The appellant challenged a trial judgment arising from an acrimonious neighbour dispute, arguing that the trial judge improperly inferred his responsibility for a threatening coyote carcass incident without direct evidence.
The Court of Appeal held that the inference was firmly grounded in the factual record, including the ongoing hostility, the prior confrontation, the absence of any other apparent motive, and evidence placing the appellant in position to observe the respondents' reaction.
Applying the deferential palpable and overriding error standard, the court declined to interfere with the trial judge's factual findings and credibility assessments.
The appeal was dismissed, and the respondents' trial success on their counterclaim remained undisturbed.