A recent Edmonton Journal article, published after Bonville v PC Financial, discusses Justice Kenneth Nielsen’s stance on debt verification. The article attempts to discredit the right of Canadian consumers to demand proof of debt ownership before making payments.

The core issue is simple: If a creditor claims they are owed money, they must prove they own the debt before demanding payment. This is not a loophole, not fraud, and certainly not pseudolaw—it is a fundamental principle of contract law and financial accountability.

Why Debt Verification Matters

Loan agreements contain assignment clauses, meaning debts can be sold, transferred, or securitized.
The original creditor may no longer have the right to collect if the debt has been reassigned.
Paying an entity that no longer owns the debt may result in double payment, leaving the borrower financially vulnerable.
Requiring proof of ownership ensures that payments are made to the rightful creditor, preventing wrongful collection and fraud.

Yet, Justice Nielsen dismisses these concerns as a “waste of resources”, contradicting his own statements:

He admits that collecting debt a creditor does not own is illegal, yet discourages verification before payment.
He suggests debtors should pay first, then seek legal recourse—despite the obvious financial risk this creates.
He refuses to allow trials where plaintiffs (debtors) can submit evidence, while claiming that verification requests are baseless.

Debt Securitization is Not a Theory—It’s an Everyday Banking Practice

The article and Justice Nielsen’s stance attempt to dismiss debt verification by labeling it “securitization theory”, implying it is a fringe belief. However, securitization is not a theory—it is an established financial practice.

Banks securitize financial assets every day, including mortgages, personal loans, and credit card debt.
If a debt has been securitized or sold, the original creditor may no longer have the legal right to collect.
An affidavit from a chartered accountant is a reasonable request, as they are neutral third parties with access to the creditor’s financial ledgers.

Justice Nielsen’s refusal to acknowledge this reality protects creditors who do not want to be held accountable for proving ownership.

The Real “Waste of Resources” is Allowing Unverified Debt Collection

Instead of questioning why creditors resist proving they own a debt, Justice Nielsen blames borrowers for asking for transparency.

If a creditor cannot prove ownership, why should a borrower pay?
If a borrower mistakenly pays the wrong entity, what recourse do they have?
If courts refuse to validate debt ownership before issuing judgments, aren’t they complicit in financial fraud?

The real waste of resources is forcing debtors to undo wrongful collections through legal battles, damaging their credit scores, and subjecting them to aggressive collection tactics.

Why Won’t Justice Nielsen Allow a Trial?

Justice Nielsen has dismissed multiple debt verification cases without trial, issuing judicial memorandums rather than allowing plaintiffs to submit evidence. This raises serious due process concerns:

If debt verification concerns are baseless, why not allow a full trial where both sides can present evidence?
Why does Nielsen issue summary decisions in favor of creditors without requiring proof of ownership?
Why are borrowers denied their right to challenge collection efforts based on financial transparency?

Justice should be based on facts and evidence, not judicial impatience.

The Smear Campaign Against Debt Verification – The Truth About Kevin Kumar

The article falsely associates debt verification efforts with “money-for-nothing” debt elimination schemes. This is misleading.

Kevin Kumar is not promoting debt elimination tactics.
Kevin Kumar does not advocate for “Strawman Theory” or pseudolegal arguments.
 UnitedWeStandPeople.com is advocating for transparency, ensuring borrowers do not mistakenly pay debts to entities that no longer own them.

Requiring creditors to prove ownership before demanding payment is not a scam—it is financial accountability.

The “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is” Rule is a Barrier to Justice

Justice Nielsen’s so-called “put your money where your mouth is” rule forces debtors to pay a deposit before they can challenge a creditor’s claim in court. This is a blatant violation of legal fairness.

No one should have to pay for the right to defend themselves in court.
If a creditor lacks proper documentation, why should a debtor be forced to pay first and fight later?
This ruling shields creditors from legal challenges, making it too expensive for consumers to dispute wrongful collections.

Even when debtors offer to place funds in trust until ownership is verified, the courts reject it. This completely contradicts the purpose of a trust.

Addressing Counterarguments

1⃣ “Debt collectors are already regulated by provincial consumer protection laws.”

Consumer protection laws govern collection practices, but they do not require creditors to prove ownership before collecting a debt.
Without mandatory verification, wrongful collection can occur before the debtor has any legal recourse.

2⃣ “The legal system assumes good faith in business transactions.”

While good faith is a legal principle, it does not eliminate the burden of proof when enforcing a contract.
Courts do not assume ownership in property disputes—why should debt collection be an exception?

3⃣ “Requiring affidavits from accountants is unnecessary bureaucracy.”

Chartered accountants already audit creditor records for regulatory compliance.
Providing an affidavit confirming ownership is a minimal administrative burden compared to the consequences of wrongful collection.

