David J. Rose

The appellant landlord appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring her to pay the respondent tenant $12,000 for illegally collected rent.

The tenant had signed a new lease with the appellant, who had purchased the property, doubling the rent without a Notice of Rent Increase.

The Board found the sole purpose of the new lease was to increase the rent, making the increase void ab initio.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's conclusions were based on findings of fact that were not subject to appeal and that the Board applied the correct legal principles.

The defendants were successful on a motion and sought costs.

The parties had agreed during the hearing that if the defendants were successful, they would be entitled to partial indemnity costs of $35,000.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and ordered costs of $35,000 to the defendants based on the agreement.

The applicants sought judicial review of three Ontario Labour Relations Board decisions declaring them a related employer under s. 1(4) of the Labour Relations Act.

The applicants argued the Board improperly refused an adjournment, erred in relying on an agreement signed by an allegedly incapacitated principal, disregarded evidence, and gave improper legal advice.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Board's decisions on the adjournment and the related employer declaration were reasonable, and that there was no evidence of prejudice from any alleged legal advice.

The appellant payday lender appealed a Small Claims Court judgment assessing damages after the respondent defaulted on a $450 loan.

The trial judge found the annualized interest rate of 1,303% violated the Criminal Code, rejected a $500 claim for liquidated damages as a penalty, and reduced the 59% post-default interest rate to 18% under the Unconscionable Transactions Relief Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the payday loan exemption to the Criminal Code was not yet in force at the time of the agreement, the lender failed to prove the $500 fee was a genuine pre-estimate of loss, and the transaction was harsh and unconscionable.

The appellants appealed six Small Claims Court decisions assessing damages on default judgments for payday loans.

The Small Claims Court judge awarded partial judgment in each case but provided no reasons for reducing the amounts claimed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeals, holding that the complete absence of reasons precluded meaningful appellate review.

The matters were remitted to a different judge for a new assessment of damages, as the appellate court lacked sufficient information to determine the appropriate amounts.