Brian R. Kelly

Following the dismissal of the appellants' appeal in a collection action over a $1,200 invoice, the respondent sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court noted that the amount involved was minimal and the litigation was unnecessary, as the appellants had no reason to avoid payment.

The court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs fixed at $5,000 to avoid penalizing him for attempting to collect on his invoice.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay $3,745 in unpaid accounting fees to the respondent.

The dispute centered on the scope of the respondent's retainer and whether he was authorized to investigate a tax issue discovered during his review of reorganization documents.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly accepted the respondent's evidence regarding the scope of the professional retainer and that no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice occurred.

The appellant appealed his conviction, arguing the trial judge misapprehended his evidence and misapplied the W.(D.) framework by approaching the case on an 'either/or' basis.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge properly weighed all the evidence, rejected the appellant's testimony, and accepted the evidence of the two young complainants who described similar incidents without collusion.