IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA
Cite as: Dill v. Hamilton, 2014 NSSM 6
Claim No: SCCH 421406
BETWEEN:
|
Name |
Radford Franklyn Dill |
Claimant |
|
Name |
Ninika Ariana Davita Hamilton |
Defendant |
Radford Dill – Self Represented
Ninika Hamilton – Self Represented
|
Editorial Notice
Addresses and phone numbers have been removed from this electronic copy of the judgment. |
DECISION
This claim is for repayment of a loan allegedly made by the Claimant, Radford Dill, to the Defendant, Ninika Hamilton. According to Mr. Dill, the total amount of the loan was $27,400 but he has reduced the amount sought to $25,000 to bring the matter within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court.
Radford Dill testified that he met the Defendant through a dating service. He was approached by the Defendant, Ms. Hamilton, to borrow money to finance her business. He lent her approximately $27,400, which he raised by selling investments and drawing the remainder from his line of credit account at the Bank of Nova Scotia. He received monthly payments of $300 from her, the first being due September 3, 2013, which continued for the months of October, November and December. He tendered into evidence a copy of a statement from CIBC Mellon Trust Company showing proceeds from the sale of investments of $10,653.58. He showed a line of credit balance of $14,814.21 in August plus interest charged that month, and a payment of $300 made on July 29, 2013. He also tendered a subsequent statement showing interest charged. There is no documented agreement nor any receipts issued.
Ninika Hamilton testified that she and Mr. Dill had dated each other and discussed a business loan. She was looking to continue her business and wanted to relocate. She testified that a loan was made for $1500-$2000 but that she had paid him back. She indicated that she has her own line of credit and did not need to borrow money from him.
In rebuttal, Mr. Dill testified that Ms. Hamilton’s evidence of a loan of $1500-$2000 was untrue. He had spoken to her about paying more on the loan, namely $100 per week.
In establishing liability for breach of contract, the onus is on the party alleging the breach to prove on the balance of probabilities that it did indeed occur. In order to do so, one must establish that a contract existed.
In reviewing the evidence, I find that the Claimant has not discharged this onus. While there is evidence that at least one loan was made for $1500-$2000 but is no longer outstanding. I am unable to find that a loan for approximately $27,400 occurred.
I have had the opportunity to hear the evidence of both parties, and found neither of them to be believable. Indeed, in hearing their evidence, I was left with the distinct impression, and I do so find, that both Mr. Dill and Ms. Hamilton omitted many significant facts from their testimony. I do not find either party to have been credible witnesses.
In reviewing the documentation, the amounts shown in the line of credit together with repayment are not sufficient to establish that they are in any way related to Ms. Hamilton. They could have been related to any other personal obligation or expenditure of Mr. Dill. There is no evidence to show the amount originally advanced from the line of credit or paid from his bank account to create the loan; he was also not clear on the date the funds were advanced. Furthermore, while it is not necessary for a contract to be reduced to writing in order to be legally enforceable, I find that the circumstances are such that the parties would have reduced such an agreement to writing. Mr. Dill strikes me as a man of reasonable intelligence and of modest means, one would not expect him to lend sums in excess of $27,000 without taking added precautions, such as a promissory note or issuing or insisting on receipts. The written evidence is inconclusive as it does not link Mr. Dill’s accounts or any of the transactions to his involvement with Ms. Hamilton. As a result, I am unable to find on the evidence that an amount of $27,400 was advanced to Ms. Hamilton. Therefore, I do not find that a contract to borrow that amount was formed and subsequently breached.
For all of these reasons, the claim is dismissed without costs.
Dated at Dartmouth, NS,
on January 23, 2014.
______________________________
Gregg W. Knudsen, Adjudicator
Original: Court File
Copy: Claimant(s)
Copy: Defendant(s)