The appellants appealed the dismissal of their action for negligence, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and intentional interference with economic relations against an accountant.
The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred by prematurely dismissing the action and erroneously rejecting the appellants' accounting expert's testimony.
The expert's reports, though not explicitly using "standard of care," clearly opined on the impropriety and negligence of the respondent's accounting actions, which was relevant to the claims.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the dismissal, and ordered a new trial before a different justice due to a miscarriage of justice.