The appellants appealed a trial judge's finding that the respondent undertook property renovations in detrimental reliance on the appellants' negligent misrepresentations.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the trial judge committed a palpable and overriding error.
The evidence showed the respondent commenced renovations long before any representation was made, and the trial judge failed to establish a substantial connection between the alleged losses and the misrepresentations.
The trial decision was set aside and the claim dismissed.
