Court File No. SC-17-00008757-0000

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
SMALL CLAIMS COURT
5

B E T W E E N:
DAVID RAMSAY
Plaintiff
10

- and -

BCE INC.
Defendant

15

R E A S O N S
20

F O R

J U D G M E N T

BEFORE DEPUTY JUDGE W.C. DE LUCIA
on March 19, 2018, at TORONTO, Ontario

25

APPEARANCES:
30

David Ramsay
S. Redding

Plaintiff, In Person
Counsel for the Defendant

 (i)
Table of Contents

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
SMALL CLAIMS COURT
T A B L E

O F

C O N T E N T S

5

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1

LEGEND

10

[sic] Indicates preceding word has been reproduced verbatim and
is not a transcription error.
(ph) Indicates preceding word has been spelled phonetically.
Transcript Ordered:

March 20, 2018

15

20

25

30

Transcript Completed:

April 9, 2018

Ordering Party Notified:

April 9, 2018

 1.
Reasons for Judgment
MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2018
...COURT OPENS
R E A S O N S
5

F O R

J U D G M E N T

DE LUCIA, DJ. (Orally):
This is in the matter of plaintiff David Ramsay and
defendant BCE Inc. carrying on business as Bell
Canada.

Action number 178757.

The trial was heard

today, March 19th, and I intend to render my oral
10

decision at this time.
As to the position of the parties, the plaintiff Mr.
Ramsay maintains that he has a verbal enforceable
contract with the defendant Bell Canada regarding
his purchase of two services, a Fibe 50 unlimited

15

internet service and a Fibe TV service, for his
Collingwood property and maintains that the
essential terms that were agreed to with the
defendant was for a total cost of $112.90 per month
20

plus applicable taxes and the term was for 24
months.

And maintains – the plaintiff does that

Bell has breached this contract and has failed to
honour this contract and - which was a result of a
Bell promotion and as a result he has suffered
25

damages which he has described to be in the amount
of $340.

Mr. Ramsay also claims costs and interest.

Bell’s position is that the plaintiff has received
the services, has accepted the installation of the
30

services and has made payments to Bell in the
monthly installments as invoiced and including price
increases and that the plaintiff has accepted the

 2.
Reasons for Judgment
terms of service and that the terms of service and
the price increases are all captured into a legal
enforceable contract and that Bell is entitled to
make price changes and that this court has no
5

jurisdiction over interfering with Bell’s right to
make price changes and price increases and that in
fact the plaintiff did receive the services of the
TV and internet services and that the baseline price
of 112.90 per month was honoured subject to

10

applicable price increases.
The issue for this court’s determination is whether
in that conversation of November 30th, 2016, a
telephone call initiated by the plaintiff to the
Bell representative constitutes a legal enforceable

15

oral contract for the TV service and the internet
service in the amount of $112.90 per month for a
term of 24 months.

And if the court finds that that

agreement on that November 30th, 2016, telephone
20

call is enforceable then what are the plaintiff’s
damages.
After a careful and objective review of the evidence
I make the following findings of fact.

25

First of all

I find that there was in fact this telephone call
from Mr. Ramsay to Bell Canada on November 30th,
2016, and in particular he made inquiries regarding
the telephone and internet services.

That he was

speaking to an authorized representative of Bell
30

Canada.

I accept Exhibit 1 to be a complete and

accurate transcript of the telephone conversation of
November 30th, 2016.

I accept the exhibits

 3.
Reasons for Judgment
introduced as invoices rendered by Bell Telephone to
Mr. Ramsay setting out the prices and price
increases from December of 2016 through 2017 and
still ongoing.
5

I accept that the plaintiff did

accept the installation of the TV and internet
services.

I accept that the services were installed

at the Collingwood property.

I accept that Mr.

Ramsay is making the payments and is not in default.

10

And I also find that the telephone transcript
Exhibit I describes and demonstrates the essential
elements of a contract and in particular the
elements of offer, acceptance, consideration,
intention to create legal relations and the
consensus ad idem, meaning the meeting of the minds.

15

I accept that there were no conditions in that
November 30th, 2016, telephone call and ultimately
the transcript and that the Bell documents, if there
is any ambiguity, then any ambiguity of these
20

documents, which I find to be the Bell documents,
will be resolved in favour of the plaintiff.
I find that Bell Canada cannot unilaterally insert
or impose new terms.

25

Any imposition of new terms

without fresh consideration is unenforceable.

I

also find that that kind of contractual behaviour is
high-handed, arbitrary and unacceptable.

In

particular, terms that speak to price increases, as
I’ve stated, there is no fresh consideration for
30

this price change mechanism and I find that to be
unenforceable.

 4.
Reasons for Judgment
It is true that the court cannot interfere with Bell
Canada’s rights to impose price changes.

That is

its commercial right to do so but not during a
contractual term, and the term here was for 24
5

months at $112.90 per month for TV and internet
services and therefore those terms are enforceable.
To alter or to change the terms, as Bell has
requested, would be grossly unfair, grossly
prejudicial to the plaintiff and unconscionable.

10

Contracts are designed to bring stability to
transactions, and in particular a consumer
transaction as such as we have here.