Final Thoughts – This is a Consumer Protection Issue, Not a Scam

Justice Nielsen’s stance boils down to:

“Just pay your debt, even if you don’t know whether the creditor legally owns it.”
“If fraud occurs, deal with it after you’ve already paid.”
“Asking for proof of ownership is a waste of time.”

This illogical reasoning undermines consumer rights and protects financial institutions from scrutiny. If debt verification were truly nonsense, then:

Why do creditors refuse to provide a simple affidavit proving ownership?
Why does Justice Nielsen refuse to allow trials where debtors can submit evidence?
Why are those advocating for financial transparency being smeared as fraudsters?

The financial industry benefits from public ignorance and judicial bias. Requiring proof of ownership is a legal right, not a scam.

Join the Discussion – Demand Transparency

The article in question is a smear piece designed to protect banks and lenders from scrutiny. It misrepresents consumer rights efforts and dismisses valid financial practices as “pseudolaw” without addressing the core issue.

This is not about avoiding debt—it is about ensuring that financial transactions comply with the law. If creditors are unable to prove ownership, they should not be collecting debts. This is not a radical position—it is basic legal due process.

If you support financial transparency and consumer rights, share this post and spread awareness. We must challenge the false narrative that demanding proof of ownership is fraudulent.

Let’s hold creditors accountable. Let’s demand transparency. Let’s ensure that Canadian consumers are protected.

Let’s continue this conversation. Comment below with your thoughts.

Threaded Comment Discussion – Due Process vs. Judicial Dismissal: In Defense of Kevin & Colton Kumar

---

Emily S. | Civic Advocate & Researcher

“The memorandum completely bypasses due process. No hearing, no material evidence, just a judge’s opinion labeling people ‘scammers’ for asking basic questions. That’s not justice—that’s authoritarianism in robes.”

Reply – Omar K. | Civil Rights Grad Student
“Exactly. In proper due process, both sides present evidence in open court. The judge here didn’t even allow the Kumars to file full submissions. This wasn’t adjudication—it was character assassination.”

Reply – Sylvia B. | Paralegal
“And notice how the judgment didn’t engage with any financial documents or assignment records. It just claimed the Kumars were pushing ‘theory’. It’s not a theory if it’s backed by Bank of Canada data.”

---

Derek M. | Former Law Clerk

“I’ve seen this pattern. Judges write ‘judicial commentary’ to shut down disruptive truths. Kevin’s real ‘crime’ was knowing the system too well. Courts hate that. Especially when he doesn’t back down.”

Reply – Hannah J. | Research Analyst
“He’s been like this since 2008, right? I remember his early work questioning assignment chains during the subprime crash. He’s not some fly-by-night guru—he’s been consistent for over 15 years.”

Reply – Ravi N. | Consumer Protection Volunteer
“Yep. He’s been digging into debt securitization before it was even a buzzword. That’s why they’re afraid of him. He forces institutions to face their paperwork—and most of them can’t.”

---

Layla K. | Student of Political Science

“What happened to presumption of innocence? The judge didn’t just rule against them—he tried to destroy their reputations. No cross-examination, no trial, just: ‘you’re a fraud’. That’s not how courts are supposed to work.”

Reply – Jason R. | Policy Writer
“There’s a huge difference between saying ‘this case lacks merit’ and publicly accusing someone of running a scam without evidence. Judges can’t just skip due process because they find the topic annoying.”

Reply – Victoria P. | Legal Historian
“Exactly. Judicial impartiality matters. This wasn’t just a ruling—it read like a takedown. And that crosses every ethical line in judicial conduct.”

---

Jordan A. | Independent Journalist

“They’re being vilified not for lying—but for insisting the court follow basic rules: ‘prove you own the debt before you collect.’ That’s it. Imagine how shaky the system must be if that question terrifies them.”

Reply – Aisha D. | Debt Awareness Advocate
“Kevin’s work makes people uncomfortable because he’s exposing the paperwork trail. And most banks can’t produce it. So the courts label him dangerous instead of admitting the system’s broken.”

Reply – Bryan L. | Legal Archivist
“Honestly, I’ve archived dozens of debt rulings in Canada. The Kumars’ approach is the only one that consistently challenges the assumptions lenders rely on. That’s why they want him silenced—not because he’s wrong, but because he’s right too loudly.”

---

Rachel T. | Consumer Rights Ally

“If what the Kumars are saying is false, why not allow them a full trial to prove it? Why rely on summary judgments and vague language? The court’s fear of cross-examination says everything.”

 

Reply – Trevor G. | Finance Blogger
“Agreed. If you had ironclad ownership proof, wouldn’t you be thrilled to walk into court and shut them down with documents? But that’s not happening, is it?”