The appellant purchased a statue at an auction in 2006, relying on the auction house's representations that it was an authentic work.
In 2018, he discovered it was a fake and that the auction house had been warned prior to the sale.
The trial judge found the auction house liable for fraudulent misrepresentation and ordered a refund, but failed to award prejudgment interest.
On cross-appeal, the Divisional Court varied the judgment to include $6,000 in prejudgment interest, finding that the cause of action arose in 2006 and the trial judge erred by failing to exercise her discretion under the Courts of Justice Act to address the interest claim.