Ms. R. Clinker

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

The defendants counterclaimed for overpayment and deficiencies, arguing the contract was for a lower 'turn-key' price.

The court found the contract price was $183,500 plus HST, and the defendants breached the contract by unreasonably terminating it.

The plaintiff was awarded the balance owing plus proven extras on a quantum meruit basis, less credits for incomplete and deficient work, resulting in a net judgment of $61,940.73 for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to continue the action under the simplified procedure.

The defendants did not oppose the amendment but sought costs unnecessarily incurred under Rule 76.13.

The court previously awarded these costs and reserved the costs of the motion itself.

In this decision, the court determined the quantum of costs for the successful defendant, Concrete Walls, fixing them at $10,000 plus HST on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff moved to amend its statement of claim to reduce its damages from $500,000 to $60,461.87, thereby transferring the action from the ordinary procedure to the simplified procedure.

The defendants consented to the amendment but sought substantial indemnity costs for expenses unnecessarily incurred by the plaintiff's initial choice of procedure.

The court found that the plaintiff knew or should have known the claim fell within the simplified procedure limits before issuing the claim.

The court granted the amendment and ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendants' unnecessarily incurred costs and disbursements on a substantial indemnity basis, deferring the issue of Rule 76.13(3) cost consequences to the trial judge.

The plaintiff commenced a construction lien action against the defendants for unpaid cottage renovations.

The defendants counterclaimed for defective work, but later agreed to discontinue the counterclaim without costs after a fire damaged the property, intending to pursue a separate subrogation claim.

The defendants subsequently sought leave under s. 67.2 of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion to adjourn the upcoming trial and set aside their notice of discontinuance, arguing the issues should be consolidated.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the adjournment was not 'necessary' under the Act, would delay the summary procedure, and would prejudice the plaintiff who had relied on the agreement to discontinue.