A high-cost lender has been ordered to pay a $9,000 administrative penalty over its failure to respond adequately to requests for documents from a B.C. regulator. Consumer Protection B.C. imposed the penalty on easyfinancial last week, publishing its reasons for doing so on Friday. The regulator concluded that easyfinancial had failed to provide records requested by one of its inspectors on five occasions, and failed to respond to the inspector’s inquiry on a sixth occasion. For its part, the company argued variously that it had fulfilled the inspector’s request, that the amount of time the inspector provided to respond was procedurally unfair, and that it was not required to retain the records that the regulator had requested. The specifics of the request and easyfinancial’s objections are outlined in CPBC adjudicator Daniel O’Connor’s decision to impose the administrative penalty. Requests and disagreements According to the decision, the inspector requested “copies of receipts issued to five borrowers for specific pre-authorized debit payments made under high-cost credit agreements entered into by the respondent.” The first request was made on May 29 of this year. In response, easyfinancial told the inspector it was “unable to access or provide copies of these receipts,” the decision indicates, adding that the inspector was directed to contact the company’s head office. When the inspector did so, the company’s director of legal and regulatory affairs responded with “documentation the respondent claimed confirmed receipts were delivered to the borrowers,” according to the decision. This was not the receipts themselves, so the inspector followed up again, repeating the original request and setting a deadline of June 8. This third request was made on June 5, the decision notes. In response, the decision indicates, easyfinancial told the inspector it had fulfilled its legal obligations by providing receipts to the clients, and offered to provide a sample receipt to the regulator. The inspector was not satisfied with this response, and followed up by reiterating the request and adding a new question, which is reproduced verbatim in the decision: “Does easyfinancial retain payment receipts relating to a high-cost credit agreement entered into with a borrower?” The inspector sent this question on June 10 and imposed a deadline of June 11, which easyfinancial complained was unreasonable because it needed time to conduct a “legal analysis,” according to the decision. The company said it would provide a response by June 17. “The inspector sought clarity on which particular aspect of the request required legal analysis, as the inspector’s inquiry required a straightforward ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response,” the decision reads. This note from the inspector also informed easyfinancial that CPBC would be proceeding under the presumption that either the company was not keeping the records, in violation of the provincial High-Cost Credit Products Regulation (HCCPR), or it was keeping the records and had failed to share them, in violation of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (BPCPA). In its June 17 response, the company outlined its position, telling the regulator that it does not believe the HCCPR requires it to retain copies of receipts issued to borrowers, that emails and attachments sent to borrowers do not constitute “records relating to a high-cost credit agreement,” and that the records it had already provided are sufficient to assess its compliance. According to the decision, the company also provided June receipts for the five clients whose May receipts the regulator had been seeking. Administrative penalty imposed O’Connor’s decision describes—and rejects—each of easyfinancial’s objections to the CPBC inspector’s requests. Regarding the argument that the company was not required to keep the receipts, or that the receipts did not constitute “records relating to a high-cost credit agreement,” the adjudicator referred to the underlying legislation. O’Connor’s decision notes that the HCCPR and the BPCPA are written intentionally broadly, with lists of potential records included as examples, rather than an exhaustive accounting of what documents companies must retain. Similarly, on the question of procedural fairness, the adjudicator noted that easyfinancial did not raise the issue of insufficient time to respond until it had already received multiple requests for the same documents. “Prior to raising a concern of procedural fairness on June 11, 2026, the respondent had 13 days to understand, investigate and provide a full answer and defence to the request, which was more than sufficient time considering the nature of the request,” the decision reads. O’Connor imposed an administrative monetary penalty of $9,000 after applying CPBC’s policy for calculating such penalties. He also ordered easyfinancial to pay $1,279.95 to the regulator as reimbursement for the costs of the inspection that led to the penalty. Both amounts are due on Oct. 8, 30 days after the decision was handed down. The respondent can request reconsideration of the administrative monetary penalty and the compliance order requiring the reimbursement within the same 30-day time frame. CTV News has reached out to easyfinancial’s parent company, goeasy Ltd., to ask whether it intends to apply for reconsideration. This story will be updated if a response is received.
