CITATION: Barrie v. Centre Agricole J.L.D. Inc., 2025 ONSC 1411

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-2880 DATE: 2025/03/04

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE DIVISIONAL COURT

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL BARRIE

Appellant

Justin Tremblay, for the Appellant

– and –

CENTRE AGRICOLE J.L.D. INC. OPERATING AS GREEN TECH MEMBER OF JLD LAGUE and WALLENSTEIN EQUIPMENT INC.

Alexandra Logvin and Julien Frigon, for the Respondent Centre Agricole J.L.D. Inc.

Nicole Hobbs, for the Respondent Wallenstein Equipment Inc.

Respondents

HEARD at Ottawa: January 15, 2025

REASONS FOR DECISION

RYAN BELL J.

Overview

[1] In 2017, Michael Barrie purchased a wood chipper from Centre Agricole J.L.D. Inc. operating as Green Tech Member of JLD Lague. The wood chipper was manufactured by Wallenstein Equipment Inc. Mr. Barrie intended to use the wood chipper with his tractor which he previously purchased in 2015 from the same Green Tech store. 1n 2020, when the tractor was being used together with the wood chipper, the tractor stopped working. Mr. Barrie commenced an action against Green Tech and Wallenstein for damages for breach of contract, breach of implied condition as to fitness for purpose under the Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.1, and negligent misrepresentation.

[2] In her judgment released on March 14, 2024, Deputy Judge Shelley Adams dismissed Mr. Barrie’s claim. The trial judge found that Mr. Barrie did not meet his burden of proof and did not lead sufficient evidence to prove that the wood chipper caused the alleged damage to his tractor.

[3] Mr. Barrie appeals. The six grounds of appeal he advances raise questions of fact or mixed fact and law. Mr. Barrie has failed to demonstrate any palpable and overriding error by the trial judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

The Trial and the Judgment

[4] Mr. Barrie purchased a John Deere tractor in 2015 from Green Tech with the assistance of Green Tech’s salesperson, Mr. Van Der Zweep. In 2017, Mr. Barrie returned to the same Green Tech store to buy a wood chipper. Mr. Van Der Zweep worked with Mr. Barrie to identify a wood chipper that would work with his tractor to cut small branches and brush. Mr. Van Der Zweep recommended a model that the Wallenstein catalogue indicated was compatible with tractors in the 18-50 horsepower range. Mr. Barrie’s tractor operated at 25 horsepower. Mr. Barrie purchased the model recommended by Mr. Van Der Zweep.

[5] After he purchased the wood chipper, Mr. Barrie ran a few branches through it. He did not use the wood chipper again for almost three years. In May 2020, when he used the wood chipper with his tractor, Mr. Barrie noticed oil leaking from his tractor. Mr. Barrie stopped using the tractor and brought it to Green Tech for repairs.

[6] At trial, Mr. Barrie claimed the wood chipper was “too big” for his tractor and that this incompatibility damaged his tractor. Mr. Barrie claimed that a Green Tech mechanic – whom Mr. Barrie did not name – made this comment to him. The trial judge found this was the only evidence provided by Mr. Barrie to support his allegation: Judgment, at p. 4.

[7] Mr. Barrie rejected Green Tech’s offer to repair his tractor at a discounted cost. Instead, he had his tractor repaired by mechanics at his crane rental business. Mr. Barrie did not lead any evidence from the Green Tech service technician, his own mechanics who repaired the tractor, or any other mechanic. Mr. Barrie admitted that he did not know for sure whether the damage to his tractor was caused by incompatibility between the tractor and the wood chipper: Judgment, at p. 4.

[8] Mr. Plouffe, a manager at Green Tech for 20 years, spoke to the store service manager about the damage to Mr. Barrie’s tractor. Mr. Plouffe was never told that a service technician told Mr. Barrie that the chipper was “too big” for the tractor. Mr. Plouffe testified that, in his opinion, the tractor’s oil leak likely resulted from something getting into the tractor bearing and breaking its casing. He conjectured that a rock from grass cutting or ice from snow blowing might have been the cause of the break in the tractor casing: Judgment, at p. 3.

[9] Mr. Horst, who testified on behalf of Wallenstein, has many years of experience working with heavy equipment and hydraulics. He testified that he has never encountered a wood chipper causing damage to a tractor (mainly because of a built-in bolt), and that while the 2020 catalogue suggests a tractor having 35-55 horsepower would be required for Mr. Barrie’s wood chipper, Mr. Barrie’s 25-horsepower tractor could still operate the wood chipper: Judgment, at pp. 3-5.

[10] Section 15 of the Sale of Goods Act provides an implied condition that goods are fit for a particular purpose if the buyer makes known to the seller that purpose and relies on the seller’s skill or judgment. While the trial judge found this condition applied, the trial judge found Mr. Barrie failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the wood chipper was unfit for clearing small branches and brush when used alongside his tractor. Mr. Barrie also failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the tractor damage was caused by incompatibility with the wood chipper, rather than by some other cause: Judgment, at p. 4.

[11] The trial judge also dismissed the claim for negligent misrepresentation. The trial judge found a special relationship existed with Green Tech, giving rise to a duty of care, but found no special relationship existed with Wallenstein. Mr. Barrie failed to prove that any representations made by the respondents were untrue, inaccurate, or misleading. He also failed to prove the wood chipper’s alleged incompatibility caused damage to the tractor: Judgment, at pp. 4-5.

