Small Claims Court says that Bell can’t play shell game with price
“In a judgment issued last month in a Toronto small claims court, Deputy Judge William C. De Lucia said that Bell’s attempt to impose new terms after a verbal contract guaranteeing a monthly price for 24 months had been struck was `high-handed, arbitrary and unacceptable’.”
I’m delighted by this. It has been ages since I had a small claims case, but I do recall that in Toronto in the 1990s the judges were willing to give large corporations elbow room that smaller litigants didn’t. I recall one client losing a case on a financial contract because the contract itself was “entirely in his favour” (i.e. the terms where one-sided in his favour). Neither I nor any other lawyer I talked to could recall, say, Bell or Ford or RBC losing a case because their contract covered all the angles in their favour.
