minicounsel

R. v. Murray, 2025 ONCJ 720 — Court of Justice | minicounsel | minicounsel

November 28, 2025

R. v. Murray, 2025 ONCJ 720

Case Summary

The accused was tried on multiple counts of fraud over $5000 arising from residential renovation contracts, deposits taken from customers, and extensive delays or non-completion of work. Applying the fraud analysis in Théroux and the credibility framework in W.(D.), the court found that deprivation was established in many instances but the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused engaged in objectively dishonest acts or had the required subjective mens rea. The court accepted that many jobs were derailed by supplier shortages, labour instability, GreenOn program disruption, weather, illness, family tragedy, permit issues, customer changes, and eventual licence revocation. Similar fact reasoning, banking records, and GreenOn paperwork did not convert poor business practices and civil disputes into criminal fraud on this evidentiary record. The accused was acquitted on all remaining counts.

CITATION: R. v. Murray, 2025 ONCJ 720

DATE: November 28, 2025

COURT FILE No.: 19-4993

BETWEEN:

HIS MAJESTY THE KING

— AND —

DAVID RICHARD MURRAY

Before Justice S. Murphy

Submissions Heard in writing and on October 31, 2025

Reasons for Judgment released on November 28, 2025

M. Flagg counsel for the Crown

A. O’Brodovich counsel for the accused, D. Murray

Murphy J.:

1This decision relates to the Trial of Mr. Murray in relation to several counts of Fraud Over $5000. Mr. Murray pled not guilty to all of the counts.

2The conduct of the Trial of this matter is set out in detail in my reasons on the 11(b) Application decision, and I will not repeat them in this decision.

3Mr. Murray was charged with 35 counts of Fraud Over $5000 over varying times, commencing in 2016 and ending on August 30, 2019. Count 16 was an omnibus count which alleged an offence of Fraud Over $5000 for offences against 11 complainants.

4The Crown called 40 complainants, and at the close of the Crown’s case, withdrew count 11 and deleted 4 names from the omnibus count.

5Accordingly, this Trial decision involves a total of 34 counts of Fraud Over $5000 as against Mr. Murray.

Uncontested facts

6At the commencement of the Trial, there were several admissions made by Counsel for Mr. Murray pursuant to s. 655 of the Criminal Code. An Agreed Statement of Facts was read into the record.

7The amended date range, jurisdiction and identity of David Murray as the person all complainants dealt with was admitted. All electronic documents between David Murray and the complainants, including text, emails and Facebook messages were all admitted without further proof or Voir Dire, provided each witness testified that he or she was a party or was familiar with the circumstances surrounding each communication. The banking records were admitted, as all being under the control of David Murray at all material times. Some of the accounts were related to David R. Murray, trading as EcoLife Home Renovations, some related to EcoLife Home Improvements Inc., some were related to Mr. Murray’s personal accounts, some were related to EcoLife Home Improvements Inc. in which Ms. Pamala Facendi was also noted as a signatory. Corporate records and business names records were all admitted.

8It was further admitted that the GreenOn Program was announced on August 30, 2017, in which the Government of Ontario announced the creation of the Green Ontario Fund, which was a non-profit agency to deliver programs and it was created to reduce energy costs in homes and businesses. The core of the program was known as the GreenOn Installations program. On December 13, 2017, the GreenOn program started to offer rebates to eligible households up to $5000 for replacement windows, up to $7000 for insulation and other unrelated rebates regarding air sealing and heat pumps. A household could claim rebates for existing detached, semi-detached and row townhouses. For windows up to $500 per window if they purchased 10 windows. The program did not include doors or roof repairs, and the consumer had to buy and install through “participating contractors”, who in turn were required to complete training and certification for specific low carbon renovations. There were many steps required to be approved.

9For windows, homeowners must have had a total installed cost of at least $500 each, the windows must be installed by a Window Wise Certified installer, the installer could be subcontracted out, the Window Wise dealer must have a showroom, the installer had to be certified at the time of installations. The dealer/installer was responsible for submitting the GreenOn Rebate claim.

10Following the June 2018 provincial election on June 19, 2018, Premier-Elect Doug Ford announced the cancellation of the GreenOn program. Initially, the website announced that the government would continue to honour rebates for those who signed an agreement for work done before August 31, 2018 and applications submitted by September 30, 2018.

11On June 21, 2018, Premier-Elect Ford announced that the final deadline to submit claims was extended to October 31, 2018, which was later extended once again to November 30, 2018.

12Accordingly, all of the contracts with all of the complainants who testified were admitted into evidence. Some contracts had back pages and some did not. Some contracts were quotations, but based on the evidence at trial it is not disputed that the customer and Mr. Murray treated those quotations as contracts, with one exception. Mr. Murray acknowledged that his company either did not perform any work, or that they performed work that was not completed for all but one of the contracts. He further acknowledged that he took money from each complainant, in the amounts claimed by the complainant, with limited exceptions. Mr. Murray claimed that some contracts submitted into evidence were duplicates of an earlier contract, and he gave an explanation as to why he was certain they were duplicates. He admitted that at all times he was the controlling mind of EcoLife Home Improvements Inc. Most of his evidence was supported by the evidence of the individual claimant or by the objective evidence, or a combination of both.

Ruling

13What I have to determine is whether or not Mr. Murray committed criminal fraud, by way of EcoLife’s dealings with the complainants not whether or not Mr. Murray owes money to each complainant. In fact, the only relevance of the money involved is whether or not the potential fraud exceeds $5000.

14Adjudication of money potentially owed is left to a Civil Court is not properly part of what I have to determine. Accordingly, I will be making no findings of financial liability other than what is required for the Crown to prove that the offences have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt.

15In order to determine if Mr. Murray is guilty of fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, the Crown must prove its case on both the actus reus and the mens rea components. Mr. Murray has no obligation to prove anything.

16In light of the evidence that I have accepted, I cannot find that Mr. Murray committed a criminal fraud beyond a reasonable doubt involving any of the complainants, and so I am entering an acquittal on all of the remaining counts. I do so for the reasons that are set out below.

17The Crown urges me to find that Mr. Murray’s interactions with the complainants involved a pattern of dishonesty, manifested in forming contracts, taking money and not performing, in the backdating of invoices, endless and revolving excuses and deflections of blame, dishonest dealings regarding the GreenOn application process, a failure to properly manage his finances and to segregate client funds and continuing to sell GreenOn contracts even after the program was announced to be discontinued by the newly elected provincial government.

18The Crown urges me to not accept Mr. Murray’s evidence, in which he provided discrete reasons for the failure to complete each contract that formed the criminal charges.

19It is the Crown’s theory that I can infer mens rea from Mr. Murray’s use of pressure sales, often involving the GreenOn program to induce customers into purchasing more than what they wanted. He says that I can also infer mens rea from the sheer volume of complainants and the similarity of the complaints, in that they paid money, sometimes as much as 100% of the value of the contract because Mr. Murray insisted on such payment, even after it was clear that Mr. Murray was hopelessly overwhelmed and unable to complete the work. As well, the Crown claims that mens rea can be found in Mr. Murray using financing companies to induce customers into providing full payment in advance of performance of work. It is the Crown’s position that Mr. Murray intentionally misled his clients about his capacity to do the work or at least he was wilfully blind regarding his ability to do so.

20It is the position of the Defence that Mr. Murray did not engage in any deception with his clients, but rather he was transparent when dealing with them. Mr. Murray got caught up in an unanticipated circumstance regarding the cancellation of the GreenOn program and he was managing as best he could. The Defence says that Mr. Murray always intended to complete the work under each of the contracts, and that he went to great lengths to do so.

21For the reasons set out below, I find that the Crown has failed to meet its burden of proof regarding both actus reus and mens rea.

