John Ross Carruthers

The plaintiff, Johnvale Contracting Ltd., was awarded costs following a trial where it obtained judgment for $21,903.58 on a lien claim.

The court found the defendant, Zonte Investments Inc., did not act reasonably in response to offers to settle, particularly given the trial evidence.

Zonte's offers were consistently below the judgment amount, while Johnvale's lowest offer was only slightly above Zonte's last offer.

The court also considered Zonte's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud against Johnvale, which attract substantial indemnity costs.

Despite the costs exceeding the judgment amount, the court declined to reduce the award on proportionality grounds, emphasizing that a plaintiff should not be undercompensated for legitimately incurred costs.

The court adjusted the hourly rate for trial costs to be more reasonable.

The plaintiff contractor registered a construction lien and brought an action for unpaid invoices totaling $24,327.43 relating to a condominium renovation.

The defendant owner disputed the amount, claiming 19 specific discounts and back-charges for alleged deficiencies, unapproved extras, and incomplete work.

Following a summary trial, the court preferred the plaintiff's evidence, supported by contemporaneous logs, over the defendant's testimony.

The court allowed minor deductions totaling $2,423.85 (including HST) for unperformed electrical work, door changes, and code violations, but dismissed the majority of the defendant's claims.

The plaintiff was awarded $21,903.58.

Johnvale Contractors Ltd. brought an action to perfect a construction lien against Zonte Investments Inc. for renovation work on a condominium unit.

Zonte disputed the final invoice amount, claiming various discounts and back-charges.

The court conducted a summary trial, assessing the credibility of the principals of both parties and analyzing each disputed item.

The court largely sided with Johnvale, denying most of Zonte's claimed discounts, but allowed some credits and a back-charge for electrical code violations.

Johnvale's claim was reduced from $24,327.43 to $21,903.58.

The plaintiff, a black man, sued his former employer for constructive dismissal, alleging a poisoned work environment due to racism after a co-worker refused to attend mandatory training with him.

The trial judge found in favour of the plaintiff, concluding that the co-worker's refusal was racially motivated and that the employer's response was inadequate.

The Court of Appeal allowed the employer's appeal, finding that the trial judge's conclusions regarding racism and a poisoned work environment were unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence.

The Court held that a single incident did not objectively establish a poisoned workplace, and the employer's actions in investigating the complaint and offering alternative positions did not constitute a repudiation of the employment contract.

Following reasons for decision in an employment dispute, the court addressed the issue of costs and interest.

The parties reached an agreement fixing costs payable to the plaintiff, with partial indemnity costs awarded up to a specified date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The court ordered total costs of $72,715.11 including disbursements and HST.

The endorsement also amended a paragraph of the earlier reasons to align with the Courts of Justice Act regarding pre‑judgment and post‑judgment interest rates.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent employee 10 months' salary in lieu of notice for wrongful dismissal.

The trial judge had explicitly increased the notice period to include 'Wallace damages' for bad faith, despite such damages not being pleaded or claimed.

The Court of Appeal found this was an error in principle.

Applying the standard of review for wrongful dismissal awards, the Court deferred to the trial judge's assessment of the Bardol factors but removed the estimated one-month portion attributable to the Wallace damages, reducing the total notice period to 9 months.

The appellant supplied floor and wall coverings to the respondent, a retail store, without knowing or inquiring about the specific improvements where the materials would be used.

When the respondent became insolvent, the appellant claimed that the moneys received by the respondent from its customers were trust funds under section 8(1) of the Construction Lien Act, and sought to hold the respondent's principals personally liable for breach of trust.

The Court of Appeal, sitting as the Divisional Court, dismissed the appeal, holding that a trust under the Act only arises if the supplier intends the materials to be used for a known and identified improvement.