Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 11368315)

Thanks, but I'm still wondering a couple of things...



Give the creditor that option, perhaps, but I'm still wondering why the need for further action.



These factors will still apply in a non payment of fines case but they don't appear to um and ah about what method the fines, costs etc are to be paid by so much as about getting it actually paid.

Obviously means and method of paying comes into it but priority seems to go on collection or action for defaulting.



This might be another of those things that varies. When I looked into it for NB's "small claims" the stuff I read seemed to emphasise the court could only issue a judgement.

I just checked and it's been updated. But it says

This is where I'm saying it bloody well should be.



More work, more costs.



In other words you're on a hiding to nothing unless the dispute involves something fixed or straightforward like neighbours or contractors.

Bit of a waste of time for a tenancy dispute when all you knew of a tenant at the time tenancy began has changed.

On a general point, though, what I'm really saying is that a ruling in small claims court - any civil court - should then be pursued by the court in the same way they would if it were a criminal matter.

It sounds like one of those systems that could be simplified in the same way governments like to claim they want to simplify things. :lol:

Seems like a no-brainer to me. You've used the law; verdict is the other party has to you pay you. Why's the law not enforcing it's decision?

Imagine the tax office saying yes we owe you a tax refund but it's your responsibility to get it, we're not doing anything to help.

Originally Posted by JonboyE (Post 11368357)

In BC you can get a garnishment order when you file a claim. You take the garnishment order to the debtor's bank and the bank is compelled to pay the amount in dispute from the debtor's account into court. If you win your case then the court gives the money to you. If you lose then it is returned to the debtor.

Obviously, it only works if the debtor has sufficient funds at the bank. But, if the debtor does not have sufficient funds to pay the debt what is the point of the legal action?

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 11369090)

If the Court did the chasing, I would imagine that the Court's fees would have to increase to pay the salaries of public sector workers to perform the work. Whether that would represent a better system is debateable.

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 11369180)

Well, at the moment - at least here - there's a fee for winning and then a second fee for enforcement, so maybe a higher first fee to include enforcement wouldn't be so different.

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 11369180)

Of course, any additional fees incurred in enforcement of an award already made could be charged to the defaulter. Might be an incentive not to default.

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 11369180)

Whereas the present double procedure almost encourages a "so sue me" attitude where the person out of pocket sees no point in bothering.