Steven S. Hong

The appellants appealed a trial judgment dismissing their claim for repayment of money transferred to the respondents over a period of years.

The appellants alleged the transfers were loans and investments, including a $100,000 investment in real estate that appreciated significantly.

The respondents contended the transfers were payments for room and board and other expenses for the appellants' daughter.

The trial judge dismissed all claims and ordered costs against the appellants.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial judge's treatment of evidence, her dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, or her application of the Limitations Act.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, fraud, and fraudulent misrepresentation.

The defendants, as the successful party, sought partial and substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs argued for no costs, asserting divided success and impecuniosity.

The court found the defendants were entirely successful, rejected the plaintiffs' arguments regarding divided success and impecuniosity, and awarded partial indemnity costs to the defendants, totaling $177,123.68.

The plaintiffs sued the defendants for over $500,000, alleging they made various loans and investments to the defendants over a decade while their daughter lived with the defendants as a homestay student.

The defendants argued the funds were payments for the daughter's room, board, tuition, and other expenses.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the action in its entirety, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove the existence of the alleged loans and investments.

Furthermore, the court held that all of the plaintiffs' claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs failed to act with due diligence in pursuing the alleged debts.

The appellant appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board order requiring him to pay rent arrears for a basement unit.

He argued the Residential Tenancies Act did not apply because the lease was part of a larger commercial transaction and he never lived in the unit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error of law in the Board's application of s. 202(1) of the Act to ascertain the real substance of the transaction.

The court noted the appellant voluntarily entered into a residential lease to avoid paying HST and could not resile from it when convenient.