The appellant borrowed $500,000 from the respondent under an agreement that effectively charged an interest rate exceeding 60 per cent per annum, violating the criminal interest rate provisions of the Criminal Code.
The application judge found the agreement violated the Criminal Code but applied a 'notional severance' to reduce the interest rate to the legal maximum of 60 per cent.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that notional severance is not an available remedy.
Instead, the court applied traditional severance principles, striking out the illegal 4 per cent per month interest provision entirely, while leaving the principal repayment and other valid fees intact.