The appellant appealed a trial judgment that dismissed her claims for unjust enrichment and a joint family venture arising from her involvement in the respondent's dog grooming business during their common-law relationship.
The trial judge had found the appellant exaggerated her involvement and was adequately compensated.
On appeal, the Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual and credibility findings.
The court also rejected the appellant's argument that her trial counsel provided inadequate representation.
The appeal was dismissed.
