Adam Wright

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing her action against the municipality for property damage caused by falling tree branches.

She also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence regarding subsequent tree damage.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding the new evidence irrelevant to the issues at trial.

The appeal was also dismissed, as the trial judge made no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in concluding the municipality took reasonable care and did not cause a substantial interference with the appellant's property.

The plaintiff sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal after missing the deadline by one day.

Her underlying Small Claims Court action against the City for property damage caused by falling tree branches had been dismissed.

The Divisional Court granted the motion, finding that the plaintiff had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was minimal with a reasonable explanation, and there was no prejudice to the City.

The court also found potential merit in the appeal because the trial judge appeared to have overlooked a letter from the plaintiff regarding the trees' history of falling branches.