Mens Rea and Actus Reus

22The mens rea and actus reus for fraud were defined by the Supreme Court of Canada in the seminal case of R. v. Théroux, 1993 CanLII 134 (SCC), [1993] 2 SCR. At page Justice McLachlan writing for the majority said:

The Actus Reus of Fraud

Since the mens rea of an offence is related to its actus reus, it is helpful to begin the analysis by considering the actus reus of the offence of fraud. Speaking of the actus reus of this offence, Dickson J. (as he then was) set out the following principles in Olan:

(i) the offence has two elements: dishonest act and deprivation;

(ii) the dishonest act is established by proof of deceit, falsehood or "other fraudulent means";

(iii) the element of deprivation is established by proof of detriment, prejudice, or risk of prejudice to the economic interests of the victim, caused by the dishonest act.

Olan marked a broadening of the law of fraud in two respects. First, it overruled previous authority which suggested that deceit was an essential element of the offence. Instead, it posited the general concept of dishonesty, which might manifest itself in deceit, falsehood or some other form of dishonesty. Just as what constitutes a lie or a deceitful act for the purpose of the actus reus is judged on the objective facts, so the "other fraudulent means" in the third category is determined objectively, by reference to what a reasonable person would consider to be a dishonest act. Second, Olan made it clear that economic loss was not essential to the offence; the imperilling of an economic interest is sufficient even though no actual loss has been suffered. By adopting an expansive interpretation of the offence, the Court established fraud as an offence of general scope capable of encompassing a wide range of dishonest commercial dealings.

23Accordingly, the concept of deceit relates to the actus reus of the offence, and it is to be determined on an objective basis, rather than the subjective belief of the complainant.

24However, it also relates to the mens rea. Justice McLachlan went on to discuss mens rea in the following manner:

The Mens Rea of Fraud

(i) Doctrinal Considerations

This brings us to the mens rea of fraud. What is the guilty mind of fraud? At this point, certain confusions inherent in the concept of mens rea itself become apparent. It is useful initially to distinguish between the mental element or elements of a crime and the mens rea. The term mens rea, properly understood, does not encompass all of the mental elements of a crime. The actus reus has its own mental element; the act must be the voluntary act of the accused for the actus reus to exist. Mens rea, on the other hand, refers to the guilty mind, the wrongful intention, of the accused. Its function in criminal law is to prevent the conviction of the morally innocent -- those who do not understand or intend the consequences of their acts. Typically, mens rea is concerned with the consequences of the prohibited actus reus. Thus in the crimes of homicide, we speak of the consequences of the voluntary act ‑‑ intention to cause death, or reckless and wilfully blind persistence in conduct which one knows is likely to cause death. In other offences, such as dangerous driving, the mens rea may relate to the failure to consider the consequences of inadvertence.

This brings me to the question of whether the test for mens rea is subjective or objective. Most scholars and jurists agree that, leaving aside offences where the actus reus is negligence or inadvertence and offences of absolute liability, the test for mens rea is subjective. The test is not whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the consequences of the prohibited act, but whether the accused subjectively appreciated those consequences at least as a possibility. In applying the subjective test, the court looks to the accused's intention and the facts as the accused believed them to be: G. Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd ed. 1983), at pp. 727‑28.

Two collateral points must be made at this juncture. First, as Williams underlines, this inquiry has nothing to do with the accused's system of values. A person is not saved from conviction because he or she believes there is nothing wrong with what he or she is doing. The question is whether the accused subjectively appreciated that certain consequences would follow from his or her acts, not whether the accused believed the acts or their consequences to be moral. Just as the pathological killer would not be acquitted on the mere ground that he failed to see his act as morally reprehensible, so the defrauder will not be acquitted because he believed that what he was doing was honest.

The second collateral point is the oft‑made observation that the Crown need not, in every case, show precisely what thought was in the accused's mind at the time of the criminal act. In certain cases, subjective awareness of the consequences can be inferred from the act itself, barring some explanation casting doubt on such inference. The fact that such an inference is made does not detract from the subjectivity of the test.

Having ventured these general comments on mens rea, I return to the offence of fraud. The prohibited act is deceit, falsehood, or some other dishonest act. The prohibited consequence is depriving another of what is or should be his, which may, as we have seen, consist in merely placing another's property at risk. The mens rea would then consist in the subjective awareness that one was undertaking a prohibited act (the deceit, falsehood or other dishonest act) which could cause deprivation in the sense of depriving another of property or putting that property at risk. If this is shown, the crime is complete. The fact that the accused may have hoped the deprivation would not take place, or may have felt there was nothing wrong with what he or she was doing, provides no defence. To put it another way, following the traditional criminal law principle that the mental state necessary to the offence must be determined by reference to the external acts which constitute the actus of the offence (see Williams, supra, c. 3), the proper focus in determining the mens rea of fraud is to ask whether the accused intentionally committed the prohibited acts (deceit, falsehood, or other dishonest act) knowing or desiring the consequences proscribed by the offence (deprivation, including the risk of deprivation). The personal feeling of the accused about the morality or honesty of the act or its consequences is no more relevant to the analysis than is the accused's awareness that the particular acts undertaken constitute a criminal offence.

This applies as much to the third head of fraud, "other fraudulent means", as to lies and acts of deceit. Although other fraudulent means have been broadly defined as means which are "dishonest", it is not necessary that an accused personally consider these means to be dishonest in order that he or she be convicted of fraud for having undertaken them. The "dishonesty" of the means is relevant to the determination whether the conduct falls within the type of conduct caught by the offence of fraud; what reasonable people consider dishonest assists in the determination whether the actus reus of the offence can be made out on particular facts. That established, it need only be determined that an accused knowingly undertook the acts in question, aware that deprivation, or risk of deprivation, could follow as a likely consequence.

I have spoken of knowledge of the consequences of the fraudulent act. There appears to be no reason, however, why recklessness as to consequences might not also attract criminal responsibility. Recklessness presupposes knowledge of the likelihood of the prohibited consequences. It is established when it is shown that the accused, with such knowledge, commits acts which may bring about these prohibited consequences, while being reckless as to whether or not they ensue.

These doctrinal observations suggest that the actus reus of the offence of fraud will be established by proof of:

the prohibited act, be it an act of deceit, a falsehood or some other fraudulent means; and
deprivation caused by the prohibited act, which may consist in actual loss or the placing of the victim's pecuniary interests at risk.

Correspondingly, the mens rea of fraud is established by proof of:

subjective knowledge of the prohibited act; and
subjective knowledge that the prohibited act could have as a consequence the deprivation of another (which deprivation may consist in knowledge that the victim's pecuniary interests are put at risk).

Where the conduct and knowledge required by these definitions are established, the accused is guilty whether he actually intended the prohibited consequence or was reckless as to whether it would occur.

25Justice McLachlan went on to say:

The concern is that any misrepresentation or practice which induces an incorrect understanding or belief in the minds of customers, or which causes deprivation, will become criminal. As Marshall J.A. put it in Mugford, supra, at pp. 175‑76:

. . . it is not sufficient to base fraud merely upon a finding that the appellant induced a state of mind in his customers which was not correct. Any misrepresentation may have that effect. Criminal dishonesty extends further. . . .

It would be a startling extension of criminal liability if every statement urging the public to purchase one's wares because only a limited supply remain were by itself to be visited with criminal sanction.

Actus Reus

26In these circumstances, there is no question there has been deprivation. Each complainant testified that they were deprived in some way, with the exception of Ms. Pearson, who signed a Snap Loan and, therefore, although she was not actually deprived, she was at risk of deprivation.

