Paul L. Seitz

Following an appeal that reduced the respondent's damage award from $55,000 to $1,000, the parties sought clarification on trial costs.

The appellants argued that the modest damage award justified no trial costs and relied on rules 57.05(1) and 76.13(3) regarding Small Claims Court and simplified procedure.

The Court of Appeal held that the respondent was successful at trial, the finding of negligence was not reversed, and it was reasonable to have brought the claim under the ordinary procedure.

The court awarded the respondent trial costs fixed at the previously agreed amount of $115,000.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment which found that the respondent had no beneficial interest in a property and that his transfer of his half-interest to his son was not a fraudulent conveyance.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge made palpable and overriding factual errors in assessing the 'badges of fraud' and the respondent's beneficial interest.

The trial judgment was set aside and a new trial was ordered.