Territorial Court

Decision Information

Decision information:

Abstract: Reasons for Decision

Decision Content

Pemberton v. Lennie, 2014 NWTTC 19			
  Date: 07-16-14
 File: T3 CV 2012 000017
									
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST
TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER OF:

GUY PEMBERTON

- and -

JOHNNY LENNIE


REASONS FOR DECISION
of the
HONOURABLE JUDGE B. E. SCHMALTZ

Heard at:				Inuvik, Northwest Territories
                         			July 14, 2014

Reasons filed:			July 16, 2014


Plaintiff/Judgment Creditor on his own behalf			


Defendant/Judgment Debtor on his own behalf		




Pemberton v. Lennie, 2014 NWTTC 19
  Date: 07-16-14
 File: T3 CV 2012 000017


IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

      IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:

GUY PEMBERTON
Plaintiff/
Judgment Creditor
- and –


JOHNNY LENNIE
Defendant/
Judgment Debtor


[1] On December 12, 2012, Guy Pemberton filed a claim against Johnny Lennie.  The matter proceeded to trial in Territorial Court on February 20, 2014, and Judgment was awarded in favour of Guy Pemberton in the amount of $2,600.00 plus costs.

[2] On June 20, 2014, a Garnishee Summons issued on this matter to Mr. Lennie’s employer, the Government of the Northwest Territories, Department of Industry, Tourism and Investment in the amount of $3,484.72.

[3] On June 27, 2014, Mr. Lennie filed a Notice of Motion for an order exempting his wages from garnishment.

[4]	Section 58 of the Territorial Court Civil Claims Rules states:

(1) A judgment debtor may apply to a territorial judge by notice of motion for an order exempting all or part of his or her wages or salary from garnishment on satisfying the territorial judge that there are good and valid reasons for exempting all or part of the wages or salary of the judgment debtor.


(2) In making an order under subsection (1), the territorial judge may order a conditional exemption on such terms and conditions as may seem just.


[5]	In Johnny Lennie’s Affidavit in Support of this Application he states:  “I will pay to the court $100 per month for Claim #T3CV 2012000017.”  In his submissions on this Application, Johnny Lennie stated that he earns $120,000.00 per year and has monthly expenses including rent, utilities, a truck payment, a further “loan” payment, and he has two adult children in post-secondary school.

[6]	Mr. Lennie’s argument was that if his wages were garnisheed in the normal course, others in his care would suffer.

[7]	Mr. Pemberton opposes this Application.  Mr. Pemberton lent Mr. Lennie money
in June 2007; in December 2012, Mr. Pemberton brought this action for repayment of
the loan; the matter proceeded to trial in February 2014.  Mr. Lennie proposes a plan
that would now require Mr. Pemberton to wait another three years before he is paid
back all the money, which would result in it being very close to 10 years after the initial loan that Mr. Pemberton would finally be repaid.

[8]	I find Mr. Lennie’s proposed repayment plan completely unreasonable.  In reviewing this file, and also taking into account Mr. Lennie’s attitude in Court including his continued protestation that he does not owe Mr. Pemberton this money, though he has not appealed the judgment of February 20, 2014, I find that Mr. Lennie is doing whatever he can to frustrate the process which would enable Mr. Pemberton to collect
on the Judgment made against Mr. Lennie.  I find no good or valid reason to exempt all or part of Mr. Lennie’s wages from garnishment.

[9]	Mr. Lennie’s Application to exempt all or part of his wages from being garnisheed is dismissed.
		
		


						Bernadette E. Schmaltz
						Territorial Court Judge

Dated at Inuvik, Northwest Territories
this 16th day of July, 2014
Pemberton v. Lennie, 2014 NWTTC 19	

Date: 07 16 14
File: T3 CR 2014 000017


IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:


GUY PEMBERTON

Plaintiff/
Judgment Creditor

- and –

JOHNNY LENNIE

                                                        Defendant/
                                              Judgment Debtor




REASONS FOR DECISION
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.