The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence and failed to exercise their gatekeeping function regarding the respondent's expert witness.
The expert admitted during cross-examination that he did not write his entire report, lacked experience with the specific type of insulation installed, and had altered the scene before taking photographs.
The Divisional Court found that the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error by failing to properly scrutinize and exclude the flawed expert evidence.
The appeal was allowed, the judgment set aside, and a new trial ordered.
