Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Courts — Jurisdiction — Contracts — Arbitration clause — Statutes — Whether the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, C.C.S.M., c. U20, or the Consumer Protection Act C.C.S.M., c. C200, override the arbitration clause, and, if so, the extent of the limitation on the arbitration clause — What is the general test for determining when statutory rights that are enforceable in the courts also fall within the concurrent jurisdiction of arbitrators?

Between September 2001 and July 2006, Ms. Briones obtained 99 Fast Cash Advances from National Money Mart (“Money Mart”). Each time, she signed an agreement which contained a clause agreeing that any claim, dispute or issue arising in connection with the loan could be referred to mediation and/or arbitration by either party. When she repaid the loans using Money Mart’s cheque-cashing service, she was also charged cheque-cashing fees. Arguing that those fees were “interest” resulting in interest in excess of the 60% permitted by s. 347 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, she initiated an action on her own behalf and on behalf of the proposed class under the Class Proceedings Act, C.C.S.M., c. C130, seeking an accounting and repayment of all cheque-cashing fees. She also sought declarations that the cheque-cashing fees paid are interest under s. 347 of the Criminal Code, and that the agreements under which the moneys were advanced were unlawful, failed to comply with The Consumer Protection Act, C.C.S.M., c. C200, and constituted harsh or unconscionable transactions within the meaning of the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, C.C.S.M., c. U20. Finally, she claimed that the Dollar Financial Group, Inc. was jointly and severally liable for any liability of Money Mart.

Money Mart argued that Ms. Briones’ claim should be stayed because she had entered into multiple written agreements requiring her to mediate and/or arbitrate the disputes. It asked the court to compel her to proceed with arbitration and/or mediation of her disputes.

Based on the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act, the Consumer Protection Act, and Seidel v. TELUS Communications Inc., 2011 SCC 15, the motion judge dismissed the motion to stay or dismiss the action. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.