The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a commercial sublease dispute.
The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended evidence concerning its departure from the premises and whether the respondent was estopped from seeking damages due to an alleged agreement with the head lessor.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings that the appellant voluntarily vacated the premises and that there was no evidence of an agreement relieving the appellant of its sublease obligations.
