In Canada, debt Validation is not legislated federally or in any Canadian provinces as it is in the U.S under Section 809b of the FDCPA.

However, in Common Law provinces (which mean all provinces except Quebec) the English Law doctrine of "estoppel by silence" applies and it is a similar concept because the Validation of Debt in the U.S works under the same principle except it was made in to law by congress using the logic of estoppel.

In British-Columbia, the Honourable Madam Justice Ross in Costco Wholesale Canada Inc. v. Cazalet, 2008 BCSC 952 applied this doctrine in a different case than a debt as quoted below.

"In, Spencer Bower, The Law Relating to Estoppel by Representation, 4th ed. by Piers Feltham, Daniel Hochberg & Tom Leech (London: LexisNexis UK, 2004; reprinted by Tottel Publishing, 2007) the authors state the following at para. I.2.2 regarding estoppel by representation:

Under the doctrine of estoppel by representation of fact: where one person (‘the representor’) has made a representation of fact to another person (‘the representee’) in words or by acts or conduct, or (being under a duty to the representee to speak or act) by silence or inaction, with the intention (actual or presumptive) and with the result of inducing the representee on the faith of such representation to alter his position to his detriment, the representor, in any litigation which may afterwards take place between him and the representee, is estopped, as against the representee, from making, or attempting to establish by evidence, any averment substantially at variance with his former representation, if the representee at the proper time, and in the proper manner, objects thereto."

That means that under the doctrine of estoppel by representation of fact: the Debtor (‘the representor’) makes a representation by words with a letter to validate the debt to a Creditor stating facts (facts stating that you do not owe the debt). That letter is the representation of fact to the creditor (‘the representee’), since the creditor has hired an agency to harass you by phone or engaged in other collections activities such as reporting the debt in credit bureaus, the Creditor is under a duty to the Debtor to speak or act. If the Creditor fails to respond within a reasonable time frame (30 days), his silence or inaction, renders the creditor estopped (stopped), as against the debtor, from making, or attempting to establish by evidence that you owe any debt. (Even if the Creditor is right and has evidence against you and you really owe the debt, the Doctrine of Estoppel is applicable in Common Law provinces in Canada and it bars the creditor to make that claim in court).

Q: Is the BPCPA only for B.C. residents?

Yes, but each province has their own office of consumer protection. So simply substitute your province's consumer protection for the BPCPA in the process. The laws that govern collection agencies are federal. All provinces are subject to the same collection agency practices act. The most important element of which is the clause that states that they cannot call you if you communicate that request in writing.

Is the BPCPA only for B.C. residents?

hi..

im confused. who would make the car loan agreement? give some ideas please..

My argument against fractional reserve banking applies to loans where the money for the loan is created after the fact out of thin air by monetizing the applicant's signed promissory note and selling it to a third party on the private market - this is the case with credit card loans, student loans, and in the U.S., mortgages.

Here is a link to the decision by a Minessota judge in 1968, ruling against fractional reserve banking whereby money for loans is created out of thin air (as we also do in Canada). Click on Judgment and Decree:

http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/CreditRiver.html

can this work with a car loan company
they tried to repo my car today

Oh my god! Not YOU!

I've seen your "the money never existed therefore I don't owe it" argument elsewhere...

Good luck with that.

Really.

In regards to your second question re: sueing for harrassment:

I believe the BPCPA agent would have refered me to such a law if there was one. I certainly let them know I was willing to file a claim against the CA. Perhaps call the BPCPA. They are helpful and will answer your questions.

Hello JacTrac84,

I haven't learned of anything so far in Canada that requires the CA to remove the tradeline from the credit report.

Hi JohnDoe,

I know that if you DV a CA in the States (and they have no proof of your debt or they don't respond in 30 days), that you can have the Tradeline removed from your Credit Report...Do the same rules hold for Canada?

Also, in the States, if a CA keeps contacting you by phone, even though you have told them not to, you can sue them for $1000 for harassment (as well as other infractions)...Is this also true for Canadians?

Thanks for posting a Canadian version of the DV process ...Very helpful!!

Jac