Court of Appeal for Ontario
Satin Finish Hardwood Flooring Limited v. Sico Inc.
Counsel: Blair W.M. Bowen (Baker & MacKenzie), for the plaintiffs/appellants.
(C32014)
[1]
Background
By the Court: The appellant Satin Finish Hardwood Flooring Inc. ("Satin Finish") appeals from the judgment of B. Wright, J., dated March 30, 1999 dismissing its action against the respondent Sico Inc. ("Sico"). Satin Finish's claim was that Sico had sold it a wood finishing product which contained a latent defect. When Satin Finish used this product as a component of its finished hardwood flooring products, after some time some of the floors flaked or peeled causing customer complaints, returned products and loss of profits to Satin Finish.
2Satin Finish brought an action for its lost profits and for related out-of-pocket expenses against Sico. The trial judge dismissed the action, essentially on three bases:
(1) it was more probable that the problem of delamination (lack of adhesion) was caused by poor quality control at Satin Finish's manufacturing plants than by Sico's product being defective;
(2) given the small number of customer complaints in relation to overall sales of the product, Sico's product was reasonably fit for the purpose for which it was required within s. 15.1 of the Sales of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S-l; and
(3) Satin Finish had not proved its damages.
3The appellant appeals from all of these conclusions. Its overarching submission is that the trial judge seriously misapprehended the scientific and financial evidence and, therefore, made palpable and overriding errors in his analysis.
[4]
Analysis
In spite of Mr. Bowen's able arguments we do not agree with the appellant's position. The trial judge carefully reviewed the extensive expert evidence and concluded that Satin Finish had not established that the defects in some of the finished product were caused by Sico's component. We cannot say he erred in this respect. The onus was on the appellant to establish its case, with respect to both liabilities and damages. The trial judge held that the appellant had failed to do so on a balance of probabilities. We can see no error in his description of the onus or in his analysis and conclusions.
[5]
Disposition
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.