Yu v. Kaur

Yu v. Kaur

The claim was dismissed because the Retainer covered AIPP work only, the Defendant validly terminated the Retainer pursuant to para.13.1 before the consultant had commenced the work triggering the second installment, and the termination was for a fair and just reason (to pursue PNP given delay); therefore no liability for the second payment arose.

Citation
2020 NSSM 8
Parties
Claimant: Michael Yu; Defendant: Lovpreet Kaur
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Final Decision (hearing Held)
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Retainer Agreement, Termination of Contract, Fees and Refunds, Scope of Services, Provincial Nominee Program (pnp), Atlantic Immigration Pilot Program (aipp)
Source Language
English
Contract Law Immigration Law Professional Services/retainer Disputes Consumer Protection Retainer Agreement Termination of Contract Fees and Refunds Scope of Services +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Yu

Claimant

Lovpreet Kaur

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Final Decision (hearing Held)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is an immigration consultant entitled to charge an agreed fee for an agreed service when the client terminates the retainer to obtain a different service?
  2. 2 Can the consultant recover fees for the original service when that service was not completed and the client terminated to pursue a different route?
  3. 3 Whether the retainer’s termination clause (para.13.1) permits refund/avoids liability where work had not commenced

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was dismissed because the Retainer covered AIPP work only, the Defendant validly terminated the Retainer pursuant to para.13.1 before the consultant had commenced the work triggering the second installment, and the termination was for a fair and just reason (to pursue PNP given delay); therefore no liability for the second payment arose.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed.
  • No payment due by Defendant to Claimant for the second installment under the Retainer.