3 total
Homeowner awarded partial damages for roofing deficiencies but failed to prove entire roof defective.
A homeowner brought a Small Claims Court action against a roofing contractor alleging defective roofing work and seeking recovery of the full cost of the roof or the cost to replace it entirely.
The court found that the underlying structural issue of sagging plywood between roof trusses pre‑existed the contractor’s work and contributed to the roof’s uneven appearance.
However, the contractor was partially liable for shortcomings including failing to install the agreed number of vents, installing insufficient ridge venting, and failing to adequately address problems on a specific rear section of the roof.
The plaintiff failed to prove that the entire roof required replacement.
The court awarded partial damages based on a reasonable estimate of the cost to repair the affected section.
Successful defendant awarded capped Small Claims costs despite partial success on competing claims.
Following a three‑day Small Claims Court trial, the court determined costs after the defendant successfully defended the plaintiff’s $19,254.76 claim but failed on a $1,975 defendant’s claim.
Applying the principle that costs follow the event, the court held the defendant achieved greater overall success due to the significantly larger claim being dismissed.
The court declined to award penalty costs under s. 29 of the Courts of Justice Act or Rule 19.06 of the Small Claims Court Rules because the plaintiff’s conduct did not amount to unreasonable behaviour warranting punitive measures.
Costs in Small Claims Court are capped at 15% of the amount claimed unless justice requires otherwise.
The court awarded the full 15% of the net amount reflecting the defendant’s success, plus reasonable disbursements.
Carrier liable for delayed pickup of perishable shipment but damages reduced for failure to mitigate.
A trucking company sued for unpaid transport invoices relating to produce shipments from U.S. airports to Ontario.
The produce wholesaler counterclaimed alleging that a delayed pickup of a pepper shipment caused spoilage and significant loss in value.
The court found the carrier liable for breach of contract because it failed to pick up the perishable shipment within the agreed timeframe, making the resulting spoilage foreseeable.
However, the wholesaler failed to take reasonable steps to mitigate its losses after the delay became apparent.
Liability for the losses was therefore apportioned equally between the parties, resulting in a net judgment in favour of the wholesaler after set‑off against the unpaid invoices.