27What remains is whether or not there was some form of dishonest act in relation to the actus reus. In light of the evidence that I accept, I cannot find a dishonest act committed by Mr. Murray or by EcoLife on either an objective or subjective basis. He certainly became overwhelmed, which he admitted. However, I cannot find that any of the contracts, either individually or as part of a pattern, involved dishonesty that mislead the individual complainants.

Mens Rea

28Because the actus reus and the mens rea are linked regarding the issue of dishonest act, I also cannot find that Mr. Murray knowingly engaged in a dishonest act, knowing that he was either depriving or putting at risk his clients’ money, or that he was reckless or wilfully blind to that risk.

Assessment of the Evidence

David Murray

29Mr. Murray testified on his own behalf. He agreed that he had entered into the contracts, but he testified that he believed that each contract had a back page, which was missing from many of the contracts entered into evidence. In many cases, we only had a copy or a photograph of the individual contracts. Two original documents were put into evidence, when those complainants testified. Both of those original contracts had terms and conditions noted on the back of them. The terms and conditions governed termination of the contract. For many of the contracts, the complainant unilaterally terminated their contract and asked for refunds. Mr. Murray relied on the termination to stop work, or to not schedule work. He refused refunds, saying that it was a civil matter, and he would abide by a Civil Court’s determination of whether or not he had to provide a refund.

30Mr. Murray testified that the cancellation of the GreenOn program had a disastrous effect on his entire business. He said that he effectively had two months to complete a year and-a-half worth of work, when the GreenOn program was cancelled. It forced him to divert his workforce to fulfill all of the GreenOn work that had been arranged.

31He agreed that some of the work that resulted in the charges were not for GreenOn projects, but he said that the effect of the abrupt implementation of a deadline to the GreenOn program caused chaos in the entire industry. He testified that he did not know about the glass and other component shortages for windows in the industry, until after June of 2018. All he knew was that it was taking longer and longer for him to get windows from his supplier, Euroseal, and he could not get any answers from them. He contacted Mr. Frattini from Gentek, who gave him firmer delivery dates for windows, and he then shifted all of his orders from Euroseal to Gentek.

32He testified that he did not know when he took that step, that this act would take his orders for windows and put them at the end of the queue and, effectively, reset the clock on his expected delivery date for each order, in a circumstance of shortages. He did know that he had to pay Euroseal for the windows that were custom ordered and then switched to Gentek. He also knew that he had to pay Gentek for the same window orders. He was aware that he could not pass this cost on to the customer, and that he was taking the full financial responsibility for this.

33For the work that was not related to GreenOn, he gave particular explanations for a failure to perform the work under the contract. He also gave similar explanations to clients and to the Court regarding work that was related to GreenOn. I will deal with each of those situations specifically below when I deal with each contract.

34In light of Mr. Murray admitting almost the entirety of the Crown’s case, the analysis of the evidence hinged almost entirely on the evidence of Mr. Murray. I engaged in the analysis as set out in R. v. W.(D.), 1991 CanLII 93 (SCC), as that case has been refined. I must consider the evidence as a whole. If I believe Mr. Murray’s evidence in the context of all of the evidence, then I must acquit. If I disbelieve Mr. Murray’s evidence but it is capable of raising a reasonable doubt about the charges in the context of all of the evidence that I believe, then I must acquit. If I disbelieve all of what Mr. Murray says, and his evidence is not capable of raising a reasonable doubt, then I must assess the remainder of the evidence that I do accept to determine if I am left with a reasonable doubt. It is only after engaging in the entire analysis, that I can be satisfied that the Crown has discharged its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

35After engaging in that analysis, I find that I cannot reject the entirety of Mr. Murray’s evidence, as I am asked to do by the Crown. The bulk of his evidence is supported by certain elements in the Crown’s case. The Crowns’ case calls for an explanation by Mr. Murray and his explanation is cogent, logical and unshaken on cross-examination. It is also supported in many ways by the objective evidence that the Crown introduced.

36Having said that, there were some problems with Mr. Murray’s evidence, which I will deal with below when examining the evidence of Mr. Murray in the context of individual complainants. However, overall, those problems do not cause me to reject his evidence entirely, and it raises a reasonable doubt regarding the elements of fraud.

Objective Evidence

37Some of the evidence called by the Crown I characterize as objective. I will deal with those pieces next.

38The Crown called Darren Frattini from Gentek and two people from the Building Department of the City of Sudbury. As well, there were admitted facts regarding Brendan Adair from the City of Sudbury and the entire transcript of evidence from P.C. Williams at the first aborted Trial.

39The evidence of all but P.C. Williams was not controversial, and virtually uncontested. I accept what was said by those witnesses and the admitted facts regarding Mr. Adair.

40The evidence of P.C. Williams will be dealt with below:

Gentek

41Darren Frattini is an employee of Gentek. He testified that he had contact with Mr. Murray regarding EcoLife ordering supplies from Gentek.

42He provided a letter dated June 18, 2019 that was sent to EcoLife Home Improvement Inc. in which Gentek claimed that $89,242.82 worth of special ordered product was being held by Gentek, and which had not been paid for. Gentek was going to offer the product directly to the customers, upon payment by the customers unless payment was forthcoming from EcoLife immediately. Mr. Frattini testified that no payment came from EcoLife.

43Mr. Frattini testified that EcoLife had a line of credit with Gentek, and sometimes the value of the orders superseded the line of credit, and it had to be paid down before more product was released. In June of 2019, it became clear that EcoLife had not paid for some time and likely would not be able to pay the outstanding amount owing.

44He confirmed that EcoLife purchased a variety of products including windows from Gentek and that his relationship with EcoLife began before Mr. Murray was the owner of the company. He confirmed that the GreenOn program created a high demand for windows, which created production problems for Gentek. There was also a glass shortage and “stuff like that” which created manufacturing delays of up to six months for “painted windows” meaning colour of frame. There were similar delays for windows that were not painted, but not quite as long.

45He confirmed that EcoLife had a lot of windows on order. He confirmed that Mr. Murray brought some homeowners to the warehouse to see their product “over the span of a year or so”.

46He confirmed that there were ongoing communications between Gentek and Mr. Murray about lead times for windows being delayed. He confirmed that he spoke to employees of EcoLife when they were ordering product for the clients of EcoLife.

47He further confirmed that Gentek did not reach out to any homeowners prior to the letter. Gentek did not sell directly to the public and would not communicate with people who had their windows ordered through contractors. He testified that homeowners would try and call and confirm orders on their own, and Mr. Frattini would refer them back to the contractor. This experience was not limited to EcoLife, but rather happened to other contractors as well.

48He confirmed that EcoLife had a lot of orders that were sent out but not yet paid, as well as orders still being held and not released by Gentek, as of June 18, 2019. He confirmed that these windows were custom ordered to individual specifications and not stock items. He believed that the ultimate debt that Gentek had to absorb was about $79,000, after credit was given for any product that had been purchased directly by the homeowner.

49Mr. Frattini testified that EcoLife was not a large customer until they grew with the GreenOn program into 2018. He confirmed that there were other companies whose orders increased and who requested additional lines of credit, similar to EcoLife.

50Mr. Frattini confirmed that it was common for labour to be scarce during the time of the GreenOn program. He was generally aware that payment problems from EcoLIfe began approximately in late summer or early fall of 2018, but he could not be certain, as this was the work of the Credit Department.

51He confirmed that Mr. Murray was in regular contact with him through 2018 and into the spring of 2019, and that he was aware that Mr. Murray’s mother had passed away in December of 2018. He also confirmed that Mr. Murray discussed bad weather as a reason for delay in his being able to work.

52He was not aware of a company called Euroseal. He was not asked if he was aware of other companies who built and sold windows to contractors.

