The appellant's vehicle was towed to the respondent's auto centre following an accident.
The appellant signed a blank work order but subsequently requested his vehicle back, refusing to authorize repairs.
The respondent proceeded with repairs based on an estimate provided by the appellant's insurer and refused to release the vehicle.
The Small Claims Court awarded the respondent the cost of repairs.
On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, finding that the respondent failed to comply with the strict estimate and authorization requirements of the Consumer Protection Act, 2002, and that it would be inequitable to require the appellant to pay for unauthorized repairs.
