The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent $27,580 for an outstanding landscaping invoice.
At trial, both parties were self-represented.
The deputy judge heard evidence from both parties but did not permit either party to cross-examine the other, despite conflicting evidence regarding who requested changes to the grading plan and the actual balance owing.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that while the Small Claims Court operates in a summary manner, the failure to allow cross-examination or otherwise test the conflicting evidence constituted a breach of procedural fairness.
A new trial was ordered before a different deputy judge.
