Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Plaintiff failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that Bell breached its contract or was negligent in allowing unauthorized access to his account

• No expert evidence was provided to demonstrate how the fraudster gained access to the plaintiff's "My Bell" online account

• Causation was not proven between Bell's conduct and the plaintiff's alleged credit score decline or subsequent loan denials

• The Limitation of Liability clause in the contract restricted Bell's liability to actual and direct damages arising from a service outage only

• Plaintiff's assertions regarding credit score impact and business loan denials were deemed speculative and unsupported by documentary evidence

• Bell successfully proved its counterclaim for $760.66 in unpaid cancellation fees after the plaintiff terminated his contract early

Background and the fraudulent scheme

In July 2023, Osman Zeynalli entered into a 24-month contract with Bell Mobility Inc. for the purchase of a device and a single phone line. In March 2024, Mr. Zeynalli received a fraudulent call from a person purporting to work for Bell, offering a promotion. Mr. Zeynalli agreed to the promotion. The caller was not a Bell employee; however, they were somehow able to access Mr. Zeynalli's "My Bell" online account, through which they ordered three additional devices and phone lines. These devices were shipped to the plaintiff's address, and upon receipt, Mr. Zeynalli shipped them to another location using shipping labels provided by the fraudster. The plaintiff reported the fraud to Bell in April 2024.

Bell's investigation and the plaintiff's response

Bell investigated these fraudulent transactions and ultimately refunded the fraudulent charges on Mr. Zeynalli's account in June 2024. Between April and June 2024, pending Bell's investigation of the reported fraud, the plaintiff did not make payments to Bell, including with respect to legitimate charges. In July 2024, after the fraudulent charges on the plaintiff's account were reversed, the plaintiff paid the outstanding amount owed. Shortly after, the plaintiff unilaterally terminated his contract with Bell before the expiration of the two-year term. This resulted in cancellation fees pursuant to the terms of the contract in the amount of $760.66, which became the subject of Bell's counterclaim.

The plaintiff's claims and allegations

Mr. Zeynalli advanced claims for breach of contract and negligence. In his amended notice of civil claim dated October 8, 2025, he seeks general damages of between $1.9 million and $3.3 million. His original notice of civil claim dated June 24, 2025 sought general damages in the amount of $710,000, which is also the amount the plaintiff deposed to with respect to his losses in his affidavit no.2 dated July 18, 2025. He alleges that his credit score went down from 656 to 594 between March and June 2024 because of Bell. In particular, he asserts that Bell did not remove the fraudulent charges from his account soon enough and the unpaid charges, as reflected on his credit report, caused the reduction in his credit rating. He further alleges that because of the decline in his credit rating, he was denied a $200,000 small business loan in around September 2024. In addition, he alleges that the denial of this loan led him to miss out on time-sensitive business opportunities, resulting in significant financial losses that he seeks to represent through these alleged losses.

The defendant's position and contractual defences

Bell contended that the plaintiff's allegations are factually incorrect and the plaintiff is mistaken about the relevant facts and timeline. The defendant asserts that during its investigation of the fraudulent transactions, it did not report any late payments to credit reporting agencies with respect to the plaintiff's account in April to June 2024. The only report that Bell made to credit reporting agencies regarding the plaintiff's account was made in December 2024 in relation to the plaintiff's non-payment of cancellation fees, which Bell was entitled to do pursuant to the parties' contract. The defendant also contends that the plaintiff has not established how the fraudster was able to gain access to the plaintiff's "My Bell" account, and there is no evidence that Bell was responsible. It submits that Bell had no control over Mr. Zeynalli's Gmail account or the password he used to access the "My Bell" account and no control over who can access the account using that information. Bell also relied on a Limitation of Liability clause in the contract which limits Bell's liability to actual and direct damages arising out of a service outage, which is not contemplated in the claim. The Limitation of Liability establishes that Bell is not responsible for any other claims, losses, expenses, or damages, including damages resulting from loss of income.

Court's analysis on breach of contract

The Court found that Mr. Zeynalli did not refer to any contractual terms that are alleged to have been breached. Instead, he alleges that Bell breached its duties by allowing unauthorized access to his account; in failing to promptly correct the amounts owing on the account after being notified of the fraudulent transactions; and by allowing inaccurate information to be reflected on the plaintiff's credit report. The Court held that to the extent the plaintiff contends that these alleged "duties" ought to be treated as implied contractual terms, he has not demonstrated a basis for it. The party claiming an implied term has the onus of proving, as a fact, the necessity of the term to give business efficacy to the contract. Further, while it appears that the fraudster accessed the plaintiff's "My Bell" account to perpetuate the fraud, there is no evidence before the court as to how the fraudster was able to do so. In the absence of clear evidence, including expert evidence, as to how the fraudster was able to gain access to the plaintiff's "My Bell" account, the evidence falls far short of establishing on the balance of probabilities that the fraud was occasioned by a data breach within Bell's system.

