M. Romeo

The applicant bank mistakenly paid funds to the respondents' corporate account instead of garnishing them as required by a court order.

The respondents then transferred the funds to another bank to avoid garnishment.

The bank subsequently paid $90,000 to the garnishor out of its own pocket to rectify its error.

The bank brought an application to recover the funds from the respondents based on mistake of fact and unjust enrichment.

The court found that the bank made a mistake of fact and that the respondents were unjustly enriched by the $90,000 payment made on their behalf.

The court ordered the respondents to repay the $90,000 to the bank.

The appellant (defendant at trial) appealed a Small Claims Court decision enforcing an early termination liquidated damages clause in a service contract with the respondent.

The appellant argued the clause, which required payment of 50 percent of the remaining contract value, was unreasonable.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge correctly applied the law.

The court affirmed that liquidated damages clauses are presumed enforceable and the onus rests on the party challenging the clause to demonstrate it is oppressive or unreasonable, which the appellant failed to do.