The plaintiff contractor sued for unpaid extras on a home renovation project, while the defendant homeowners counterclaimed for deficient and incomplete work, and alleged unfair practices under the Consumer Protection Act.
The court granted the defendants leave to amend their counterclaim to increase the amount and rely on the CPA.
The court found that most of the plaintiff's claimed extras were not part of the original contract and, despite the lack of written agreements as required by the CPA, it would be inequitable for the defendants to benefit without payment, applying s. 93(2) of the CPA.
The court also found some deficiencies in the plaintiff's work and awarded damages to the defendants, but dismissed their claims of unfair practices under the CPA and their personal claim against the contractor's principal.
Damages were set off, resulting in a net judgment for the plaintiff.
