The appellant appealed a trial decision regarding his entitlement to commission on a life insurance policy.
The trial judge found that the second policy was a new policy, not a replacement policy, and that the appellant was not responsible for its creation.
The trial judge also found no bad faith on the part of the respondents.
The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting that the 25 percent commission received by the appellant was a realistic compromise.
The appeal was dismissed with costs.
