The appellants appealed a decision declining to certify a class action regarding an alleged design defect in digital cameras that caused an 'E18' error message.
The motions judge had struck the evidence of the appellants' proposed expert on the basis that he lacked the necessary qualifications in camera design.
The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision, finding no error in the exclusion of the expert evidence or the conclusion that there was no basis in fact for the common issue.
The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.
