The appellants appealed a motion judge's order enforcing a settlement agreement regarding the ownership of a trained service dog.
The appellants argued that the respondent failed to provide original ownership documentation, which they claimed was an essential term of the settlement, and that the agreement was signed under duress.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's interpretation that original documents were not required.
The court also rejected the appellants' procedural fairness arguments, noting they had voluntarily abandoned their duress claim and made a strategic decision not to call their former counsel.
