Tim Beattie

The applicant unit owner sought an oppression remedy against the respondent condominium corporation under s. 135 of the Condominium Act, alleging that the corporation failed to adequately address ongoing water leaks in her unit, committed unauthorized entries, and acted abusively.

The court found that while the corporation's communication was deficient and it committed one unlawful entry, it had fulfilled its duty to maintain and repair the common elements by conducting extensive investigations and repairs.

The court concluded that the corporation's conduct, viewed in context, was not harsh, vindictive, or oppressive.

The application was dismissed.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant home builder in negligence and nuisance after their basement flooded, causing agreed damages of $65,328.99.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's construction activities on the adjacent lot obstructed a municipal drainage ditch, causing water to back up and overwhelm their sump pump.

The court preferred the evidence of the defendant's expert, finding it more likely that spring runoff overwhelmed the sump pump or that the pump malfunctioned independently.

The court concluded the plaintiffs failed to prove causation on a balance of probabilities and dismissed the action.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant home builder in negligence and nuisance after their basement flooded, causing over $65,000 in agreed damages.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant's construction activities on the adjacent lot obstructed a municipal drainage ditch, causing water to back up into their sump pump system and overheat the pump.

The court weighed conflicting expert evidence and preferred the defendant's expert, finding it more likely that spring runoff overwhelmed the sump pump or that the pump malfunctioned independently.

The court concluded the plaintiffs failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the defendant's actions caused the flood, and dismissed the action.

A homeowner brought an action against a contractor arising from a kitchen renovation project involving multiple unclear written and unwritten agreements.

The plaintiff alleged numerous deficiencies including an uneven floor, improperly installed cabinets, lack of structural roof support after removal of ceiling joists, and ventilation deficiencies.

The court found that the contractor breached aspects of the contract and performed some work negligently, including failing to provide structural support compliant with the Building Code.

However, the plaintiff failed to prove the cost of rectifying most alleged deficiencies, which is required to establish damages absent rescission.

Judgment was granted only for the return of a $5,600 window deposit that was paid but for which no windows were supplied or installed.

A roofing contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment of holdback funds and alleged extras following completion of a roofing installation project.

The property owner asserted a set‑off for the contractor’s failure to provide the expected system warranty and disputed responsibility for additional invoices.

The court interpreted the contract to require a system warranty covering labour and materials, not merely a material warranty, and held the owner was entitled to compensation for the missing warranty though less than claimed.

The contractor was also found responsible for damage caused by improper installation practices that allowed rainwater to enter through unsealed screw holes during construction.

Judgment was granted in a reduced amount reflecting the set‑off and limited entitlement to extras.