Standard of Review

[12] The standard of review in an appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment is correctness for an error of law, palpable and overriding error for an error of fact, and correctness or palpable and overriding error for a question of mixed fact and law, depending on whether there is an extricable legal principle: Baichoo v. Taylor, 2019 ONSC 268 (Div. Ct.), at para. 3, citing Zeitoun v. Economical Insurance Group ONCA 415, at para. 1; Wellwood v. Ontario (Provincial Police), 2010 ONCA 386, at para. 28.

Analysis

[13] Mr. Barrie argues that the trial judge erred in basing her decision on the opinion evidence of lay witnesses on matters and events they did not witness personally, and on the opinion evidence of “partisan lay witnesses” on technical matters. These grounds of appeal relate to the admissibility of and the trial judge’s reliance on the evidence of Mr. Plouffe and Mr. Horst. These are questions of fact or mixed fact and law.

[14] With respect to questions of fact or mixed fact and law, the appellate court will interfere only if the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error, or made findings of fact that are clearly wrong, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence: Richard v. 2464597 Ontario Inc., 2019 ONSC 2104 (Div. Ct.), at para. 26.

[15] The trial judge reasonably relied on the evidence of Mr. Plouffe and Mr. Horst. Both provided admissible lay opinion evidence based on their personal knowledge and experience: Landmark II Inc. v. 1535709 Ontario Limited, 2011 ONCA 567, at para. 19.

[16] Small Claims Court judges have a very broad discretion to admit and act upon any evidence that is relevant, subject only to evidence that is made inadmissible by statute and evidence that is protected by the law of privilege: Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 27(1). On appeal, Mr. Barrie alleges that the testimony of Mr. Plouffe and Mr. Horst “was not relevant to the specific issues of the Appellant’s claim.” This is incorrect. Both Mr. Plouffe and Mr. Horst addressed the cause of the tractor damage, a central issue before the trial judge. I would add that if Mr. Barrie considered the evidence of Mr. Plouffe and Mr. Horst to be irrelevant, he ought to have made that objection to the trial judge. He did not.

[17] The trial judge did not make a palpable and overriding error in admitting and relying upon the evidence of Mr. Plouffe and Mr. Horst. I do not give effect to these grounds of appeal.

[18] Mr. Barrie argues that the trial judge erred “in setting aside Mr. Barrie’s uncontradicted evidence” with respect to the incompatibility of the wood chipper with his tractor. Mr. Barrie has failed to identify any palpable and overriding error made by the trial judge. The trial judge found that Mr. Barrie’s testimony about the unnamed Green Tech mechanic was not supported by testimony from the technician or mechanics who repaired the tractor. The trial judge also noted Mr. Barrie’s own testimony that he did not know for sure whether the damage to the tractor was caused by incompatibility between the tractor and the wood chipper. The trial judge’s findings were supported by the record before her. I do not give effect to this ground of appeal.

[19] Contrary to Mr. Barrie’s argument, the trial judge did not err in her consideration of the standard of proof as to the breach of the implied conditions of contract. A trial judge is presumed to apply the correct standard of proof whether expressly stated or not: F.H. v. McDougall, 2008 SCC 53, at para. 54. In any event, the trial judge expressly referred to the balance of probabilities standard in the Judgment. Mr. Barrie has not shown the trial judge made any findings of fact that are clearly wrong, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence. I do not give effect to this ground of appeal.

[20] Mr. Barrie argues that the trial judge erred by failing to provide “appropriate justification” to dismiss the claim for negligent misrepresentation against Green Tech. The “path” taken by the trial judge is clear from her reasons; she was not required to “describe every landmark along the way”: R. v. R.E.M., 2008 SCC 51, at para. 24. The trial judge’s reasons are “sufficiently clear” to permit judicial review on appeal; the reasons explain to the parties what was decided and why: Maple Ridge Community Management Ltd. v. Peel Condominium Corporation No. 231, 2015 ONCA 520, at para. 35. I do not give effect to this ground of appeal.

[21] Finally, Mr. Barrie argues that the trial judge erred in finding no special relationship existed between Mr. Barrie and Wallenstein so as to give rise to a duty of care. There was no evidence that Mr. Barrie had direct dealings with Wallenstein. Instead, Mr. Barrie relied on Green Tech’s interpretation of Wallenstein’s specifications for the wood chipper. In any event, even if a proximate relationship giving rise to a duty of care by Wallenstein had been established, the trial judge was not persuaded there were any representations that were untrue, inaccurate, or misleading. Mr. Barrie has failed to identify any palpable and overriding error in this regard. I do not give effect to this ground of appeal.

Disposition of the appeal

[22] For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed, with costs to the respondents.

[23] The parties have provided their bills of costs and made brief submissions as to costs at the hearing. They are strongly encouraged to agree on costs of the appeal. In the event they are unable to do so, they may make brief written submissions limited to a maximum of three pages. Green Tech and Wallenstein shall deliver their respective costs submissions by March 18, 2025. Mr. Barrie shall deliver his costs submissions by April 1, 2025. If no submissions are received within this timeframe, the parties will be deemed to have settled the issue of costs as between themselves.

____________________ Ryan Bell J.

Date of Release: March 4, 2025

CITATION: Barrie v. Centre Agricole J.L.D. Inc., 2025 ONSC 1411

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: DC-24-2880 DATE: 20250304

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

DIVISIONAL COURT

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL BARRIE

Appellant

– and –

CENTRE AGRICOLE J.L.D. INC. OPERATING AS GREEN TECH MEMBER OF JLD LAGUE and WALLENSTEIN EQUIPMENT INC.

Respondents

REASONS FOR DECISION

Ryan Bell J.

Date of Release: March 4, 2025