Law360 Canada ( December 22, 2025, 9:41 AM EST) -- Appeal by Tichopad from chambers judge’s order and application to admit fresh evidence. Tichopad signed a standard form contract for the purchase of a motorcycle from a vehicle dealership operated by One West Auto Ltd. (One West). Tichopad paid the purchase price and drove the motorcycle off the dealership lot. He returned 10 minutes later, raising concerns about the condition of the brakes and tires. The dealership arranged for an independent inspection and conducted necessary repairs, as per Tichopad’s request, but not to his satisfaction. Tichopad failed to pick up the motorcycle when notified that it was ready, leading One West to cancel the sale. Tichopad filed a claim which sought an order that One West deliver the motorcycle to him, or damages in the alternative. One West opposed the order compelling delivery of the motorcycle to Tichopad. In a summary trial ruling, the chambers judge found in favour of One West. On appeal, Tichopad argued that the chambers judge erred in law in failing to apply s. 23(2) of the Sale of Goods Act (SOGA) to conclude that ownership of the motorcycle passed immediately upon execution of the contract. In the alternative, he argued that the chambers judge erred in law in concluding, based on s. 17 of the Motor Vehicle Act (MVA), that ownership of the motorcycle did not pass to him. In the further alternative, he applied to admit fresh evidence calling into question one of the factual elements relied upon by the chambers judge in assessing the intention of the parties....