Evelyn Contino

The appellants were successful in their appeal, which resulted in an order for a new trial before a different Deputy Judge.

They sought costs of the appeal in the amount of $7,266.21.

The respondent argued that costs should be in the cause of the action to be re-tried.

The court rejected the respondent's argument, finding that the respondent bore responsibility for the issue that necessitated the new trial by tendering an unsworn and unsigned letter as evidence.

Applying the principle of proportionality, the court fixed the costs of the appeal at $5,000 all-inclusive.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them liable for selling a defective used tractor to the respondent.

At trial, the deputy judge relied heavily on an unsworn, unsigned letter from a mechanic who did not testify, to conclude the tractor was unsafe.

On appeal, the Divisional Court held that the trial judge erred in law by accepting the hearsay letter for the truth of its contents without affording the appellants the opportunity to cross-examine the author.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The plaintiff moved to remove the defendant's law firm as counsel, alleging a disqualifying conflict of interest because the firm had prepared the father's will in 2010, which named both parties as trustees.

The plaintiff argued that the firm possessed confidential information relevant to the current action concerning alleged trustee misconduct.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff was not a former client of the firm and that any information provided by the father for the 2010 will was not relevant to the issues of trustee misconduct in the present action, as the will itself was not being challenged.