53Mr. Frattini’s evidence supports Mr. Murray’s evidence in several important ways. He confirmed that Mr. Murray’s dealings with Gentek significantly escalated after the GreenOn program was announced. He said that it happened in about the spring of 2018 which supports Mr. Murray’s claim that he transferred his window orders around that same time.

54He also said that he believed that there were no issues with payment on a line of credit until late summer or fall of 2018, but he did not say when Gentek stopped sending out product to EcoLife. He could not be certain about that, since the credit department dealt with this issue. That is consistent with Mr. Murray’s evidence.

55Further, he confirmed that Mr. Murray or someone from his company had ordered product, and that the lead times for delivery of product got longer and longer, from an original range of four to six weeks to up to six months, due to pressure on the manufacturer and due to shortages of required components such as glass. He confirmed that customers of EcoLife contacted Gentek, inquiring about their product, and that Gentek would not confirm or not confirm that a product had been ordered or was ready for delivery. He confirmed that there was a lot of product sitting in their warehouse, waiting for payment. He was not certain of the exact date that Gentek stopped sending out product because of the unpaid account, but it was certainly stopped by the date of the letter. He said that there was a lot of product piling up and waiting for payment, which was not forthcoming in the spring of 2019. This is consistent with Mr. Murray’s evidence.

City of Sudbury

56Ms. Jamie Lavigne was called by the Crown. She was a by-law licencing clerk for the City of Sudbury in 2018 and 2019. Ms. Lavigne confirmed that the City of Sudbury required businesses conducting building renovations to be licenced, and required a current police check, a current liability insurance as well as an annual renewal of the licence. She confirmed that the licences expire on December 31 of each year. A reminder notice was sent out in the fall, alerting the licensee to renew their licence. The city retained the ability to refuse to renew or to revoke a licence. Complaints might trigger an investigation and such investigation may result in a licence revocation. She confirmed that her office received complaints about EcoLife, and that an investigation was conducted, and referral was made to her manager, Brendan Adair.

57Ms. Lavigne believed that Mr. Murray attended the building department of the City of Sudbury sometime in 2018 to renew his business licence. She identified a letter from Mr. Adair, dated March 28, 2019, in which Mr. Adair advised Mr. Murray that his 2019 business Licence had expired as of December 31, 2018 and the City of Sudbury was not going to renew it, based on expiry and non-renewal prior to expiry of the licence, and based on a complaint that was received. Ms. Lavigne believed that Mr. Adair gave Mr. Murray an extension to operate his business until the letter was delivered. She could not provide dates.

Brendan Adair

58Mr. Adair’s evidence went in by reading a statement of facts agreed by the Defence. Mr. Adair was the manager of Security and Bylaw Services for the City of Sudbury in 2019. In March of 2019, his department received seven complaints about EcoLife Home Improvements Inc. and Mr. Murray. He was also notified about a protest held in relation to EcoLife in an effort to encourage the Sudbury Police and the city to investigate Eco Life.

59As a result of the complaints, the protest and an investigation which Mr. Adair ordered Ms. Lavigne to undertake, he involved s. 24(e) of the Business Licensing By-law to revoke the business licence of EcoLife based on grounds to believe that EcoLife was not acting with honesty and integrity. On April 9, 2019, Mr. Adair hand delivered a letter to Mr. Murray to notify him of the decision to revoke the business licence of EcoLife. Mr. Adair informed Mr. Murray he had until April 11, 2019 to appeal the decision to a hearing committee.

60The admission of the letter or the evidence of Mr. Adair cannot be taken as an admission by Mr. Murray that, in fact, he was not acting with honesty and integrity, only as an admission that his licence was revoked and not renewed. Mr. Murray asked for a hearing in an effort to get his licence back, and the hearing was scheduled to take place after Mr. Murray was charged. Based on legal advice, Mr. Murray did not attend the hearing.

Andre Guillot

61Andre Guillot is the Manager of Building Inspections for the City of Sudbury. He testified that the City of Sudbury requires a building permit to be issued when any material alterations or repairs are required to be made to a home. He testified that changing or replacing shingles, eavestroughs or replacing windows or doors with the same or smaller replacements a permit is not required. Nor would replacement of soffit and fascia.

62He interpreted the requirement for a building permit to be when there was a structural component involved, such as changing rafters or plywood on a roof, expanding window size or altering the structure. Replacement of siding, relocating load bearing walls or washrooms would require a building permit. The City of Sudbury requires a letter of authorization from the homeowner to obtain a permit, if the contractor applies for a permit on the homeowner’s behalf. If a permit is being sought, generally the City of Sudbury requires a set of plans or a design, and a quote of the work being done and a plot plan to show the location of the work on the site. He confirmed that a permit could be amended, if the work had begun and problems arose or the work changed.

63The only timeline that existed was regarding the approval of the permits. That was governed by whether or not all the components of the work were in place, such as proper plans and paid fees. Once all the components were in place, there were timelines of 5 days for approval of smaller jobs such as siding, up to 20 days for large structures.

64Building permits could be revoked after six months if the work has not been commenced, but the permit can be extended. A permit does not expire. If staff at the city flag a permit, the city sends an inspector out to verify what is going on. A business with an expired or revoked business licence cannot apply for a permit.

65Mr. Guillot had interaction with Mr. Murray during the period of time that his licence was revoked. He testified that Mr. Murray went to the front counter asking for him.

66He confirmed that inspectors would also investigate complaints by neighbours. If the work is found to violate the Building Code, the inspector can issue a Stop Work Order.

67Mr. Guillot’s evidence supports Mr. Murray’s evidence that generally Mr. Murray did not obtain work permits, it was the responsibility of the homeowner. A review of the individual contracts show that generally when Mr. Murray obtained a work permit, it was written into the contract. It cannot be said, based on this evidence, that Mr. Murray or his company was required to obtain a work permit for work to be done, and the failure to obtain that permit was Mr. Murray’s failure. In fact, a lot of the work that was done or contracted for, did not require a permit. Mr. Guillot was clear that if there was no change to the structure, for things like windows of the same or smaller size than what existed, or a replacement of shingles, no permit was required. A permit was required for the replacement of siding, roof trusses, or rebuilding walls. The City of Sudbury required the homeowner to get the permit and many of the contracts did not oblige EcoLife or Mr. Murray to do that.

P.C. Williams

68The evidence of P.C. Williams from Mr. Murray’s first aborted Trial was admitted without calling P.C. Williams as a witness.

69He was the officer-in-charge of the investigation involving Mr. Murray. P.C. Williams testified that he got production orders to obtain banking records related to Mr. Murray and to EcoLife. There was an admission that the identification of the source of particular deposits into the bank accounts was correctly identified by the Crown as being from particular complainants.

70P.C. Williams testified that there were a couple of transactions in the bank accounts of Mr. Murray that he deemed to not be business related, such as a purchase from Toys R Us, liquor store purchases and some restaurants. He later conceded that some of the same purchases could be related to the operation of the business. He did not see any extravagant purchases or luxury or big ticket item purchases.

71P.C. Williams confirmed that he had conversations with Mr. Murray before charges were laid, that Mr. Murray’s company was having trouble completing work due to the cancellation of the GreenOn program. This is a prior consistent statement by Mr. Murray, and not admissible to bolster Mr. Murray’s credibility, but it should have prompted some additional investigation by P.C. Williams. P.C. Williams seems to have discounted this because some of the work left unfinished and forming charges had nothing to do with GreenOn. That ignores the effect that the cancellation of the GreenOn program had on the rest of Mr. Murray’s business, and it appears that it went completely uninvestigated. The same comments apply to Mr. Murray advising P.C. Williams of staffing issues due to GreenOn pressures, such as certified installers quitting, and having to certify new installers.

