Capital One Bank (Canada Branch) v. Schaus, (December 6, 2010), Guelph SC-10-000314-0000 (Ont. S.C.J. Sm. Cl. Ct.).

Capital One (Canada Branch) v Dennis Eugene Schaus

Guelph SCC # SC-10-00314


Ontario Superior Court of Justice


Donald G. Kidd D.J.


Heard: December 6, 2010

Judgment: December 6, 2010

Docket: Guelph SCC 10-00314




Judgment after submissions for $14,884.71 and post judgment [sic] interest at 21.7%.  This order is made pursuant to the binding decision of the Divisional Court in Capital One v Matovska et al. Sept 4, 2007 and that court clearly determined that the pre-proceeding collection expenses even though contingent constituted a liquidated sum therefore being a liquidated demand for money that can be awarded as such by this court and I am bound by that decision as are the staff of this court and default judgment in these circumstances can be granted by court staff.  Costs of today allowed at 350.00.


Transcribed by Todd R. Christensen on December 20,2010.  Original available below.

Contingency based collection means that payment for our work is contingent upon our success. If we are unsuccessful in our attempts to collect, you pay no fee.


Being a small business, we haven’t needed a collection agency in quite a few years. After a referral from our accounting firm, we were fortunate enough to make contact with Todd and his team at Christensen Law Firm. In addition to the exceptional and quick recovery work, Todd and his team were always quick to respond either via email or over the phone. They also provided advice and input in re-writing some of the clauses in our service contracts in order to help with future collections if needed. Needless to say, we are extremely pleased. We have passed their information along to some of our associates and will continue to do so in the future. Thanks again for everything.

- Dean Williams, Gem Limousine