Park vista whitby prices . The doctor didn’t pay the loan on time. Go to court to avoid fines and high interest rates. A lending institution has obtained court support by charging borrowers tens of thousands of yuan in fines and arrears fees and raising lending rates for late or late mortgage repayments.
The borrower refused to appeal, and the Court of Appeal ruled that the fine and arrears were unenforceable on the grounds that the fine and the increase in interest violated the federal interest law.
Bijan Pardis, a doctor and land developer, is in Langstaff Road E in Wanjin City. Owns a property that he uses as an addiction center.
The case began in 2011, when Bijan Pardis and his two companies signed a promissory note and a mortgage. The promissory note and mortgage guarantee a debt of up to $458488.07 with a repayment period of six years. According to the terms of the mortgage, the interest rate is set at 0.75% per annum. Promissory notes are prepared to increase the interest rate on the debt to 10% per year in the event of default in monthly repayments.
The terms of the mortgage stipulate that the lender has the right to charge an administrative fee of $300 and a daily fine of $10 for any late repayment, overdue payment or bounce of cheques due to insufficient deposits.
In early 2012, borrowers stopped paying their debts. As a result, the lender issued a notice of sale and sued for the amount of arrears, claimed 300 yuan for each overdue repayment and charged 10% interest according to the automatic increment clause (escalation clause) of the promissory note.
The lender calculates interest at 10%, and the total amount of interest owed by the borrower exceeds 57000 yuan. Based on the fine of $300 for each late payment and $10 per day for arrears, the total fine and arrears for 24 late payments are $7200 and $11110 respectively. At the first court hearing, the judge accepted the lender’s calculation and the amount claimed, plus $55600 in legal costs.
Pardis and his company, represented by lawyer Howard Crosner, appealed to the three-member panel of judges of the Court of Appeal at the end of 2014. The Court of Appeal ruled in 2015: citing provisions of the Federal interest Act (Interest Act) to prohibit any fine, fine, or mortgage rate from rising above the applicable rate because of arrears, if the borrower has a good reputation.
The Court of Appeal quoted a previous ruling of the BC Court as saying that the purpose of the interest law is to “protect property owners from undesirable forms of lending and at the same time recognize that, in general, all parties are entitled to freedom of contract. The prohibition prevents additional fees from being charged for default in repaying mortgage loans.”
The Court of Appeal finally ruled that the only interest rate applicable to this debt was 0.75%, which had been agreed by both parties. The Court of Appeal also rejected lenders’ collection of overdue fines of $11110 and arrears of $7200 on the grounds that they also constitute fines or fines prohibited under the interest law. The court also ordered the lender to bear 25000 yuan in legal costs spent by the borrower.
Apart from the largest banks and trust companies in the country, similar fines are often found in the first and second mortgages provided by many private and smaller lending institutions. The Ontario Supreme Court ruling made it clear that unless the mortgage penalty is directly related to the actual cost paid by the lender, such as the penalty charged by the bank for bouncing tickets, the borrower is not required to pay the penalty, but still has to pay interest at a lower interest rate.