72P.C. Williams further confirmed that his dealings with Mr. Murray were cordial, but that he could not be sure that he said that he sympathized with Mr. Murray and characterized the entire investigation as civil in nature, as claimed by Mr. Murray. He confirmed that he told Mr. Murray that if he completed the work, Mr. Murray would not be charged. He did not give him a date for completion, and said that if Mr. Murray did the work there would not have been a criminal offence.

73He agreed that it was possible that there might be an innocent explanation for work not being done that did not amount to fraud, but this question was in the context of many reasons that people cannot get work done, and not specific to Mr. Murray’s case. However, it also appears that he either did not believe that the issue relating to GreenOn provided a defence or that there might be other reasons for a failure to complete the work.

74In P.C. William’s mind, he testified that if a person is paid a large sum of money to do something and the work does not get done, it is fraud. He testified that some of the contracts were dated to 2016 and 2017, and that gave ample time to complete work if “you plan on doing it”. He also testified that Mr. Murray should not have entered into new contracts when he had not completed the work on older contracts. He testified that he was not aware of window manufacturers pressing the government for more time to fulfil GreenOn window contracts or that there was a shortage. He was aware that Mr. Murray’s licence was suspended and that Mr. Murray could not work on the existing contracts.

75Overall, the evidence of P.C. Williams had little value. He was able to confirm that he spoke with Mr. Murray several times before Mr. Murray was charged. He confirmed Mr. Murray’s claim that P.C. Williams suggested that he would not charge Mr. Murray if Mr. Murray completed the work. His interpretation of the law of fraud leaves much to be desired, but there is no issue being raised regarding his grounds to arrest Mr. Murray.

76P.C. Williams’ claim that Mr. Murray should have finished the work that was already contracted before entering into new contracts belies the reality of workflow in a contracting business. He also appears to not have done much investigation beyond the formation of the contract, the payment of money and the failure to complete the work, other than obtaining banking records, corporate records, and obtaining statements.

77He did confirm that there were contacts from other customers of Mr. Murray’s company, who were referred to civil courts, which in turn confirms that the contracts that form this criminal complaint were not the only contracts that EcoLife was bound by.

78That evidence is not admissible to prove the charges against Mr. Murray, because they would be inadmissible and irrelevant as pieces of character evidence, but they do support Mr. Murray’s claim that he did a lot of other work, which has not been taken into consideration.

Banking Records

79The banking records were admitted into evidence on their own. They were not used by either Crown or Defence in any substantial way, so they stand on their own. The Crown asked general questions regarding cash flow and overdrafts, and Mr. Murray admitted that he had not segregated the deposit funds of his clients into a trust account, but rather used the funds to purchase supplies and to run his business.

80Mr. Murray was asked about debits for Gentek, and he explained that before shifting his window orders from Euroseal to Gentek, he purchased other items from Gentek, such as siding and caulking, and other smaller construction items. Sometimes he wrote cheques and sometimes he used his debit card. P.C. Williams did not obtain copies of cheques written on behalf of EcoLife, or copies of deposited cheques.

81There are many codes unique to these records, which make them difficult to read regarding the source of funds and what happened to some of the funds. I do not have information about payees of cheques written by EcoLife, or identification of depositors, other than what the records identify through the notations. Snap Loan proceeds and account transfers are two such entries that I can identify. I recognize the code for “NSF” meaning “returned non-sufficient funds” or returned unpaid. In many cases, when a transfer is made between accounts, the account number to or from which the funds were being transferred is noted and it can, therefore, be determined.

82Based on the banking records, I find that there was additional work completed by EcoLife workers and additional contracts entered into, paid for and possibly finished between 2017 and March of 2019. The banking records admitted into evidence support this.

83ScotiaBank business account record for account number 30262 00260 18 shows that the account was opened on October 11, 2011 and closed on March 23, 2018. It was opened in the name of David Richard Murray, trading as EcoLife Home Renovations.

84Deposits made between February 28, 2017 and March 31, 2017 into that account amounted to $189,315.94 for that month. March to April of 2017 show deposits of $238,600.43. April to May of 2017 show deposits of $301,842.10. May to June of 2017 show deposits of $278,086.48. Some of these deposits include amounts for cheques returned as non-sufficient funds, from EcoLife’s account, but those amounts are relatively minimal.

85This pattern continued with deposits in excess of $180,000 for each month until the end of November of 2017. After November of 2017, there is very little activity in that account, and no customer driven access after December 4, 2017. The Crown has identified in the records, by way of memo, where they believe the deposits can be attributed to particular contracts and complainants. However, there is at least one deposit, namely on November 15, 2017, in which Snap Loan proceeds in the amount of $40,250 were deposited, and those funds are not attributable to any complainant.

86ScotiaBank account number 06486 02766 26 is Mr. Murray’s personal account. Records were produced between February 1, 2016 and March 26, 2018. The transactions in that account were mostly modest, and what would be expected from a personal account. Notably, there is one transaction on August 15, 2017 for a transfer in the amount of $14,500 out of Mr. Murray’s personal account. There is a corresponding transfer into the account for EcoLife on the same date, showing a transfer from the personal account into the business account. On August 21, 2017, there is another transfer of $3,600 from Mr. Murray’s personal account into the business account. A close review of the banking records demonstrates that Mr. Murray, from time to time, would transfer money from his personal account into the business account. As well, there are similar transfers back to Mr. Murray’s personal account, in what appears to be compensation for the earlier infusion of funds.

87The activity in that account ceased on December 4, 2017.

CIBC Banking Records

88CIBC account number 1012010 was opened on November 9, 2017 in the name of EcoLife Home Improvements Inc. David Murray is listed as the president and a signatory on the account. Incorporation documents and corporate minutes provided to CIBC were included in the information.

89The CIBC records show a similar pattern of transactions as the ScotiaBank, in that monthly deposits far exceed the money claimed by the complainants. At least at the beginning, there appears to be a pattern of e-Transfers rather than cheques being written on behalf of EcoLife. There are some NSF cheques that were written on behalf of EcoLife, which artificially inflates the deposit figures, but not substantially so.

90The CIBC records end in November of 2018, but all customer activity ends in October of 2018. In September of 2018, deposits into the account drop dramatically to $41,725.20. There are no NSF cheques charged back, so the deposits amount to funds paid into this account.

TD Banking Records

91The TD records relate to 5249689 37 12. Mr. Murray is the signatory.

92The records provided by TD Bank show that the account was being moved over from CIBC on October 17, 2018. The same incorporation documents that were provided to CIBC were provided to TD Bank. They document that Mr. Murray is the sole Director of EcoLife Home Improvements Inc.

93The TD bank records do not have monthly totals or any totals at all associated with them, so it is difficult to assess monthly activity. All customer activity ends on December 31, 2018. A review of the Production Order for TD Bank reveals that P.C. Williams sought information up to December 31, 2018. The last deposit appears to be from Dawn McKelvie in the amount of $6,000 on December 24, 2018.

Murray’s Evidence regarding Banking Records

94Mr. Murray testified that he sometimes wrote cheques to suppliers, or had running accounts with suppliers. He did not pay individual amounts for individual orders, but rather he made bulk payments.

95He testified that he did not segregate his clients’ deposit money into a trust account, but rather had a mixed business account into which he deposited funds and operated his business from the proceeds.

96Contrary to the Crown’s claim, there is nothing illegal or dishonest about this arrangement. I have carefully reviewed the contracts that were put into evidence, and there is nothing on the contract that required Mr. Murray to inform the client that he was putting their deposit money into a segregated trust account and only using their deposit money to pay for supplies. I was not provided with any regulation that requires a trust arrangement for deposit funds.

