The former owner of a failed Kamloops Internet provider told a judge Wednesday that Telus, the company that forced her firm into bankruptcy, is trying to wear her down with a “scorched earth” legal strategy.

Cindy Quigley, who operated On Call Internet Services Ltd., made the comments as Telus applied to set aside a B.C. Supreme Court order giving her another chance to press a claim that On Call is owed more than $1 million by Telus.

As it stands now, On Call owes Telus more than $900,000. The corporation was awarded the judgment by an arbitrator, but Quigley was granted the opportunity to appeal that order earlier this year.

Telus lawyer Alan Dabb told Justice Peter Leask the latest court order was based on fraudulent or misleading information Quigley brought in support of her application.

Dabb also said it’s On Call that is “scorching the earth” with persistent legal actions, not Telus.

Wednesday’s court hearing was one more battle in what has been described as a war between a corporate giant and a small family Internet supplier.

On Call operated as an Internet service provider in the Kamloops area from September 1997 until last year and contracted services from Telus.

The two companies were in almost constant dispute about tariffs, rates and billing practices related to Telus’s provision of ASDL services.

Dabb tried to convince the court that many of the financial claims made by Quigley in affidavits she has filed in past hearings were fraudulent.

But Justice Leask debated the lawyer along the way, suggesting ways in which Quigley’s numbers make sense. The judge agreed some of the numbers may appear ambiguous, but noted it’s Telus’s onus to show there has been a fraud.

“You have two things to do (to show fraud),” Leask told the lawyer. “You must show the numbers are badly wrong, and show that (Quigley) knows it.

“Proving people are fraudsters is not like falling off a log,” he said.

Dabb suggested there are so many financial inconsistencies in her affidavits that at some point the totality of all of them must be considered.

“There comes a point when it is death by a thousand cuts,” Dabb said.

In the end, however, Justice Leask said all that can be shown is maybe Quigley does not understand the legal process as well as lawyers do.

“It’s unfortunate, perhaps, but it is not fraud,” Leask said. “You don’t have a prayer of showing she (acted fraudulently).”

Justice Leask dismissed Telus’s application.

“I am completely unpersuaded there was any fraud in the financial disclosures made by Ms. Quigley,” said the judge. “In my view, what her statements reveal is a persistent misunderstanding of the strength of her company’s case against Telus.”

Between 2000 and 2007, at least five meetings were held between On Call and Telus to discuss the problems. There have also been numerous court hearings, as well as the arbitration hearing.

Telus applied to have On Call put into bankruptcy in 2010 but Justice Robert Powers held off at the time, saying the company needed a chance to appeal or resolve the underlying dispute in court.

Justice Richard Blair, however, put the company into bankruptcy late last year after Telus showed instances when On Call had not met terms imposed by Justice Powers.

Quigley applied for an order in March seeking a chance to continue the appeal despite the demise of her company, arguing she is a creditor and is entitled to continue the legal action as a result. She says On Call owes her more than $13,000 for expenses she incurred on her personal credit card for business purposes.

Quigley claims she has new evidence that no court has seen before that will sway an appeals court her way, namely, a letter from the CRTC and an affidavit from a regulatory consultant.

Justice Leask suggested there is little hope B.C.’s Court of Appeal will consider the new evidence, however. Judicial reviews look for errors of law and rarely look at new material not considered during the initial hearing.

rkoopmans@kamloopsnews.ca