The case of Otiti v. Har-Par Investments Ltd., 2023 ABKB 732, revolves around a dispute between the plaintiffs, Ayodeji and Augusta Otiti, and the defendant, Har-Par Investments Ltd. (HPIL), their former landlord. The case examines negligence claims, among others, stemming from a 2013 Residential Tenancy Dispute Resolution Service (RTDRS) order related to unpaid rent, which led to the plaintiffs alleging harm to their credit score after they had repaid the debt.
Key Points:
- RTDRS Order: In 2013, HPIL obtained a judgment of $1,350 against the Otitis for unpaid rent. The Otitis repaid the full amount ($4,050) by mid-October 2013.
- Court Order and Filing: HPIL's process server filed the RTDRS Order with the Court, making it an official court order. The plaintiffs claim they were unaware of the order until 2018, when a lender cited it on their credit report.
- Credit Report Issue: In 2018, the Otitis discovered that the court order negatively affected their credit score, allegedly causing them difficulty in securing a mortgage. HPIL, however, denies reporting the order to Equifax.
- Plaintiffs' Claims: They sought damages for negligence, misrepresentation, fraud, and malicious conduct. They claimed HPIL failed to update the court records to reflect the satisfied debt.
- Legal Outcome: The court ruled in favor of HPIL, dismissing the claims. It found no evidence of negligence or malicious intent on HPIL's part, as they had followed legal procedures in filing the order. The court upheld the decision to dismiss the case.
The appeal was denied, confirming the summary dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims. No monetary award was specified.
