The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a contractual dispute over the volume of soil delivered to a construction project.
The trial judge had largely dismissed the appellant's claim for unpaid invoices, finding that the respondent was only required to pay for the actual volume of soil delivered, not the volume stated on the delivery tickets.
On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on contractual interpretation, the adequacy of reasons, the refusal to draw an adverse inference, and the exclusion of the appellant's non-compliant expert evidence.
However, the court found a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's calculation of damages regarding soil compaction.
The appeal was allowed in part, and damages were increased from $15,433.45 to $61,198.
