The appellant, a real estate broker, appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $10,000 to his former brokerage pursuant to a training repayment clause in his contract.
He argued the clause was an unenforceable penalty and that he received no training.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge made no palpable and overriding error in concluding training was provided and linked to a $2,000 monthly stipend.
The court held the $10,000 repayment was a genuine pre-estimate of damages, not an extravagant or unconscionable penalty, given the difficulty of quantifying training costs and the unusual monthly stipend provided.
