Melissa Truong

Following the dismissal of the appellant's appeal, the parties made written submissions regarding costs.

The respondents sought $16,535.61 on a partial indemnity basis, arguing costs were increased by the appellant's reply factum.

The appellant argued for $5,000.

The Court of Appeal found the respondents' claim excessive as the issues were familiar and not novel, fixing costs at $7,500 inclusive of disbursements and taxes.

The appellant loaned money secured by mortgages to a corporation.

The mortgage contained a condition increasing the interest rate from 12 percent to 21 percent if the mortgage matured and was not paid, or upon default.

The motion judge found this condition violated s. 8 of the Interest Act and that a subsequent renewal agreement was invalid because it lacked a required guarantor's signature.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the motion judge's findings that the interest rate increase was triggered by default, thus offending s. 8, and that the indoor management rule did not apply because the appellant knew or ought to have known the signature was required.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering them to repay a $22,080 loan to the respondent.

The loan originated from a Mutual Help Club organized by the respondent.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred by effectively amending the pleadings to treat the claim as a personal loan rather than a club debt.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made no palpable and overriding error and properly concluded the respondent advanced the funds in her personal capacity.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation arising from the sale of a restaurant.

The trial judge found the individual appellant knowingly misrepresented the amount of TMI rent to the respondents, entitling them to terminate the agreement and recover their deposit and expenses.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions.

The court also rejected arguments that an entire agreement clause precluded the misrepresentation claim and upheld the award of punitive damages.