M.E. Craig

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for unpaid invoices relating to a home renovation and addition.

The parties had not signed a written contract.

The plaintiff argued the agreement was a 'cost plus' contract, while the defendants argued it was a fixed price contract based on an initial verbal estimate.

The court found the agreement was a cost plus contract, noting the defendants had previously paid an invoice detailing materials, sub-trades, and contractor profit without objection.

However, the court reduced the plaintiff's claim by $5,000 due to the plaintiff's failure to bill labour accurately and provide timely invoices as costs escalated.

The defendants' counterclaim for delay-related expenses was dismissed.

The plaintiff employer sought a Mareva injunction restraining a former employee from disposing of two real properties pending trial of a civil action alleging theft of funds.

The court considered whether the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case, a real risk of asset dissipation, and that the balance of convenience favoured the injunction.

Evidence included an alleged written admission of theft and discovery testimony indicating an intention to transfer real property interests to a former partner.

The court found a strong prima facie case and a real risk that the defendant would dissipate assets before trial.

The balance of convenience favoured preserving the assets because they represented the defendant’s only significant property available to satisfy a potential judgment.