The appellants, a contractor and an intermediary, appealed a Small Claims Court judgment finding them in breach of a home renovation contract and awarding the respondents $9,500.
The trial judge had found the contractor breached the contract by demanding a scheduled installment payment before completing equivalent work.
The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the trial judge erred by implying a term that contradicted the written payment schedule, which did not require work to be completed before installments were due.
The court also found the damages calculation resulted in a windfall.
The respondents' claim was dismissed, and the appellants' counterclaim was remitted for an assessment of damages.
