3 total
A contractor was held personally liable for defective landscaping work after failing to disclose his corporate status.
The plaintiffs sued Mike Roth (operating as Enviromasters Lawn Care) and 2127668 Ontario Inc. for defective backyard renovations, including a retaining wall, wooden fence, and concrete patio.
A-D Engineering Group Ltd. was also a defendant, having prepared engineering drawings.
Roth and the numbered company did not appear at trial.
The court found Roth personally liable for breach of contract and negligence, as he failed to properly disclose he was contracting on behalf of a corporation and the work was shoddy.
Damages were assessed based on the cost to remedy the defects, adjusted for betterment.
The action against the numbered company was stayed due to bankruptcy, and all cross-claims were dismissed.
Court reduces claimed fees but awards defendants substantial partial indemnity costs.
Following the conclusion of the action, the successful defendants sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $100,000 including legal fees, HST, and expert disbursements.
The plaintiff opposed aspects of the fee claim, arguing duplication of counsel time due to a late change in representation and asserting that a costs award would impose financial hardship.
The court held that financial hardship alone does not justify departing from the general rule that costs follow the event.
While accepting the defendants’ entitlement to costs, the court reduced certain hourly rates and hours claimed to account for the complexity of the case and potential duplication.
Costs were awarded to the defendants in the reduced amount.
Soft‑tissue injury claim dismissed for failing to meet Insurance Act threshold.
The plaintiff sought damages arising from a motor vehicle accident in which liability was admitted, leaving damages to be determined by a jury.
After the jury awarded modest damages, the defendants brought a threshold motion under s. 267.5(5) of the Insurance Act arguing the plaintiff had not proven a permanent serious impairment of an important function.
The court reviewed medical and psychological evidence and assessed the plaintiff’s credibility, noting significant inconsistencies, surveillance evidence contradicting reported limitations, and unreliable self-reports relied upon by experts.
Accepting the defence expert evidence and rejecting the plaintiff’s subjective complaints, the court held the plaintiff failed to establish that his injuries met the statutory threshold.
The defendants’ motion was granted and the action dismissed.
