Prince v. Capital One Bank (Canada Branch)
The motion judge did not err: the affidavit inaccuracy was corrected and immaterial, the appellant failed to adduce evidence of new charges after an adjournment so dismissal was appropriate, and the appellant did not seek required leave to appeal the cost order; therefore the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- 2018 ONCA 829
- Parties
- Plaintiff (appellant): Igbinedion Odion Prince; Defendant: Sonny Singh (Owner of Universal Rent-A-Car Inc.); Defendant: Universal Rent-A-Car Inc.; Defendant (respondent): Capital One Bank (Canada Branch); Defendant: American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida
- Court
- Court of Appeal for Ontario
- Jurisdiction
- Canada
- Judgment Date
- 17 October 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Collection (civil) / Court of Appeal — Appeal From Motion Judge Order
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Unauthorized Credit Card Charges, Affidavit Corrections, Motion Practice, Leave to Appeal Costs
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Igbinedion Odion Prince
Plaintiff (appellant)
Sonny Singh (Owner of Universal Rent-A-Car Inc.)
Defendant
Universal Rent-A-Car Inc.
Defendant
Capital One Bank (Canada Branch)
Defendant (respondent)
American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Collection (civil) / Court of Appeal — Appeal From Motion Judge Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether charges to the appellant's credit card were unauthorized and whether the motion judge erred in dismissing the claim
- 2 Whether an inaccuracy in the respondent's first affidavit was material to the motion judge's decision
- 3 Whether the appellant was permitted to adduce evidence of newly raised charges and failed to do so after adjournment
Ratio Decidendi
The motion judge did not err: the affidavit inaccuracy was corrected and immaterial, the appellant failed to adduce evidence of new charges after an adjournment so dismissal was appropriate, and the appellant did not seek required leave to appeal the cost order; therefore the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the costs award.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed
- Appellant shall pay respondent Capital One's costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive sum of $3,500
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Prince v. Capital One Bank (Canada Branch) Collection Decisions of the Court of Appeal Date 2018-10-17 Neutral citation 2018 ONCA 829 Docket numbers C64767 Judges Hourigan, C. William; Miller, Bradley; Trotter, Gary T. Subject Civil Decision Content COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO CITATION: Prince v. Capital One Bank (Canada Branch), 2018 ONCA 829 DATE: 20181015 DOCKET: C64767 Hourigan, Miller and Trotter JJ.A. BETWEEN Igbinedion Odion Prince Plaintiff (Appellant) and Sonny Singh (Owner of Universal Rent-A-Car Inc.), Universal Rent-A-Car Inc., Capital One Bank (Canada Branch) and American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida Defendants (Respondent) Igbinedion Odion Prince, representing himself Christina Wadsworth, for the respondent Heard: October 5, 2018 On appeal from the judgment of Justice Markus Koehnen of the Superior Court of Justice, dated December 1, 2017. APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT [1] The appellant appeals from the order of the motion judge dismissing his claim against the respondent. The dispute arises from amounts billed to the appellant’s credit card that he submits were unauthorized. [2] We see no basis to interfere with the motion judge’s order. [3] The appellant complains that the first affidavit filed by the respondent was inaccurate regarding credit agency collections on his account. That is true, but the error was corrected in a second affidavit filed by the respondent, which was before the motion judge. Therefore, the error had no material impact on the motion judge’s analysis. [4] At the initial return of the motion, the appellant raised for the first time two new charges on his credit card. The motion judge adjourned the motion to permit him to adduce evidence regarding those charges. On the return of the motion he failed to do so. In the circumstances, the motion judge did not err in dismissing these allegations, nor do we see any error in the motion judge’s dismissal of the appellant’s other claims. [5] With respect to the cost order below, the appellant failed to seek leave to appeal that order as he was required to do under the Rules. In any event, we see no error in the motion judge’s cost order and would accordingly not grant leave to appeal. [6] The appeal is dismissed. The appellant shall pay the respondent, Capital One’s, costs of the appeal in the all-inclusive sum of $3,500.