P. Portman

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision granting judgment to the respondent for breach of contract regarding unpaid fees for preparing a tax credit application.

The appellant argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, ignored fraud allegations, and erred by enforcing a 36% interest rate, which it claimed was a criminal rate.

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

The court also held that the 36% interest rate was not a criminal rate because the agreement fell under the commercial borrowing exemption in the Criminal Interest Rate Regulations.

The tenant appealed five separate Landlord and Tenant Board eviction orders to the Divisional Court, obtaining automatic stays of eviction.

The tenant failed to perfect the appeals, order transcripts, or pay rent and arrears as directed by the court.

The court found the tenant was abusing the court's process to delay eviction while profiting from subtenancies.

Two appeals were dismissed as abandoned, and the remaining three were quashed for delay and abuse of process.

The stays of eviction were lifted, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the landlords.

The court held a case management conference to address five appeals brought by a tenant against eviction orders for five different rental units.

The tenant had a history of seeking adjournments due to alleged illness while subletting the units for profit and accumulating substantial rent arrears.

The court ordered that two appeals would be dismissed as abandoned if not perfected, scheduled motions to quash the remaining three appeals, and ordered the tenant to pay all arrears in full as a condition of maintaining the stays of eviction.

The applicant brought an application to recover money allegedly removed from her bank account by her brother.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the applicant brought a motion for a final order confirming the consent to settle.

After the applicant filed the required additional materials and the consent executed by counsel of record, the court granted the order in accordance with the draft order.