97In fact, there is ample evidence from Mr. Frattini and from the banking records that Mr. Murray was operating a large contracting operation, and that he was making bulk payments toward the line of credit being held by Gentek. That same evidence supports Mr. Murray’s claim that he would order large amounts of materials, sometimes in the form of custom orders. Mr. Frattini confirmed that custom orders could not simply be sold to anyone other than the customer for whom the order was made. His evidence supported that Mr. Murray’s company ordered materials under customer’s names, because the letter sent to Mr. Murray named two of Mr. Murray’s customers.

98The Crown also suggested that Mr. Murray’s use of point of sale purchases for identified retailers and from ATM banking machines suggest that Mr. Murray was using his business account for personal expenses. When confronted by this claim, Mr. Murray said that this was discussed at his earlier, aborted Trial, and the Crown could only prove one transaction that was for personal expenses. Mr. Murray testified that for a period of time, he did not even pay himself even though he did extensive sales work and visited worksites.

99I have not been provided with any expert report regarding Mr. Murray’s banking records.

100The Crown asks that I draw the inference that Mr. Murray was struggling financially, and had cash flow problems directly related to mismanagement of his company or mismanagement of client’s money. The Crown points to cheques written by Mr. Murray, that were returned NSF or non-sufficient funds and further points to the fact that each month his company appears to have used all of the money and perhaps gone into an overdraft position. The Crown says that this points to mismanagement of Mr. Murray’s company, which would provide evidence to refute Mr. Murray’s own evidence that his company was lucrative and growing.

101Mr. Murray testified that he had a long-standing relationship with ScotiaBank, but that he was having problems with that bank holding funds even on cheques that were certified. Because he depended on what he was told by the bank, he wrote cheques when deposits were made. As a direct result of the bank holding funds, the cheques that he wrote were returned as non-sufficient funds, even though he had deposited cheques. He said that this caused problems with suppliers and employees, so he switched banks to CIBC. He began having a similar problem with CIBC, and so he changed banks again to TD Bank.

102A review of the banking records demonstrate that Mr. Murray spent money when he had it. There were times that his cheques were returned NSF. However, it does not appear from the records that this was the usual course. There is nothing in the banking records that refute what Mr. Murray said about the bank holding funds and not immediately making the funds available for expenses.

Overall conclusion regarding Banking Records

103Accordingly, I find that the banking records do not serve to refute anything said by Mr. Murray regarding his business activity, and in fact support his evidence in many ways. Typically deposits fell off in the late fall and early winter over the course of three years. Mr. Murray testified that his busy season started in late March or April and runs all summer. The banking records support that. Mr. Murray testified that his business typically shut down right before Christmas each year and it did not reopen until late January of each year. The banking records support that claim.

104The deposits into the various company bank accounts far exceed the claims by the complainants. Mr. Murray testified that he had entered into and fulfilled the work on many contracts during the same time period that the complainant’s contracts were left unfulfilled. The banking records support that claim.

105Based on the banking records, I cannot make a finding that Mr. Murray performed any dishonest acts related to the banking records. Depositing money into a separate trust account for client’s deposits is not required in law or by the contract. Mr. Murray had no obligation to inform his clients regarding the use of the deposit funds.

106I also cannot draw the inference that Mr. Murray was having cash flow problems, based on the NSF cheques written by his company and based on the use of the funds.

107I am able to infer that Mr. Murray’s company was not as financially viable as he had hoped, but Mr. Murray testified to that fact. He testified that he incurred additional costs when transferring orders from Euroseal to Gentek. The Gentek products were more expensive, and he still had to pay Euroseal for the product that he had ordered and not received, because they were custom orders. He testified that he did not pass that cost along to his customers, but rather absorbed those costs. He also testified that he had uncollected accounts receivable, which caused financial problems. He said that he was losing his business and did not know it.

108Accordingly, the banking records do not establish what the Crown seeks. As well, there are inferences available that support Mr. Murray’s evidence, rather than support the Crown’s theory.

Crown Submissions

109The Crown urges me to reject Mr. Murray’s evidence and to find him guilty on all counts. For those complainants whose loss or risk of loss amounted to less than $5,000, he urges me to find him guilty as charged, and if I find that is not available to me, to find Mr. Murray guilty of Fraud Under $5000.

110The Crown submits that accepting money without performing work, submitting false rebate applications, and misleading clients are objectively dishonest acts. There is no controversy over whether or not Mr. Murray accepted deposits and sometimes full payment of contracts without completing the work. He denies submitting false rebate applications and he also denies misleading his clients about the rebates, about changes to the contract dates, or his intention to complete the work. In my assessment of all of the evidence, I accept Mr. Murray’s evidence.

111Although it is true that Mr. Murray accepted money from his clients and did not fulfil the terms of the contract, that in and of itself is not a dishonest act. The Crown’s position is deceptively simple, but fails to take into consideration that the complainants were contracting for future work.

112That future work was either not performed or partially performed. Mens rea and actus reus must coincide. The Crown argues that because Mr. Murray continued to not perform the work, the dishonest act is proven, as it was a continuum of behaviour. In my view that is not what I must focus on. Mr. Murray continued to conduct his business, and deliver on contracted work through his business until his business was effectively shut down by the City of Sudbury by refusing to renew his licence. Mr. Murray had a storefront. He had preprinted invoices in his company’s name. He had trucks, employees and equipment. He had an office phone line and a cell phone through which his customers could contact him. Many of the contracts had no start or anticipated completion date noted on them, most particularly as the effect of the GreenOn program cancellation began to be felt. In light of the legal test set out in Theroux for actus reus, the failure to perform and then to issue refunds is not an objectively dishonest act.

113I do not find that Mr. Murray had a pattern of misleading clients about the dates of the contracts and, in fact, most clients were aware and actually consented to the date being backdated. For those who claimed to either not be aware or who did not consent, there is nothing in their evidence, or any of the evidence that I do accept, that causes me to reject entirely Mr. Murray’s evidence in this regard.

114I do not find that Mr. Murray filed false rebate applications to GreenOn. In fact, it is not controversial that the application process was multifaceted and it involved many steps to accomplish a completed application. The contractor was expected to begin the application, and to provide some preliminary information as well as before and after photos of the work to GreenOn. The certified installer had to provide a certificate that verified that the work was completed. The customer had to provide confirmation that the invoice was paid in full and that the work was completed as described. Until all steps were completed, the application process was not finalized.

115Mr. Murray testified that his office staff started the application process. They got behind and he was required to hire additional staff, including his son, his stepdaughter and his niece. He tried to supervise them, but he was ill and they were overwhelmed. He candidly admitted that mistakes were made, and they were not perfect. There is evidence of only one false application, which Mr. Murray acknowledged. I reject the other claims of false applications. However, the accepted false application involved an uncle of Mr. Murray’s wife. Mr. Murray’s mother-in-law worked for him, and she was also related to this customer. Mr. Murray said that his mother-in-law falsified the application with photographs of another home and in which it was claimed that the work had been completed. In fact, the work had not been done. The customer, Mr. Facendi, had to verify that the work was done, in order for him to get the rebate funds that he testified that he did receive and he kept. Ultimately, Mr. Murray acknowledged that it was his responsibility, as the sole director of EcoLife. However, this action by his mother-in-law cannot make Mr. Murray criminally liable for the actions of an employee.

116Mr. Valiquette’s GreenOn application was not a “false application”. It was commenced in error and when Mr. Murray caught the error, he told Mr. Valiquette to do nothing further with the application. That was completely appropriate.

