Brampton, Ont.The approval said eighty-four months. Monthly payment: five hundred dollars and forty cents. The bank's own representative later confirmed these figures, reading them from the bank's internal system on a recorded call. Eighty-four months. Five hundred and forty cents. That is what she agreed to. That is what the bank approved.

On the day she picked up the car, the loan on the desk at the dealership was for seventy-two months. Monthly payment: five hundred and seventy-one dollars and forty-eight cents. No one had called to say the terms had changed. No email. No notice. The keys were sitting on the desk. The dealer was there. She signed the seventy-two-month contract and drove away.

The difference is seventy-one dollars and eight cents a month. Over the remaining term of the loan, that difference is several thousand dollars. It is not a rounding error. It is a different loan. The bank issued a different loan than the one the borrower agreed to, presented it at delivery when the customer had no practical ability to walk away, and collected the difference every month without acknowledgement or explanation.

The repossession truck

When she disputed the terms, the bank initiated a repossession. Not an investigation. Not a review. Not a call from a supervisor. A repossession of a vehicle purchased and paid for on a loan the bank itself had issued. The repossession was assigned on April 8, 2026. No one called her representative, who holds a registered Power of Attorney for her financial affairs, before dispatching the truck. Instead, the bank called her directly. She is 72. She received the call about her car being repossessed without any of the legal representation the Power of Attorney was specifically designed to provide.

On May 8, 2026, a bank representative called to cancel the repossession and apologize. He offered one hundred and twenty-five dollars and ten cents as compensation for the unauthorized repossession of a vehicle from a 72-year-old woman who had made every payment on a loan whose terms she had not agreed to.

She declined the one hundred and twenty-five dollars.

The approval said $500.40. The delivery contract said $571.48. The bank sent a repossession truck when she asked why. Then it called her directly, the 72-year-old borrower, despite a registered Power of Attorney saying not to.

What the bank filed in response

When a Statement of Claim was filed at the Ontario Small Claims Court, the bank retained a law firm and filed a twenty-one-page Defence. Twenty-one pages, in a small claims court, defending a sixty-three-dollar monthly discrepancy. The bank has the resources of a national institution. The borrower is a 72-year-old woman who trusted a piece of paper she was handed at a dealership on the day she collected her car. The legal and administrative cost of the bank's twenty-one-page defence almost certainly exceeds the disputed overpayments. The bank chose to fight it anyway.

The verdict

The bank's own representative confirmed the original terms on a recorded line. The bank's own approval documents show what was agreed. The bank's own delivery paperwork shows what was substituted. The bank sent a repossession truck and then apologized. The bank filed twenty-one pages of legal argument and then waited for a settlement conference date.

Somewhere between the approval and the delivery, a number changed. Nobody told her. The bank collected the difference every month. When she asked about it, the next thing she received was a call about her car. That is what one of Canada's largest financial institutions did to a 72-year-old borrower on a used-car loan. The court date is coming.