Goudge J.A.

The appellant appealed a trial decision finding that the crash of his twin-engine airplane was not an 'accident' under his insurance policy.

The trial judge had concluded the crash was not an accident because the appellant attempted to take off with only one engine engaged, yet also found he did not know he was running an extraordinary risk.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's reasons were unclear as to whether the appellant was reckless or merely negligent, and found she did not apply the correct standard.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered.

The appellants appealed a trial judge's decision regarding a franchise dispute.

They argued that the trial judge erred in deducting rent and related expenses under s. 6(6)(a) of the applicable Act, and in finding that a letter dated May 2, 2007, constituted a five-year franchise agreement.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the damages calculation and concluding that the trial judge's finding regarding the letter was reasonable and supported by the evidence.

Costs of $8,000 were awarded to the respondents.