117I also accept Mr. Murray’s claim that he expected to perform the work for which he was paid. In fact, I find that he made extensive efforts to complete the work. P.C. Williams’ evidence supports this, and so does the evidence of many of the complainants. They described consistent communication with Mr. Murray at the beginning. Those who contacted him directly described that Mr. Murray was responsive to their requests at first. It was only as time went on that Mr. Murray’s responses became less frequent and he became unresponsive. The text messages that were put into evidence support that. The client’s claims support that. Mr. Murray admits that.

118I accept that there were several causes for Mr. Murray’s failure to complete the work. For contracts that were entered into before June of 2018, which were originally not GreenOn contracts, each contract appears to have been problematic for one reason or another, and in the analysis below I will address the specifics. However, in light of the objective evidence and the evidence that I accept, there were reasons found to accept that this class of contract was not the product of criminal fraud.

119For those contracts that were specifically GreenOn contracts or contracts that turned into GreenOn contracts, the objective evidence supports that there were significant and unanticipated supplier issues, and catastrophic effects from the cancellation of the program. This was worsened by the poor state of weather between November of 2018 and April of 2019. I accept Mr. Murray’s evidence that there was a cascading effect resulting in a loss of his business that he did not see coming. It was the cascading effect rather than anything that Mr. Murray did or did not do that resulted in the failure to complete this class of contract.

120There remains a class of contracts that were entered into which were not directly GreenOn contracts, and they were signed after the GreenOn program launched. There is little controversy that Mr. Murray’s company workers were working as hard as they could within the restrictions of the GreenOn program, which resulted in Mr. Murray having to redirect his workforce to ensure that the GreenOn jobs were completed. I accept Mr. Murray’s evidence that some of his workers could do other work, such as decks, siding and roofing, and when he sold those contracts, he fully expected that he would have the capacity to perform the work, and assessed objectively, he had every reason to have this belief.

121The full analysis of the above contracts are noted below.

Crown’s Theory

122The Crown’s theory of liability for Mr. Murray can be grouped into the following categories:

i) A pattern of deceit and misrepresentations about upfront payments, false promises of timelines, use of GreenOn as a sales tactic, financing contracts, lack of communication and evasion and misuse of funds.

Regarding this claim, I find that there was no such pattern of deceit and misrepresentations. Mr. Murray did not demand upfront payments, although some clients paid up front, either through loans or in cash. Some clients paid their invoices, in the hope of qualifying for the GreenOn program rebates as their work had to be paid in full before October 31, 2018.

He gave time estimates that he later discovered were unrealistic and were impacted by what he called the “surge” caused by the GreenOn program and then the abrupt cancellation of the program. The later contracts had no completion date noted on them, and any claims by the customers of verbal agreements regarding completion were either not verified by Mr. Murray or he explained intervening events.

He admitted to using the GreenOn program as a sales tactic and said he could have sold many more contracts if he was just interested in selling. In my findings below, I found that there were four jobs sold after GreenOn was cancelled that were connected to the GreenOn program: Paul Facendi’s job, Chris Crawford’s job, Robin Cameron’s job and Mark Lowe’s job were all sold in the summer of 2018. Mr. Murray said that he sold only two GreenOn jobs after the announcement. This is clearly not the case, but this inconsistency is not central in the overall picture.

A review of the cancellation notice released by the Province of Ontario cancelling the GreenOn program reveals that it can be interpreted the way that Mr. Murray interpreted it: no actual date of termination for selling jobs is noted, just a date for installation and a date for submission of paperwork.

Mr. Murray had no way of knowing that the program was going to be cancelled before the election, beyond rumours. After the election, I accept that he had little guidance about what the actual effective date was to stop selling GreenOn eligible jobs. Premier-elect Ford cancelled the program. He then extended the program to August 31, 2018, with paperwork to be submitted by September 30, 2018. The deadline was extended again to November 30, 2018.

Of the entirety of the contracts that were the subject of these charges, only three were sold in July of 2018 and one was sold in August of 2018. One contract was sold in September of 2018. Three were sold in October of 2018. One was in November of 2018. Two were in December of 2018. Only four of these contracts were connected to GreenOn. The work associated with the remaining contracts is consistent with Mr. Murray’s claim that he was selling jobs for which he did not require his most skilled workers.

I also find that Mr. Murray did not continue to sell window contracts with promised start dates knowing that he was having supply issues. Mr. Murray discovered in or about June of 2018 that he was having supply issues with Euroseal. He then spoke to Darren Frattini from Gentek, and got firmer delivery estimates. However, even Darren Frattini testified that the lead times for getting windows in this period was affected by the GreenOn surge and shortages of components. Those factors changed anticipated delivery of windows from a period of six weeks to up to six months. This was unanticipated and unknown prior to June of 2018, and it continued to evolve. Mr. Murray was relying on what he was told by Mr. Frattini. A review of the contracts reveals that Mr. Murray was often no longer putting firm timeframes regarding completion of contracts, and he was having conversations with his clients regarding the pressures of GreenOn and the need to complete that work.

I find, based on the text messages that were admitted into evidence, based on the claims of the individual complainants and on Mr. Murray’s evidence that communication with complainants did not start off as being evasive or unresponsive. In fact, it is clear that Mr. Murray was responsive and followed through reliably until he became completely overwhelmed in the summer of 2018 and then he became evasive and made empty promises. His communication became less and less, and the timeframe is consistent with his illness, his mother’s death and his office shut down. It ceased entirely when his licence was revoked, until as he put it, he could not stand it anymore. He then provided limited responses to his clients. Once he was charged criminally, his communication stopped almost completely.

Mr. Murray admitted to increasing the amount of Ms. Pearson’s contract to ask for additional funding for her wedding. Ms. Pearson was aware and was a party to this. This did not deceive Ms. Pearson in any way.

Mr. Murray admitted to backdating many of the dates of some of the contracts. He did so for various reasons. To ensure that the client received last year’s pricing and to ensure that the client would qualify for the GreenOn program (most of which contracts would have qualified by date in any event). However, most complainants admit that they knew what Mr. Murray was doing and they either consented to it or were indifferent to it. They were not deceived by it. For those who claim that they did not consent or were not aware, I have made specific findings noted below.

The Crown relies on Paul Facendi’s evidence that Mr. Murray misrepresented the scope of work and pressured him to enter into a contract for more than what he wanted. For the reasons set out below, I specifically reject Mr. Facendi’s evidence.

Mr. Murray did admit that he was overwhelmed by volumes of work, but that admission was related to an unanticipated cancellation of the GreenOn program and the corresponding need to complete a year’s worth of work in two months. It is a logical effect of a sudden and unexpected termination, that it would cause disruption. The overwhelm occurred as a result of factors that were out of Mr. Murray’s control, not something that he engineered.

Mr. Murray admitted that there were mistakes made in scheduling. He did not admit that he “lost control of scheduling”. He said he delegated it, there were problems and he intervened. He agreed that it was ultimately his responsibility.

Mr. Murray’s evidence was not that he failed to track orders or to prioritize clients who had already paid. His evidence was that he delegated the ordering of materials to his employees. He said he created a simple tracking and scheduling system that would ensure that all employees saw the schedule on a daily basis, as it was a board on which every job was to be scheduled once materials arrived.

Mr. Murray admitted that he referred clients to other agencies, i.e. SAWDAC or GreenOn, but that was not in an effort to deflect, but rather to ensure that clients were informed of the reality of what was happening in the industry.

Mr. Murray acknowledged that clients were screaming at him and that he was juggling too many jobs at once. That was directly related to the GreenOn cancellation, the corresponding concern by the public and his customers that their jobs would not be done and they would not receive their rebates.

ii) Misuse of client deposits by not segregating deposit funds and dedicating those funds solely to obtaining materials and supplies for clients. This was followed by a failure to return the deposits upon request of the clients.