Court's analysis on negligence

The Court determined that the plaintiff has not provided legal authority to demonstrate that the duties of care he alleges are recognized in law, nor has he addressed the test for determining the existence of a private law duty of care as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Cooper v. Hobart, 2001 SCC 79. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has not established that the defendant owed him duties of care as alleged. Even if the plaintiff had demonstrated that the defendant owed him the alleged duties of care, he has not established that the defendant failed to exercise the requisite standard of care. To the extent that the plaintiff relies on any unauthorized access to his Bell account in support of his claim in negligence, as discussed previously, the plaintiff has not established on a balance of probabilities that unauthorized access to his account occurred due to a data breach within Bell's system, or otherwise due to a failure on Bell's part, as he alleged. Bell tendered evidence regarding the safeguards that it maintains and implements to protect its customers' personal information, including the plaintiff's. The Court was not satisfied that the delay in reversing the fraudulent charges, pending Bell's investigation of the reported fraud, is unreasonable and constitutes failure by Bell to exercise the requisite standard of care, assuming that a duty of care had been proven.

Failure to prove causation

Importantly, even if the plaintiff had established either breach of contract or negligence on the defendant's part, the plaintiff has failed to prove that this caused his alleged losses. The evidence before the court demonstrates that Bell did not report missed payments on the plaintiff's accounts to credit agencies for the period between March and June 2024. The only missed payment reported by Bell was made in December 2024 in respect to the plaintiff's nonpayment of cancellation fees. The plaintiff's credit report from TransUnion, which he relies on, is consistent with the defendant's evidence that there was a collection hold on the plaintiff's account during the period of April to June 2024, during which time no missed payments were reported to credit agencies. Specifically, the TransUnion report shows that there were no past due amounts between April and July 2024. Although the plaintiff agrees that no missed payments were reported by Bell, he asserts that unpaid balances were still reflected on his credit report for the months of April to June that lowered his credit score. The plaintiff did not tender admissible evidence regarding why his credit score went down. The Court did not accept the plaintiff's assertion that the only factor that could have reduced his credit score was the Bell balances for April to June 2024. On the face of the TransUnion credit report, there were other potential explanations. For example, the plaintiff had a past due amount on his Royal Bank of Canada ("RBC") visa of $77 in February 2024. Further, the TransUnion credit report indicates that credit-related inquiries may also impact the plaintiff's credit score. Notably, there were two credit-related inquiries listed between the relevant time period: (a) on May 10th, 2024 by RBC; and (b) on April 29th, 2024 by Walmart. In addition, the plaintiff deposed that he had a late payment on his CIBC account in April of 2024 and that he had exceeded his credit limit with RBC in March of 2024.

Insufficient evidence on loan denials and damages

Although the plaintiff deposed that his reduced credit score of 594 caused him "to be denied multiple business loans, including a $200,000 loan" in September 2024, there is no documentary evidence of these loan denials in the record before the Court. The plaintiff relies on his own summary of conversations with advisors from Canadian banks in November 2025 regarding the likelihood of the plaintiff getting approval for a loan in hypothetical scenarios. The plaintiff deposed that he spoke to the following advisors: a) Mr. Blair from RBC; b) Mr. Alain from TD; and c) Mr. Terry from BMO. In addition, the plaintiff deposed that he spoke to "Mr. Farzad", a senior account manager at Business Development Bank of Canada. In summary, the plaintiff asserts that, based on what he was told during these conversations, there were no issues with his proof of income, suggested down payment of $25,000, and his business model. However, he contends that the minimum credit score required for a loan was 650. Therefore, the plaintiff asserts that the only factor that prevented him from obtaining a loan in 2024 was his reduced credit score. What these individuals allegedly told the plaintiff is inadmissible hearsay. Even if it was admissible for its truth, in the Court's view, it does not go so far as to support the plaintiff's assertion that he would have been granted a loan but for the credit score. At best, these were preliminary assessments based on general information and were not necessarily predictive of the outcome of a loan application if one had been proceeded with, which does not appear to be the case. Further, based on the record, only one of the three bank advisors mentioned a minimum credit score requirement of 650. In addition, based on the plaintiff's own summary of these conversations, "Mr. Terry" from BMO advised that weaknesses in one area can be offset by strength in others. The Court also noted that while the plaintiff deposed that he was in a position to make a $25,000 down payment for a loan, the evidence that he took the Court to showed that on July 15, 2024, some $23,300 and change was deposited to what was presumably the plaintiff's CIBC account. Not only is this amount shy of the $25,000 that the plaintiff indicated he had, but $10,000 was withdrawn on the same day. This does not support the plaintiff's assertion that he was in a position - in September 2024 - to provide a $25,000 down payment, which was what he allegedly reported to the above-mentioned bank advisors.

Ruling and outcome

The Court dismissed the plaintiff's summary trial application, finding that he has failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that any breach of contract or negligence on the part of the defendant caused the damages that he claims. Given the Court's decision on the summary trial application, it was not necessary to decide the defendant's summary judgment application in respect of the plaintiff's claim, and the Court dismissed that application as well. The Court also dismissed the plaintiff's claim. On the defendant's counterclaim for summary determination, the Court was satisfied that the defendant has proven on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff breached his contract with Bell by terminating the contract before the two-year expiration date and by failing to pay the resulting cancellation fees. As a result, there is an unpaid debt of $760.66 as supported by the terms of the contract and the corresponding unpaid invoice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff does not dispute this. The Court awarded Bell Canada general damages for breach of contract in the amount of $760.66, plus interest, pursuant to the Court Order Interest Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 79. The successful party in this matter was Bell Canada, and the plaintiff's claim seeking up to $3.3 million in damages was entirely dismissed.