The appellant appealed a trial judge's damages award arising from a failed agreement of purchase and sale for a new home, arguing that the cost of certain upgrades should have been included.
The respondent cross-appealed on the issues of mitigation and costs.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's treatment of the upgrades as a deposit.
The Court also dismissed the cross-appeal on mitigation.
However, the Court allowed the cross-appeal on costs, finding that the trial judge erred by refusing to consider the costs consequences of Rule 76.13.
Because the appellant recovered less than $100,000 and it was unreasonable to continue the action under the ordinary procedure, the appellant was denied its costs of the action.
