Kenneth William Watts

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid amounts on a home renovation project.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages due to construction deficiencies, failure to follow design, delay, and fraudulent misrepresentation by the contractor's principal.

The court found that the contract was a fixed-price agreement and disallowed many of the contractor's claims for extras.

The court awarded damages to the homeowners for the contractor's failure to follow the agreed-upon design, delay costs, and structural repairs.

Furthermore, the court pierced the corporate veil, finding the contractor's principal personally liable for fraudulent misrepresentations that induced the homeowners to enter into the contract.

Judgment was issued in favour of the homeowners for $42,832.

The plaintiff credit card issuer sued to recover outstanding balances on a Home Depot credit card account.

The primary cardholder admitted the underlying purchases but argued that interest should be limited to the statutory rate under the Courts of Justice Act rather than the contractual rate.

The secondary defendant disputed liability, claiming he had not been proven to be a co-applicant or authorized cardholder.

The court found that circumstantial evidence established he was a secondary cardholder and jointly liable.

The court also held that, absent exceptional circumstances, contractual interest rates govern both pre‑ and post‑judgment interest, rejecting the request to apply the lower statutory rate.

Co‑owners of real property held as tenants in common disputed whether a prior agreement for one co‑owner to purchase the other’s interest remained binding after the closing date passed without financing.

The respondent sought specific performance of the original agreement and argued that her solicitor had negligently failed to request a further extension and had consented to judgment without authority.

The court found the agreement had lapsed because time was of the essence and payment was not tendered by the extended closing date.

It further held that the parties’ consent judgment permitting the property to be listed and sold was valid and enforceable because the solicitor had apparent authority and enforcement would not create injustice.

The moving party was granted leave to accept a higher third‑party offer and bind both co‑owners.

Homeowners pursued a cross-claim against a modular home builder alleging numerous construction deficiencies following completion of a custom home under an Agreement of Purchase and Sale and subsequent amending agreements.

The court assessed allegations relating to stair staining, concrete drainage, HVAC zoning and dampers, hot water systems, UV water treatment units, flashing, roof workmanship, and contractual obligations under a Homeowner Ultimate Guarantee (HUG) certificate.

Most alleged deficiencies were dismissed due to lack of expert evidence or contractual support.

However, the court found a concrete slope deficiency and incomplete copper flashing and interpreted the HUG certificate as guaranteeing completion of listed items within a specified timeframe.

Damages were limited due to the homeowners’ duty to mitigate, resulting in reduced penalty compensation.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision regarding an agreement of purchase and sale.

The appellant argued there was a denial of natural justice because his materials were not originally before the motions judge, and that the motions judge erred in interpreting the time for waiving a condition.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had an opportunity to present his argument and the motions judge correctly concluded as a matter of law that the time for waiving the condition expired at midnight, not 4:00 p.m.

Following dismissal of a motion seeking to exclude an expert engineering report and related remedial work evidence, the successful parties sought substantial indemnity costs of over $24,000.

The court considered whether the unsuccessful moving party’s conduct justified substantial indemnity costs and applied the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

While the motion was unsuccessful, the court found the conduct did not rise to the level warranting substantial indemnity costs.

Applying the overarching principle of reasonableness and guidance from appellate jurisprudence, the court fixed partial indemnity costs at a fair and reasonable amount.

Costs of $12,500 inclusive were awarded, payable within 30 days.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion on the eve of trial seeking leave under Rule 48.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to bring a motion to exclude an engineering report and related evidence relied on by the defendants in their counterclaim concerning alleged construction deficiencies.

The moving party argued the report had been delivered late and that remedial work was completed before it had an opportunity to obtain its own expert inspection.

The court held that leave was not warranted because the action had already been set down for trial and the moving party failed to demonstrate a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances making the motion necessary in the interests of justice.

The evidence showed the moving party had long been aware of the report and remedial work, had opportunities to conduct inspections and obtain its own expert evidence, and delayed bringing the motion until shortly before trial.

In any event, the court held the relief sought would not be justified because the evidence could be addressed through cross‑examination and exclusion would cause greater prejudice to the opposing party.

The appellant employer appealed a trial judgment finding that its former successful salesperson was not a fiduciary and did not misuse confidential information when he left to start a competing business.

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings, noting the employee had no management authority, hiring power, or corporate decision-making ability, and thus was not a fiduciary despite his high sales volume.

The Court also agreed that the customer information used was not confidential and the industry relied more on price and service than personal influence.

Commercial lease appeal concerning whether a successor landlord could re-measure leased premises and charge rent on a larger area than that fixed in a prior lease amending agreement.

The court held that the successor in title took subject to the existing lease and was bound by the stipulated square footage in the amending agreement.

The landlord failed to demonstrate any change permitting re-measurement under the original lease.

The appeal was allowed, declaratory relief was granted, and the tenant obtained a refund of excess rent paid with interest and costs.