The appellants appealed an order requiring them to pay the full increased cost of building a retaining wall.
The motion judge had requested further affidavits from engineers regarding the cost differential, which was about 25 percent.
The appellants argued the motion judge erred by not permitting cross-examination on the respondents' expert's second report and by effectively turning the motion into one for summary judgment.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, noting the appellants did not seek to cross-examine or make further oral submissions, and the motion judge's finding that the cost increases were due to poor soil conditions was entitled to deference.
