Regan S. Christensen

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court assessment judgment that awarded post-judgment interest at the statutory rate rather than the contractual rate of 19.8%, and reduced the claimed disbursements without providing reasons.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Assessment Judge erred in law by failing to follow binding authority requiring the application of the contractual rate for post-judgment interest absent exceptional circumstances.

The Court also granted leave to appeal the costs order, holding that the failure to provide reasons for departing from the presumptive entitlement to reasonable disbursements justified appellate intervention.

The judgment was varied to award the full claimed disbursements and post-judgment interest at the contractual rate.

The appellant bank appealed a Small Claims Court judgment that awarded postjudgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate rather than the contractual rate of 19.8%.

The Divisional Court found that the Deputy Judge erred in law by failing to provide reasons for departing from the contractual rate and by failing to follow binding authority which requires the contractual rate to be applied absent exceptional circumstances.

The appeal was allowed and postjudgment interest was set at 19.8% per annum.

A non-party to an application sought to transfer the proceeding and a related garnishment hearing from Kitchener to Toronto under Rule 13.1.02.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving party was not a party to the application, the application had already been finally disposed of, and a garnishment hearing is a motion rather than a 'proceeding' subject to transfer under Rule 13.1.02.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision refusing his request for an adjournment and granting judgment to the respondent for outstanding credit card debt.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge failed to consider his vulnerability as a self-represented litigant.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had raised no valid defence to the debt and that an adjournment would only delay the inevitable and prejudice the respondent.

The court also ordered the severance of the joint tenancy on the appellant's property to allow the respondent to register the debt.

The plaintiff appealed a Small Claims Court order that dismissed its claim for an unpaid credit card debt.

The motion judge had dismissed the claim on her own initiative, without notice or submissions, on the basis that it was barred by the limitation period.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the judge failed to follow the mandatory notice and submission requirements under Rule 12.02 of the Rules of the Small Claims Court.

The matter was remitted back to the Small Claims Court for trial.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision that ordered the respondent to pay a reduced amount for a credit card debt.

The trial judge had excluded the appellant's affidavit and attached business records because they were served 23 days before trial instead of the required 30 days, and because the business records were not qualified under the Evidence Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors by failing to exercise discretion to admit the evidence, especially since the respondent did not dispute the debt amount or interest rate and suffered no prejudice.

Judgment was varied to award the appellant the outstanding balance at the contractual interest rate.