Bell’s attempt

to unilaterally impose terms are unacceptable.

I

accept the plaintiff’s position that Bell Canada
15

attempted to clarify or to introduce or to bring to
the attention of the consumer new terms of the
contract through subsequent emails.

None of those

terms were introduced or brought into the parameters
20

of the transcript of November 30th, 2016.

And

accordingly, this is not how contract law works and
the relevant, as I say, the relevant elements of the
contract are found in the transcript of November
30th, 2016.
25

So I’m also satisfied that the plaintiff has proved
his case on a balance of probabilities which is the
onus that he must discharge in a civil case and he
has discharged that onus.
30

And with the findings

that I’ve made I find that the defendant is liable
to the plaintiff, that the defendant has breached
the terms of the contract by introducing and

 5.
Reasons for Judgment
imposing price changes via its invoices and I find
that the terms of condition do not alter the
original contract which is in effect and accordingly
I award damages to the plaintiff in the amount of
5

$340.
The plaintiff did not claim in his plaintiff’s claim
a pre-judgment interest amount or a rate and
accordingly there’ll be no pre-judgment interest but

10

I will award post-judgment interest in accordance
with the Courts of Justice Act.

And that leaves now

cost to be determined for Mr. Ramsay, and being
self-represented there are no legal representation
costs but you’re entitled to cost to a maximum of
$500 under Rule 19 for the inconvenience and expense
15

that you have incurred.

What is your position as to

costs and your disbursements?
DAVID RAMSAY:

What is my position as to costs and

disbursements?
20

THE COURT:

Yes.

DAVID RAMSAY:

So is this my time, Your Honour, to

point out any additional costs I’ve had.

So, so I

had to pay $95 to submit my initial claim online.
had to pay $100 for this trial and then the gas and

I

25

parking coming here twice.
THE COURT:

Sorry, it was 95 to issue the claim?

DAVID RAMSAY:
THE COURT:

Ninety-five online, yeah.

Okay.

And then to set it down it was

not 145?
30

DAVID RAMSAY:

Actually it was that, yeah.

145.
THE COURT:

That’s the new rate.

It was

 6.

DAVID RAMSAY:

Right.

And then there was gas and

parking which is approximately – and I had to come
twice, so approximately $40 each time.

So there’s

80 for that and then my lunch today cost $10.
5

THE COURT:

So you attended the court twice and paid

parking twice?
DAVID RAMSAY:
THE COURT:

Yes, and gas.

Fifteen dollars each.

DAVID RAMSAY:
10

THE COURT:

Yes.

The Rule 19 also allows for preparation

of the claim up to a maximum of $100 and I will
allow that amount as well plus parking of $30.

So

that’s $270 in disbursements and I will ask Ms.
Redding for her position.

Is there anything else,

sir?
15

DAIVD RAMSAY:
THE COURT:

That, that’s it.

Okay.

So, Ms. Redding, in terms of the

cost to Mr. Ramsay for inconvenience expense and his
out of pockets.
20

MS. REDDING:

We accept the amount for the

disbursements, Your Honour.

With regard to – and

also with regard to the preparation of $100.

We did

file an offer to settle but it is one day late so I
can’t use it for any consideration on costs.
25

THE COURT:

All right.

Okay.

And I’m prepared to

state that costs are within the court’s discretion.
Costs normally follow the success and there’s no
reason for me to deviate from that rule and I will
award Mr. Ramsay costs of $500 which is the maximum
30

under Rule 19 for inconvenience and expense and
disbursements as itemized by Mr. Ramsay and accepted
by the court for a total of $270 being the 95 to

 7.

issue the claim, 145 to set it down, $100 for
preparation of claim and $30 for parking.
$270.

Total

So cost award all inclusive of $770.

Damages

of $340 and post-judgment interest on the award in
5

accordance with the Courts of Justice Act.
write up the endorsement.

I’ll

You’ll get a copy from

the registrar in a moment and then you’ll be free to
go.

I’ll read the endorsement into the record.

On

hearing the evidence, submissions and for oral
10

reasons given on the record, it is ordered, number
one, judgment for the plaintiff against the
defendant in the amount of $340.

Number two, post-

judgment interest as per the Courts of Justice Act
and, three, costs payable to the plaintiff in the
all inclusive sum of $770.

Endorsement here is on

15

top of the file, Madam Registrar.

Copies for the

parties.

20

...WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED

25

30

 8.
Certification
FORM 2
Certificate of Transcript
Evidence Act, Subsection 5(2)

5

I, ADRIENNE MIGNARDI, certify that this document is a true and
accurate transcript of the recording of DAVID RAMSAY v. BCE
INC. in the Superior Court of Justice held at, 47 Sheppard
Avenue East, TORONTO, Ontario, taken from Recording(s) No.
10

4816_300_20180319_094526__2_SCC.dcr, which has been certified
in Form 1.

15

______________________________
Date

20

25

30

________________________________________
(Authorized Signature)
Adrienne Mignardi
ACT ID# 1201778154
1-855-433-2743
AMIGNARDITRANSCRIPTS@VPTRANSCRIPTION.COM