New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Check case law! Lots of precedents set!
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Check case law! Lots of precedents set!

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Pissed off View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 01/October/2008
Location: Toronto, ON
Points: 10
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Pissed off Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Check case law! Lots of precedents set!
    Posted: 20/November/2009 at 8:40am
Good tiding to all,
 
Here are some information you might find useful for your dispute against the Federal Government regarding your CSLs.

 

a) The 7-year limitation:  cannot stand in a Court of Law because,

usually, the bank claims for loans’ losses before the 7-year.  When the government turns to you, it has been more than 7 years, time with the bank included.

 

b) When the bank claims a loan loss, the rights of the government become subrogated to the rights of lenders according to s.19.  However, to be legal, a contract should be signed between two parties: the borrower and the lender or the subrogated party.  I have never heard of a contract being signed between the government and the borrower.  When the bank request a payment for loss with the government, the contract between the bank and the borrower is broken.  There is no more contract, netheir with the bank nor the government.

Although it is common for the government to take the student loan over, an anomaly in the law (as explained above) may serve you well if you want to fight.

 

c) Furthermore, if the government lever against you is your signing of Schedule(s) 8, Special Interests Free Loans, at least one judge found that, I quote:

 

In my view, none of the defendant’s applications for interest relief constitute an acknowledgment of debt within the meaning of the law.

 

d) The same thing will hold true for payments you might have made.  The contract ended when the bank got the money from the government.

 

I went through some other Court Cases very briefly and I found all to be useful to win your case.  I have not looked at the Bankrupted students.  Please, to find out by yourself, go to http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/ and type Canadian Student Loan at 1.  There are many Court Cases that can help you win yours. These are precedents you can use.

 

As for me, some of you have requested a follow-up.  My case is not over yet the Defense Lawyer being always “out of town or out of the office; unavailable, etc”.  My case is simple: my loans were paid in full before the bank made a fake Consolidation.  I never signed the document.  I got my two diplomas before the bank made its attempt: one in 1992 from UBC with a diploma in Translation and the other in 1994 from SFU with a Degree for my two majors, French and Archaeology, both universities in BC. (you might also want to investigate the laws in the province where you studied and received your diploma and/or degree and compare with the Federal Laws and/or the province where you are suing the government.  This too could win your case.)

 

In addition to having paid my loans and, this time, being able to prove it, I will raise some of the examples I just gave you.  The federal government seized my wages and now my pension in addition to set off my refunds, under false pretenses.  CRA Collection Agents have the nerve to breach their own rules and to add to the government rules.  Example, they cannot seize anyone's wages, or pension, "except and only to Civil Servants".  Government employees, I know you are many out there, you do not have to accept what is done to you.

 

There is no way the government can get away with all these illegalities, breach of laws.  Not a chance.  It will take as long as they will, this case will have a happy ending – for me.

 

Cheers.  Hope this above will help.  I am will all of you with all my heart.

Has a class action been started? Where? How can I join?
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Iknowalotofstuff View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie


Joined: 29/September/2008
Location: Chatham, ON
Points: 155
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Iknowalotofstuff Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20/December/2009 at 6:15pm
Your view of subrogation is incorrect.  I will give you an example.  A buys insurance from C.  B damages A property.  A makes a claim to C to reimburse for damages.  When C pays A for the damages, C has the surrogated rights of A to pursue B for the damages.  If  A were a student loan lender who is insured by C, the government, when the C pays A for the loss on the student loan, A's rights are surrogated to C to pursue B for the damages it incurred in paying A.
Back to Top
Johnny View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 05/November/2003
Location: Canada
Points: 5969
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Johnny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21/December/2009 at 2:47am
The subrogation date is the day that the government buys the loan back from the private lender under the CSLFA.
 
 "c) Furthermore, if the government lever against you is your signing of Schedule(s) 8, Special Interests Free Loans, at least one judge found that, I quote:

 

In my view, none of the defendant’s applications for interest relief constitute an acknowledgment of debt within the meaning of the law."

This is VERY ionteresting, Pissed.

Johnny
Solve Student Debt specializes in solutions for students and graduates in student loan default, and those at risk of defaulting.

solvestudentdebt.com
Back to Top
honestroger View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 16/December/2009
Points: 4
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote honestroger Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23/December/2009 at 7:03am

Improperly noted in default, or not advised of principle debt reduction and now being sued?  Here is a good argument that defeated the institution lawyers' motion for summary judgment on a defaulted student loan: http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2004/2004canlii13347/2004canlii13347.html

 
10]      The student loans are also the subject of legislation and regulation.  Everyone is taken to know the law, of course, but in a heavily regulated system there is surely some obligation on the institutions administering the system to assist those intended to benefit from it to navigate the rocks and shoals of administrative requirements, to ensure that the benefits of the system are made available to those for whom they are intended.

[11]      Mr. Brown’s defence is that his lender failed to tell him of the relief that was available to him, and that if he had known he would have sought that relief, so that his repayment obligations could be tailored to meet his circumstances, as envisioned by the program.  He does not seek to avoid the loan, or to deny his obligations, but he does wish to have them adjusted to reflect what ought to have happened.

[13]      This is the dilemma.  The student loan program is salutary, so long as students observe its terms.  If a student borrower goes “offside” and is found to be in default, the results, while commercially defensible, are very onerous.  Here we have a teacher at the start of his career.  He is established now, and earning a reasonable income as a teacher, and can afford the reasonable debt servicing charges associated with the orderly repayment of a student loan.  He likely cannot afford to repay the entire loan all at once, and payment of interest at a current rate of 9% per annum, given regular consumer borrowing rates, seems excessive.  Mr. Brown’s case, on the merits, is that he (and Canada) ought to be placed in the position that would have prevailed had he been accorded the treatment that was available to him throughout the period of his indebtedness to date.

[14]      In my view this is a coherent defence.  In my view, Mr. Brown’s materials establish triable issues.  The questions of whether Mr. Brown was improperly advised in connection with his loan, and whether he would have been entitled to interest and principal relief, had his file been handled properly, are all matters of fact for the trial judge.  Canada’s response to this defence – that Mr. Brown had to obtain particular relief in a particular order – can also be assessed by the trial judge, who could well agree and yet grant Mr. Brown a remedy.

[15]      For these reasons, this is not a proper case for summary judgment.  The motion is dismissed.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.