Waterloo Region Small Claims Court 85 Frederick Street
Kitchener, Ontario N2H 0A7
ONTARIO
SMALL CLAIMS COURT
B E T W E E N:
RYAN SCHULLER
Plaintiff
-and- MELISSA LAWLER
Defendant
Plaintiff: Riverview Legal Group- Shawn Harvey-Paralegal Defendant: Kimberley Farrell - Paralegal
Date of Trial: February 24, 2026 Deputy Judge James H. Bennett
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I. OVERVIEW
1The central issue to be determined in this trial is whether five separate deposits made by the Plaintiff, Ryan Schuller, (“Schuller”) into the bank account of the Defendant, Melissa Lawler (“Lawler”) totalling $13,425.00 were loans or gifts.
2I find that the $13,425.00 advanced by Schuller to Lawler for the reasons set out below constituted loans, not gifts, of money to her and I grant Judgment in that amount in favour of Schuller.
II. THE FACTS
3Schuller is an auto mechanic who in 2018 and 2019 was a frequent patron of an adult entertainment club ( the“Club”) in Woodstock.
4Lawler was employed as a dancer and sex worker in the VIP room at the Club where she first met Schuller.
5Between October, 2018 and January, 2019, Schuller while attending at the Club entered into a friendly but not exclusive relationship with Lawler which involved spending time with her at the bar at the Club while she was working and paying for sexual services in the VIP room.
6It is clear from the evidence that Schuller wished to have a more romantic relationship with Lawler who did not reciprocate his feelings and wanted the relationship to continue on a “transactional basis”. She did admit, however, that she and Schuller were “more than friends” They had met three times in the early winter and spring of 2019 outside of the Club at a restaurant for a meal on one occasion and at Tim Hortons locations on two occasions.
7Schuller paid for sexual services at the VIP room in the Club on a cash basis which Lawler testified was between $500.00 and $1,000.00 depending on the sexual service provided. He also provided Lawler with gifts of flowers, chocolates and a bracelet as well as paying her outstanding cell phone bill directly on one occasion. He does not seek in his claim in this action, repayment of any of those amounts acknowledging that they were, in fact, gifts.
8Schuller deposited monies directly into Lawler’s TD Canada Trust Bank Account on five separate occasions after Lawler provided him the branch, account and transit numbers. The deposits were as follows:
(a) January 3, 2019 $4,500.00
(b) February 13, 2019 $3,000.00
(c) February 16, 2019 $2,200.00
(d) March 1, 2019 $ 725.00
(e) April 29, 2019 $3,000.00
Total $13,425.00
9Lawler admits in her Statement of Defence and in her evidence at trial that $2,500.00 of the January 3, 2019 deposit into her bank account was a loan to assist her with financial problems as she was having trouble in paying her rent and car payments. Her three text messages dated January 2, 2019 clearly indicate that she was requesting financial assistance of $3,800.00 to alleviate her financial distress and that she was offering to pay back Schuller at the rate of $200.00 per week for 6.5 weeks with the balance to be paid when she received her income tax return.
10Schuller’s evidence which I accept is that based on these texts and his telephone conversations with Lawler, he then made the first deposit into her bank account on January 3, 2019 in the amount of $4,500.00. Both Schuller and Lawler agreed, outside of their texts and emails, they were having telephone conversations and obviously Schuller had been provided by Lawler with her bank account information as well as additional details about her financial problems. Schuller indicated that the extra $700.00 over and above the initial request for the $3,800.00 making up the total deposit of $4,500.00 related to monies that Lawler needed to fix a damaged mirror on her vehicle. Corroboration for this evidence is found in Lawler’s email of January 2, 2019 at 4:32 pm where she calculates what she needs to pay her bills totalling $3,800.00 “to be safe and that is not even fixing my mirror which I will have to wait…”.
11There are no similar text messages between Schuller and Lawler that deal with the February and March deposits into her bank account. Schuller, in a January 30, 2019 email, states:
“I just don’t want you to feel pressured in any way to hang out if you prefer not to because I helped you out financially with the loan…I am happy helping any way I can…”.
Lawler in an email of February 11, 2019 shortly before the additional transfers into her bank account in February states:
“I know I have been talking to you about the stress I have been under and didn’t expect you to help in any way. The offer to help me out you phoned me about this morning, caught me extremely off guard. Although I appreciate it. Based on past experiences and not just my own, I am having a hard time with thinking this is not a way to make me dependant on you. I am financially vulnerable right now. Believe me the offer is very hard to refuse! But I don’t do well under pressure and I don’t think I can handle the amount of the legal one”.
