The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering him to pay $10,000 to the respondent.
The respondent claimed the money was a loan, while the appellant claimed it was an investment in a joint business venture.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the deputy justice had improperly reversed the burden of proof by requiring the appellant to prove the money was an investment rather than requiring the respondent to prove it was a loan.
