Decision Content
2009 NWTTC 18 Diamond Placement v. Erasmus et al File Numbers: T-1-CV2008000106; T-1-CV2009000012;
T-1-CV2009000018; T-1-CV2009000039;
T-1-CV2009000042; T-1-CV2009000041
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTERS OF:
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
KRISTIN L. ERASMUS
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
BETTY ANN DRYBONES
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
J. RONALD DANIELS
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
ROBERT JAMES STIRRETT
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
TINA VIOLET ZOE
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
STELLA ZOE
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDMENT OF THE
HONOURABLE B.E. SCHMALTZ _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Heard at: Yellowknife, Northwest Territories
July 28, September 28, October 26, 2009
Reasons Filed: November 26, 2009 IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTERS OF:
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
KRISTIN L. ERASMUS
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
BETTY ANN DRYBONES
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
J. RONALD DANIELS
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
ROBERT JAMES STIRRETT
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
TINA VIOLET ZOE
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
STELLA ZOE
Defendant
INTRODUCTION:
[1] The Plaintiff sought default judgment on these matters, and all six matters were set for Default Hearings. On July 28, 2009, Leonore Kwong appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff in all matters; no one appeared on behalf of any of the Defendants.
[2] On July 28, 2009, I advised the Plaintiff of concerns I had with the legality of the underlying agreements on which the Plaintiff was seeking default judgment. I adjourned all matters to September 28, 2009, for argument and submissions. The Plaintiff was directed to file written argument and authorities addressing certain concerns by September 18, 2009.
[3] No written argument or authorities were filed by September 18. On September 28, Ms. Kwong appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff, and advised that the Plaintiff had retained counsel, and sought an adjournment of these matters. All matters were adjourned to October 26, 2009; arguments and authorities to be filed by October 19, 2009. I also directed that a transcript of the July 28, 2009, appearance be prepared for Ms. Kwong.
[4] No arguments or authorities were filed. On October 28, 2009, when these matters were called, no one appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff or the Defendant on any of the matters.
[5] All of these actions are dismissed.
BACKGROUND FACTS:
[6] In all of these claims, the Plaintiff relies on a Promissory Note signed by the Defendant in each case. The relevant terms of the Promissory Notes are:
(a) Defendant Kristen L. Erasmus: On September 9, 2008, Erasmus borrowed $400.00 from the Plaintiff, and signed a Promissory Note requiring repayment of the principal $400.00, plus $85.00 interest “for one pay period” (2 weeks).
On September 22, 2008, Erasmus borrowed a further $400.00 from the Plaintiff, and signed a Promissory Note requiring repayment of the principal $400.00, plus $85.00 interest “for one pay period” (2 weeks).
(b) Defendant Betty Ann Drybones: On November 14, 2008, Drybones borrowed $5,324.00 from the Plaintiff, and signed a Promissory Note requiring repayment of the principal $5,324.00, plus $3,152.44 interest “for ten (10) pay periods” (20 weeks) .
(c) Defendant J. Ronald Daniels: On December 29, 2008, Daniels borrowed $300.00 from the Plaintiff, and signed a Promissory Note requiring repayment of the principal $300.00, plus $54.00 interest “for one pay period” (2 weeks).
On December 30, 2008, Daniels borrowed a further $140.00 from the Plaintiff, and signed a Promissory Note requiring repayment of the principal $140.00, plus $25.00 interest “for one pay period” (2 weeks).
(d) Defendant Tina Violet Zoe: On November 29, 2008, Tina Violet Zoe borrowed $800.00 from the Plaintiff, and signed a Promissory Note requiring repayment of the principal $800.00, plus $304.00 interest “for four pay periods” (8 weeks).
(e) Defendant Stella Zoe: On October 27, 2008, Stella Zoe borrowed $100.00 from the Plaintiff, and signed a Promissory Note requiring repayment of the principal $100.00 plus $26.50 interest “for one pay period” (2 weeks).
(f) Defendant Robert Stirrett: On December 12, 2008, Stirrett borrowed $360.00 from the Plaintiff, and signed a Promissory Note requiring repayment of the principal $360.00 plus $82.00 interest “for one pay period” (2 weeks).
[7] The above Promissory Notes require the Defendants to pay interest on the money borrowed from the Plaintiff at the following interest rates:
(a) Defendant Kristen L. Erasmus: 525% per annum
(b) Defendant Betty Ann Drybones: 154% per annum
(c) Defendant J. Ronald Daniels: 465% per annum
(d) Defendant Tina Violet Zoe: 247% per annum
(e) Defendant Stella Zoe: 689% per annum
(f) Defendant Robert Stirrett: 592% per annum
[8] The interest rates set out in Paragraph [7] do not include “other charges” claimed by the Plaintiff referred to as “disbursements, admin fees” of amounts between $250.00 and $400.00 on each file. Further, the Plaintiff claims “NSF/Holding” charges on each file of between $100.00 and $400.00.
ANALYSIS
[9] The decision of Chief Judge Gorin in the case of 5752 NWT Ltd. carrying on business as Diamond Placement and Financial Services v. Biggs et al. (2009 NWTTC 15) is directly on point, and deals with the exact issues that arise in these cases. I agree with the analysis and reasoning in that case, and come to an identical conclusion in these cases. The Court in 5752 NWT Ltd. carrying on business as Diamond Placement and Financial Services v. Biggs et al. did a thorough and complete analysis of the legislation and the case law and I adopt those reasons.
[10] Chief Judge Gorin set out the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with criminal interest rates, i.e. interest rates exceeding 60% per annum (see paragraphs 14 through 18). I also find that the promissory notes in these cases stipulate an interest rate that is illegal. Even though the Plaintiff has claimed only the maximum legal interest rate in each of its Claim, all of the claims are based on illegal agreements or arrangements, which will not be enforced.
CONCLUSION
[11] In all of these cases, the original agreement or arrangement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendants required the Defendants to pay interest on money borrowed from the Plaintiff at a rate well in excess of 60% per annum, and as such were illegal. All of the Plaintiff’s claims herein are dismissed.
Bernadette E. Schmaltz
T.C.J.
Dated at Yellowknife, Northwest Territories
this 26th day of November, 2009
2009 NWTTC 18 Diamond Placement v. Zoe
File Numbers: T-1-CV2008000106; T-1-CV2009000012;
T-1-CV2009000018; T-1-CV2009000039;
T-1-CV2009000042; T-1-CV2009000041
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
IN THE MATTERS OF
5752 NWT LTD. operating as
Diamond Placement and Financial Services
Plaintiff
- and -
KRISTIN L. ERASMUS
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD.
Plaintiff
- and -
BETTY ANN DRYBONES
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD.
Plaintiff
- and -
J. RONALD DANIELS
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD.
Plaintiff
- and -
ROBERT JAMES STIRRETT
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD.
Plaintiff
- and -
TINA VIOLET ZOE
Defendant
AND
5752 NWT LTD.
Plaintiff
- and -
STELLA ZOE
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
of the
HONOURABLE JUDGE B. E. SCHMALTZ
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.