3 total
Appeal of Small Claims Court decision dismissing roofing defect claim denied; no errors of law found.
The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages against the respondent roofing company.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the scope of the roofing contract, misapplied the burden of proof, and failed to apply the correct standard of care.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied principles of contractual interpretation, properly required the appellant to prove causation on a balance of probabilities, and made reasonable factual findings that the respondent's work did not cause the alleged defects.
Small claims appeal dismissed; no error in finding law firm did not breach professional obligations.
The appellant retained the respondent law firm for an employment dispute.
After the relationship broke down, the firm terminated the retainer and refunded the fees.
The appellant sued the firm and its lawyer in Small Claims Court for breach of contract and professional negligence, seeking $35,000 in damages.
The deputy judge dismissed the action, finding no breach of the retainer or professional obligations, and no proven damages.
On appeal, the appellant argued the deputy judge erred in law and denied him procedural fairness.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable or overriding errors in the deputy judge's evidentiary rulings or requirement for expert evidence on the standard of care.
The court also found no breach of procedural fairness, as the appellant had consented to proceed with closing submissions.
Tenant's appeal of LTB eviction order for landlord's own use dismissed; no procedural unfairness found.
The tenant appealed three orders of the Landlord and Tenant Board, including an eviction order based on the landlord's requirement of the unit for his own residential occupation, and orders denying an extension of time to request a review.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the Board's discretionary denial of the time extension, no breach of procedural fairness during the hearing, and no error in the Board's application of section 83 of the Residential Tenancies Act.
