This was a construction dispute arising from an oral profit-sharing arrangement under which the plaintiff provided project management and site supervision services on several commercial projects in exchange for 30% of net profit.
The court resolved disputed factual issues concerning project cost calculations, treatment of superintendent wages, personal charges, and allegedly improper extras billed to owners.
For the Shoppers Drug Mart and Gardiners Road projects, the court directed the parties to recalculate compensation using the agreed formula and the court's findings.
For the Wolfe Springs and The Edward projects, the court held that neither side proved entitlement to compensation or damages, finding in relation to The Edward that both sides bore responsibility for the absence of profit.
