The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing their action regarding a defective well in a real estate transaction.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial judge made two palpable and overriding errors.
First, the trial judge misinterpreted testimony regarding when modifications were made to the Seller Property Information Statement.
Second, the trial judge failed to consider and evaluate the evidence of several witnesses, including an expert hydrogeologist, who testified that the well was defective prior to the sale.
