Maura Marchioni

Following a trial judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff and dismissing the defendants’ counterclaim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The plaintiff relied on a Rule 49 offer to settle that was more favourable than the judgment obtained and sought partial indemnity costs to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

The defendants argued the claimed fees were disproportionate to the amount at issue.

The court held that the plaintiff’s rates and hours were reasonable given the claim and counterclaim and that the Rule 49 offer satisfied the requirements of Rule 49.10(1).

The court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the date of the offer and substantial indemnity costs thereafter, plus disbursements and HST.

An electrical subcontractor brought an action to recover unpaid amounts for work performed under two construction contracts relating to electrical installations at a commercial property.

The contractor alleged deficiencies, incomplete work, and counterclaimed for costs incurred to complete or repair the work after removing the subcontractor from the site.

The court determined the scope of the main contract and a separate office/showroom contract, finding that the subcontractor had substantially completed its contractual obligations and that additional work performed after a fire constituted a compensable extra.

The contractor’s refusal to pay progress draws and order removing the subcontractor from the site constituted a breach and a failure to mitigate damages.

Judgment was granted for the subcontractor and the contractor’s counterclaim was dismissed.