The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision finding him liable for unjust enrichment for property management services provided by the respondent.
The appellant argued that the trial judge made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding and credibility assessments, and erred in quantifying damages without expert evidence on fair market value.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding ample evidence that the appellant continued to demand services and that the trial judge's credibility findings and damages assessment based on historical billing were reasonable.
