Personal Loan Recovery Success in Civil Resolution Tribunal
⚖️ Legal holding
A debtor must repay a loan according to the terms agreed upon.
📖 Technical summary
The claimant successfully recovered a personal loan from the respondent.
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The applicant provided e-transfer confirmations proving the loan amount.
- The respondent did not deny receiving the loan or agreeing to repay it.
- The respondent failed to provide any proof supporting their allegations.
- The tribunal found the respondent's allegations irrelevant to the repayment obligation.
- The applicant was entitled to prejudgment interest due to the delay in repayment.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The respondent's claim that the applicant interfered with their employment and harassed them was not supported by evidence.
- The respondent's allegations about interference and harassment were deemed separate from the repayment obligation.
- The respondent did not file a counterclaim for the alleged harassment and interference.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about a personal loan of $2,200 that the claimant had given to the respondent, which the respondent had not repaid.
How did the court decide, and why?
The court decided in favour of the claimant because the respondent did not provide any proof to support their allegations that the claimant's actions prevented repayment.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Civil Resolution Tribunal Act sections 118, 42, and 48(1) were applied, along with the Interest Act (COIA).
What was the argument that mattered most?
The claimant's provision of e-transfer confirmations and the lack of proof from the respondent regarding their allegations were the most important arguments.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was for the person who brought the case, the claimant.
What does this mean for someone in a similar situation?
Someone in a similar situation should ensure they have clear evidence of any agreements and any attempts to repay the loan.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The e-transfer confirmations provided by the claimant were crucial, while the respondent failed to provide any supporting evidence for their allegations.