The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in a bank collection dispute, finding the appellants were in default and that the counterclaim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
Both the Claimant's claim and the Defendant's counter-claim were commenced outside the two-year limitation under s.8(1)(a) and no lawful acknowledgement or partial payment occurred within the limitation period to restart it under s.20; the consolidated bill of March 31, 2025 was a housekeeping step and not an acknowledgement, therefore both claims are statute-barred and must be dismissed.
Partial payment in the form of the defendant's labour in March–April 2024 constituted part payment/acknowledgement under s.20(11) of the 2014 Act and restarted the two-year limitation period, rendering the claimant's July 2025 claim timely; the defendant's 2014 counter-claim is barred by the old Act because it fell outside the six-year limitation and beyond the four-year hard cap in s.3(6), so it must be dismissed.
Leave to appeal refused because the claimant failed to show any arguable error by the General Division (no unfair procedure, jurisdictional, legal or important factual error); the General Division's decision is supported by law and evidence; only the Commission has authority to write off overpayments, and the claimant may apply to the Commission under statutory provisions including for claim processing error or undue hardship.
Time to file the notice of appeal was extended because the appellants demonstrated a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was very short and reasonably explained by their self‑representation, and the respondent suffered no prejudice; the respondent was ordered to provide an explanatory statement of related actions and the appellants must file their notice within 30 days of receiving that statement.
A reasonably informed person would conclude the General Division member lacked impartiality because the member repeatedly focused on irrelevant matters, made unnecessary factual findings unsupported by evidence, speculated about party motives and drew unjustified adverse inferences; therefore the procedural fairness ground is met and the appropriate remedy is remittal to the General Division for rehearing by a different member with directions because the Appeal Division cannot receive new evidence nor exercise the Commission's statutory power to write off overpayments.
The Appeal Division allowed the Commission's appeal because the General Division legally exceeded its authority by allocating earnings to weeks after the Claimant ceased eligibility and by considering CRA recovery; correcting those errors, the Appeal Division found an $848 overpayment based on evidence the claimant cashed a separate $653 cheque and failed to return a $848 cheque for two ineligible weeks.
The Appeal Division refused permission because the applicant failed to identify an arguable reviewable error by the General Division; reliance on incorrect information does not excuse repayment and the remedy of debt write‑off lies exclusively with the Commission.
The Claimant failed to demonstrate an arguable case that the General Division made a jurisdictional, legal, or significant factual error; the General Division identified and applied the correct law, considered the evidence, and reasonably concluded the Commission's determination that the $2,000 advance payment was an overpayment was legally correct; financial hardship or changed circumstances are not legal bases to overturn a correctly decided overpayment, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
Supplementary reasons on a summary judgment debt claim fixed pre-judgment interest, rejected contempt allegations, and awarded judgment of $418,485.34 plus costs.