Marvin Shifman

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his defence and granting judgment to the respondent for a credit card debt of $10,840.17.

The appellant argued that the respondent increased his credit limit without his express consent, contrary to regulations under the Bank Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Deputy Judge did not err in accepting the respondent's evidence that the appellant had authorized the increases via internet and telephone banking.

The defence had no meaningful chance of success at trial.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment finding them liable under s. 50 of the Commercial Tenancies Act for the fraudulent removal of goods to defeat the respondent landlord's claim for rent arrears.

The trial judge awarded double the value of the removed goods, damages for the vacated premises, and solicitor-client costs.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the trial judge's findings of responsibility and fraudulent intent, and no basis to interfere with the damages or costs awards.