Schuller then makes the two February bank deposits on February 13 and February 16, 2019.
12The emails and texts through the end of February, March and beginning of April confirm that Schuller is pushing for a relationship and Lawler is non-committal. I accept her evidence that Schuller was starting to become harassing in the number of phone calls and texts he was sending to her.
13In April, Schuller starts to understand that his intentions of forming a more serious relationship are not being reciprocated and at that point he then sends an email dated March 11, 2019 and testified that he began to question whether he should provide Lawler with any more monies.
14Lawler responds by a text on April 20, 2019 which says:
“Hey Ryan I fucking hate asking but you have done so much for me…I am thousand percent ready to focus on getting a job and getting out of the Club as of today but I can’t do it without your help.”
15There is confirmation of two text messages being sent from Lawler to Schuller asking him to call her. Four text message dated April 20, 2019, April 23, 2019, April 26, 2019 and April 29, 2019 asking him to call her. The April 26th text states : “… I sat and crunched a few numbers and calculations stress me the f out and I am up to just under $2,800.00. It was like 27 something all past due from April and now these bounce”
16It is significant that these four emails basically occur just before and after Schuller’s email to her dated April 28, 2019 with the subject reference line: $$$. In this email, Schuller states:
“still trying to figure out what to do about your situation…I have to admit that I have been struggling back and forth to wrap my head around everything. On one hand, I can sympathize and understand your situation and on the other this is a lot for me to take on as I am just now starting to really get back on track financially with a set routine myself. If it turns out I can assist you, I’ll have invested about
$14,000.00 into someone I feel I barely know and have no idea where I stand or what plans are moving forward…like I said, I can definitely help with your car payment issues but will be honest and say I honestly don’t know what to do about everything else…”
Subsequent to the April 28, 2019 email and apparently a phone call between Schuller and Lawler as indicated on her text of April 29, 2029, he then makes his final deposit into her bank account on April 29, 2019 in the amount of $3,000.00.
17After the final deposit by Schuller to Lawler’s bank account on April 29, 2019, there appears to be no further communication until his emails of May 7 and May 9, 2019 complaining that she is not returning his phone calls or text messages. Lawler responds on May 9 saying she needs to “end” their contact alleging that he is “overbearing” and that she has now “chosen” not to accept anything else from him and that he is a controlling person using gifts and “finances” to do so.
18Schuller responds on May 9 by email stating:
“as far as repayment of the loans, you can let me know what works for you…I also seen this coming which was why I was reluctant to help you out a couple of weeks ago…we can reasonably work something out that works for you and I will simply hand over what I have to the Courts and they can explore who to side with…your choice, I have been nothing but polite to this point…you won’t hear from me again unless you decide you want to work something out.”
Lawler’s reply to this email was her own email which says:
“as for working things out the answer is simply NO I don’t want to be involved with you. There is nothing to work out!”.
19The last communication between Schuller and Lawler were emails on May 10, 2019 where Lawler states “I do not want anymore contact with you. I don’t want to be civil, I just want
to be free from your head games. Schuller’s response was, “sounds good see you in Court”.
The claim in this action was then issued on May 15, 2019.
III. THE LAW AND ANALYSIS
20There is no longer a presumption of advancement in Ontario. The Ontario Courts hold that equity presumes bargains, not gifts and as held in the leading Ontario case, Colangelo v. Amore, 2010 ONSC 5657, Mr. Justice D.M. Brown (as he then was) extensively reviews the authorities and which establish the following principles when determining whether money transferred even between romantic partners is a loan or a gift:
(a) Generally money transferred between romantic partners is presumed to be a loan, not a gift. When the relationship ends, the recipient must prove on a balance of probabilities that the funds were a gift rather than a repayable loan;
(b) It is clear that the onus of proof once the transfer of money has been proven is then on the recipient to show it was a gift. An inter vivos gift consists of a voluntary transfer of property from the true possessor to another with the full intention on the part of both donor and donee that the thing should not be returned to the donor, but shall be retained by the donee as his or her own;
(c) In considering whether a gift or loan was intended, the Court may look at the surrounding circumstances as well as the evidence of the alleged donor. If it is proven that the payment of money was made, the burden is on the recipient of the money to show that both parties knew and intended that the money not be repaid (emphasis added). It is not sufficient that the recipient of the property assumed that a gift was being made; and
(d) Persons that obtain substantial sums of money from friends should be careful to ensure that if there is no intention to repay the monies that this is evidenced satisfactorily so that there can be no doubt. Public policy demands that such casual passing of monies should be repayable unless there is satisfactory evidence to show that it was not intended by both parties to be repaid.
