Nicole C. Jedlinski

The court issued a brief endorsement to correct a clerical error in its previous reasons dated November 22, 2006.

The judge clarified that by ordering a new trial, the appeal was allowed, not dismissed, and amended paragraph 23 accordingly.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment regarding a swimming pool construction contract.

The trial judge had awarded the respondents $6,400.87 but failed to provide adequate legal analysis or demonstrate the application of proper legal principles in his reasons.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's reasons were insufficient for appellate review, as neither party could point to the legal path taken to reach the conclusion.

The appeal was dismissed, and a new trial was ordered pursuant to section 134(1)(b) of the Courts of Justice Act.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing his claim against the respondent for negligent vehicle maintenance.

The appellant alleged the respondent failed to properly tighten a drain plug during a fluid change, causing his vehicle to break down 11 months later.

The Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's finding that the appellant failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities.

The court also found no error in the admission of a downloaded maintenance manual into evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.