passing of a limitation period does not extinguish a debt; it only precludes the commencement of a court proceeding for its enforcement. As such, the reporting of debts after a limitation period has passed, is not inconsistent with the purposes of the CRA, and is expressly contemplated by its terms.

[7] Under the Act, consumers, such as the appellant, have access to the information contained in their files, and a mechanism by which they can dispute information contained in a report to the consumer reporting agency, and to the registrar of Consumer Reporting Agencies, with a right to apply to the Licence Appeal Tribunal for a hearing if they are aggrieved by a registrar's decision.

[8] The appellant availed himself of the right to dispute information, and was able to have certain stale information removed from his consumer reports. There was no basis, however, for requiring the removal of information concerning debts simply because they were more than two years old.

[9] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

[10] The appellant shall pay costs of the appeal to the respondents Equifax Canada Co. and Trans Union of Canada fixed at $5,000 each and to the respondent Ministry of Government Services and Consumer Services fixed at $1,000, all costs inclusive of applicable taxes and disbursements.

Appeal dismissed.

End of Document