N. Sivakumaran

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court order that found the respondent had not breached a settlement agreement regarding a judgment debt.

The appellant argued the deputy judge lacked jurisdiction, unreasonably denied a mid-hearing adjournment request, and erred in finding no breach.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Small Claims Court has province-wide jurisdiction, the refusal of the adjournment was a proper exercise of discretion, and there was no error in the finding that the settlement agreement remained binding.

The appellant homeowner appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent contractor $12,528 for home renovation work.

The homeowner argued the trial judge failed to consider expert engineering evidence and witness testimony regarding significant deficiencies in the contractor's work.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by ignoring relevant evidence of defective workmanship and remedial costs.

The court substituted its own decision, finding the cost to remedy the deficiencies exceeded the amount owed to the contractor, and dismissed the contractor's claim entirely.