The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding him liable for conversion and ordering him to pay $25,000 for failing to return equipment owned by the respondent.
On appeal, the appellant alleged numerous errors of fact and law, including issues with equipment ownership, admission of documents, and the expiry of the limitation period.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors of fact in the trial judge's conclusions and holding that the action was commenced within the two-year limitation period following the respondent's demand for the equipment's return.
