The respondent ship-owner sued the appellant insurer for general average contribution following a fire at sea.
The trial judge dismissed the action, finding the ship-owner had not exercised due diligence to make the ship seaworthy.
The Federal Court of Appeal reversed this decision, substituting its own findings of fact based on documentary evidence and rejecting the expert testimony relied upon by the trial judge.
The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the trial judgment, holding that the Court of Appeal erred in interfering with the trial judge's findings of fact and rejecting expert testimony without having heard the witnesses.