21In the present case, the evidence clearly establishes that five separate transfers into Lawler’s bank account were made by Schuller totalling $13,425.00. The sole issue to be determined therefore is whether Lawler can meet her burden of proof to show on the balance of probabilities that these deposits into her bank account were intended by both she and Schuller to be gifts. I have determined that she has not met this onus and that the transfers by Schuller into her bank account were loans, not gifts, based on the following:
(a) On the first deposit made on January 3, 2019, the emails make it clear that Lawler is asking for monies and that she intends to repay them. She provides Schuller with her bank account information. Her evidence was that she agreed to only repay
$2,500.00 but the email is clear that she is asking for $3,800.00 and I accept Schuller’s evidence that the additional $700.00 that was deposited relates to monies to cover the repairs to her car which is referenced in her text message;
(b) Both parties had some issues with their credibility but it is significant factor in my determining that the money transfers were loans and not gifts that Schuller is not making any claim for the cash payments he made to Lawler for sexual services or the value of what he acknowledged were real gifts such as the bracelet. The facts of this case are completely distinguishable from the decision in Fiore v. Aitken, 2008 1663 (ONSC) which involved a patron of an adult entertainment club seeking to recover the value of jewelry and payments made to the Defendant in what the Court describes as a “rather bizarre relationship” and the Court concluded that the Plaintiff in the forlorn hope of having the Defendant reciprocate his feelings of love plied her with gifts of jewelry and money. In Fiore, the Court determined that all of the transfers of money and gifts took place within the adult entertainment establishment and that there was no real communication between the parties outside of that establishment unlike the text messages and emails between Lawler and Schuller;
(c) The request for the initial loan in January establishes the context for the subsequent loans and at least in Schuller’s mind, he intended would be repaid even though there was no arrangement for interest or timing specified for repayment. Schuller finally
accepted that there was not going to be any long-term relationship when things broke down in May, 2019 but was not threatening or overly upset and simply wanted to “work things out” and have the loans repaid;
(d) It makes no sense that if substantial sums of cash were being paid for sexual services in the VIP room by Schuller to Lawlor that if he wanted to make further cash gifts to Lawler that he would not simply give her the cash but went to the trouble of depositing the monies into her bank account and keeping a record of those deposits. This in and of itself is evidence that he intended these deposits to be loans; and
(e) The subsequent transfers of monies into Lawler’s bank account in February, March and April coincide with emails and texts from Lawlor to Schuller where she is talking about her financial problems and stress. At no time when she receives these transfers of money from Schuller into her account does she thank him for his generosity in making a “gift” to him. Lawler did not testify that Schuller used any words to characterize the transfers of money to her account as gifts on those occasions.
22Although some of the factors that I have reviewed above could be consistent equally with a gift or a loan when considered together, I conclude that they fall short of establishing on the balance of probabilities, that Schuller intended to gift those monies that were deposited to Lawler. I, therefore, conclude that Lawler has failed to discharge her burden of proving that the $13,425.00 transferred to her constituted gifts.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND JUDGMENT
23I conclude for the reasons set out above, that the $13,425.00 constituted loans of money by Schuller to Lawler on the understanding that she would eventually repay those monies. As a result, I conclude that the $13,425.00 transferred by Schuller to Lawler’s bank account is due and payable by Lawler.
24Accordingly, I grant Judgment in the amount of $13,425.00 together with pre-judgment interest calculated from the date of the issuance of the Statement of Claim being May 15, 2019 to date at the Courts of Justice Act rate of 2% percent per annum .
25Schuller as the Plaintiff being entirely successful in this action is entitled to his costs which I would fix including all disbursements, pleadings and representation fee at trial in the total amount of $750.00. In the event that there has been any Offer to Settle which was served in accordance with the requirements of Rule 14.07, then I am prepared to consider amending these Reasons to take into account the operative provisions of that Rule. Otherwise, there is no need for any further cost submissions.
Date: March 13, 2026