The appellant, a roofing contractor, sued the respondent supplier and third-party manufacturer for damages after a newly installed roof failed due to severe blistering.
The trial judge found for the appellant, inferring a latent defect in the asphalt by eliminating other probable causes, including faulty workmanship.
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the appellant failed to prove the defect existed when the asphalt left the manufacturer.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal, restoring the trial judgment.
The Court held that the trial judge was entitled to infer a defect from the elimination of other causes, and the Court of Appeal erred in requiring affirmative proof of a specific defect or credible scientific theory.
