Delayed Payment Penalties:

Question: When is a late fee considered an illegal penalty in Canada?

Answer: Vagans Legal can help if you think a late fee is really disguised interest that turns into an illegal penalty under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, section 347; as a general rule, a late fee that effectively charges interest above 60% per annum can be unenforceable, even if the charge is called a “late fee,” because courts look at what it is in substance (for example, Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 112).   Any clause that goes beyond recovery of genuine disbursement costs (rather than charging for extended credit) may also be challenged, such as under De Wolf v. Bell ExpressVu Inc., 2009 ONCA 644; a severability clause can sometimes preserve the rest of the agreement, so the exact wording matters.   If you share the contract language and the payment timeline, a paralegal at Vagans Legal can review whether the late fee or “penalty” is likely enforceable and what your next steps are, call (416) 473-8472.

Add this website to Google Preferred Sources

When Is a Late Fee An Illegal Penalty

Business owners often attempt to encourage prompt payment by imposing delayed payment penalties (late fees) upon those who fail to pay on time.  Unfortunately, contracts may be deemed unlawful and therefore unenforceable when the contract is written in such a way as to impose, or appear to impose, an improper late fee.  Commonly, the late fee calculates to an amount that violates the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, section 347, whereas charging an interest rate beyond sixty (60%) percent per annum is deemed a criminal offence.  A contract prescribing an interest rate that exceeds the sixty (60%) percent is an illegal contract; Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co., [1998] 3 S.C.R. 112; albeit, if the contract contains a severability clause, then such a clause may preserve the complete contract from becoming void.

Although a business may try to disguise interest by labeling an interest charge as a late fee, courts will carefully review whether the late fee is indeed an interest charge as additional monies due from the providing of credit on the balance overdue.  An exception applies if it is shown that the late fee genuinely correlates to the recovery of a disbursement cost incurred in the collection of the debt rather than as an additional fee correlated to the further advancement of the debt; De Wolf v. Bell ExpressVu Inc., 2009 ONCA 644; Garland, supra.

As an example, consider the business that charges a ten 00/00 ($10.00) dollar late fee when a monthly payment of one hundred 00/00 ($100.00) is overdue by seven (7) days.  This late fee actually calculates as a ten (10%) percent additional charge upon the actual amount due.  This ten (10%) percent late fee imposed upon a one week overdue account produces an exorbitant, and unlawful, five hundred twenty (520%) percent annual interest rate.  Note that the fact that this interest appears lower, and actually does calculate lower, over a greater period of time, it is the trigger date that causes the unlawfulness.  While the $10.00 late fee charged on the 7th day is unlawful, it might appear that if six months later the same $10.00 is still outstanding that the amount, by then, is a lawful twenty (20%) percent interest; however, the very fact that the amount was unlawful when originally imposed continues to make the amount unlawful.  What was at first unlawful fails to become lawful.

Conclusion

When an agreement contains a clause for late fees or other form of delayed payment penalty, such is viewed as an attempt to charge interest on monies due.  Where the late fees, as a disguised interest, calculate to an interest rate beyond the legally allowable interest rate, the late fees are viewed as unlawful.  Furthermore, even if the interest rate may be legal, late fees or a payment penalty that goes beyond the costs of recovering the genuine amount due are, generally, deemed unenforceable.