The appellant home inspector appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding him liable for negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding a roof inspection.
The trial judge had rejected the appellant's qualified expert witness and instead relied on the respondents' lay witness, who was not qualified as an expert, to establish the standard of care.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in law by treating lay opinion evidence as expert evidence without proper qualification.
Without accepted expert evidence on the standard of care, there was no evidentiary foundation for a finding of negligence.
The appeal was allowed and the action dismissed.
