The self-represented appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim for damages against the respondent roofing company.
The appellant argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the scope of the roofing contract, misapplied the burden of proof, and failed to apply the correct standard of care.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge correctly applied principles of contractual interpretation, properly required the appellant to prove causation on a balance of probabilities, and made reasonable factual findings that the respondent's work did not cause the alleged defects.
