D.R. Service

The appellants were successful on appeal from a Small Claims Court judgment and sought costs for both the trial and the appeal.

The court considered whether the 15% cap on costs under s. 29 of the Courts of Justice Act limits the 'double costs' provision under Rule 14.07 of the Small Claims Court Rules when a party beats their offer to settle.

The court held that s. 29 does not cap costs in these circumstances, as doing so would undermine the purpose of encouraging reasonable settlements.

The appellants were awarded $3,411.30 for the trial and $5,000 for the appeal.

The respondent subcontractor supplied building materials to a general contractor for the construction of a cottage on the appellants' property.

When the general contractor failed to pay, the subcontractor sued the appellants for unjust enrichment, having chosen not to shelter under a construction lien.

The trial judge found the appellants liable.

On appeal, the Divisional Court set aside the judgment, holding that the contract between the appellants and the general contractor provided a juristic reason for any enrichment, and that the subcontractor's proper remedy was against the general contractor or through the Construction Lien Act.