The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering her to repay funds advanced by the respondents for a failed restaurant venture.
The appellant argued the trial judge misinterpreted evidence, gave inadequate reasons, awarded excessive costs, and created an apprehension of bias through comments made to her paralegal.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge made reasonable credibility findings, correctly applied the law of unjust enrichment, properly awarded double costs based on an offer to settle, and that the judge's expressions of frustration did not meet the high threshold for bias.
