The court conducted an assessment of damages following a prior ruling that the defendant’s security interest in the plaintiff’s equipment was invalid under s. 89(1) of the Indian Act.
The defendant had seized the equipment based on the invalid security interest, constituting the tort of conversion.
The court determined the fair value of the seized equipment using expert appraisal evidence and awarded damages reflecting the depreciated condition of the equipment.
The court also awarded limited loss of income damages, finding the plaintiff failed to adequately mitigate losses and restricting compensation to a one‑year period with a modest adjustment for borrowing difficulties.
Punitive damages were additionally awarded after the defendant’s agent improperly involved police in what was a civil debt dispute and falsely characterized the plaintiff as a thief.