The Crown claims that using client funds for personal or unrelated business expenses is a strong indicator of fraudulent intent. I have reviewed the banking records above and I find that the evidence does not support this submission. There was no obligation on Mr. Murray to segregate client deposits from his general operating funds. The banking records do not support this claim. Mr. Murray denies this claim. The spending as demonstrated by the banking records does not show extravagant or unrelated spending. Mr. Murray refused to return deposits because, at least for windows and some siding materials, these were specially ordered products which could not be cancelled.

iii) A pattern of dishonesty regarding reasons provided to clients for failure to have work done.

Mr. Murray admitted to several reasons for which his ability to fulfil the contracts was impeded. He said that he was ill in November and December of 2018. He said that his mother fell and died in December of 2018. He said that the winter of 2018 to 2019 was unusually cold and snowy, and prevented his workers from working. He said that he had employee issues. He talked about the abrupt cancellation of the GreenOn program, and its corresponding effect upon the schedule and all of his work. He talked about supplier issues. He said that some clients altered the work that they wanted to have done. He claimed issues regarding the Labour Board and his inability to force workers to work in what they believed was an unsafe environment. He said that his licence was suspended, preventing him from working.

I find that most of the reasons provided by Mr. Murray are supported in the objective evidence or the evidence of the complainants, specifically regarding the weather, several of the complainants agreed that the winter was an unusually long and harsh winter, with lots of snow and ice and it came earlier and lasted longer than usual. Darren Frattini substantiated the supplier issues regarding windows and the labour problems common in the industry, and particularly during this period, as well as the surge due to GreenOn. I have found below in a review of the individual contracts that some clients did change their choices in the contracts, cancelled the contract effectively ending Mr. Murray’s ability to work, or failed in their own obligation to do work that was required prior to the start of the work on the contract. The licence suspension and the affect of that suspension was corroborated by Mr. Guillot, Ms. Lavigne and Mr. Adair.

There is no independent evidence regarding Mr. Murray’s health and illness or his mother’s death. However, I see no reason for which Mr. Murray should be doubted on those points. He said that he had no idea how ill he was. He thought that he had the flu and that he just could not shake it. Ultimately, he discovered that he had a heart attack, and that he is a type one diabetic. He said that his mother fell, was admitted to hospital, and died. In fact, he described in great detail the events that surrounded her death, and the need for him to leave the hospital to address a worker issue, during which time she passed away without him being present. He was visibly emotional about that.

Accordingly, I do not find that that the reasons given by Mr. Murray were mere excuses or dishonest in any way.

123The Crown suggests that the above represents a sustained pattern of deceit by Mr. Murray over a period of years. For the reasons noted above, I find that there was no pattern of dishonesty related to formation of contracts, dating of contracts, management of jobs, management of funds or loan terms. I do find that there was a pattern of communication with customers that evolved into empty promises that evolved into an almost complete lack of communication with customers.

124The Crown suggests that Mr. Murray’s evidence was self-serving, internally inconsistent, unresponsive and inconsistent with admissions made. Further, the Crown says that Mr. Murray’s evidence is not corroborated by documents or records. The Crown acknowledges that Mr. Murray has no obligation to prove anything, but because of the perceived inconsistencies, without corroboration, he submits that Mr. Murray’s evidence cannot be accepted.

125He further submits that Mr. Murray’s evidence is in direct contradiction to the evidence of the complainants, and he urges that I accept the evidence of the complainants as being credible and reliable, and corroborated by the documentary and photographic evidence.

126For the reasons noted above, and in the analysis of each complainant’s evidence below, I cannot find that Mr. Murray’s evidence is sufficiently internally inconsistent on material issues to reject it. I cannot find that it is inconsistent with the objective evidence or with the admissions made.

127I do not find that it was self-serving, but I do find that it was often prolix and filled with political speeches about the legality of the actions of the newly elected Premiere, Doug Ford. He often answered questions with rhetorical questions of his own, and he had to be cautioned about that.

128The Crown submits that I can find that Mr. Murray was reckless or was wilfully blind to support the claim that Mr. Murray had the requisite mens rea for fraud.

129Recklessness may relate to either the conduct (deceit) or consequences (deprivation) aspects of the actus reus. The accused must be aware of a substantial risk but proceed with the conduct despite the risk.¹

130Willful blindness suggests a deliberate failure to inquire into facts the accused suspects may exist. This is treated as the equivalent to actual knowledge for the purpose of assessing mens rea.²

131The Crown cites the volume and irregularity of transactions, Mr. Murray’s failure to reconcile financial records, the submission of false applications for government rebates, and avoidance of client complaints and refund requests to support his claim of proof of mens rea.

132However, given my findings related to the banking records and the GreenOn applications, as well as the communication with clients, I am really only left with the volume of what the Crown claims to be irregular transactions, i.e. the contracts. The remainder are not founded in evidence. There is a large volume of complainants. There are 40 in total. On the face of it, that is a relatively large number of unsatisfied customers who paid for something and did not get satisfaction. However, given my findings related to the amount of business that Mr. Murray’s company was doing, as well as the fact that these complainants span a four year period between 2016 and 2019, the number lessens in significance. That factor alone, in these circumstances cannot support the finding the Crown seeks. This was a multimillion dollar a year contracting operation, and the contracts in issue are only a portion of the annual business of this company.

133The Crown submits that Mr. Murray ignored the risk to the clients when he discovered his staff submitted improper rebate applications. However, Mr. Murray testified he did not know that this occurred until into 2019, and specifically for Mr. Facendi. He also discovered that Mr. Valiquette’s job had resulted in a GreenOn application when it should not have. When he discovered that this had occurred, he immediately communicated with Mr. Valiquette and told him to do nothing with the application. Mr. Murray said that he tried to supervise his staff, and he fired his mother-in-law for filing the false application for her brother-in-law. In light of this evidence, I cannot find that Mr. Murray ignored the risks to his clients, and it is not clear to me what the risk would have been to the clients in general of this potential failure by Mr. Murray. His evidence was that his office staff was inputting applications for people who were not eligible for the program, not that his staff had not input applications for people who were eligible. Mr. Murray was candid in saying that he was overwhelmed and that he severely limited the new business that he sold after he became aware of the surge with GreenOn and the cancellation. The banking records support this claim.

134The Crown also claims that Mr. Murray continued operating his wife’s company without informing his clients. That is contrary to the evidence. Ms. Facendi formed the company. She operated it. She met with the clients and signed the contracts with the clients. Mr. Murray was then presented as an employee of her company. There was no claim that he was not connected to the company, and there was no claim by any of the clients that Mr. Murray was operating the company. They were aware of the arrangement and they consented to it.

135The Crown filed a similar fact application, which was granted. The Crown relies on the similar fact application to demonstrate:

i) Each complainant had independent evidence of loss;

ii) Allegations were documented; and

iii) That there was no air of reality to collusion among complainants.

However, the Crown also relies on the similar fact ruling to establish:

iv) A repetitive pattern: accepting deposits and failing to deliver, offering similar excuses;

v) Backdated contracts and false rebate promises;

vi) Lack of meaningful remediation or refunds; and

vii) This undermines the defence claim that each incident was isolated or accidental.

136The Crown specifically submits that the similar fact evidence supports the dishonest act element of the actus reus of criminal fraud, or the objectively dishonest act and deprivation or risk of deprivation because it identifies a pattern of objectively dishonest conduct.

137According to the Crown, this identifies subjective knowledge of Mr. Murray that the acts were dishonest, establishing the actus reus but it can also be used to establish wilful blindness and foresight of financial harm to his clients, which is the mens rea element of criminal fraud.

138He acknowledges that similar fact evidence cannot simply be used as character evidence, to prove that Mr. Murray is the type of person who is likely to commit criminal fraud.

139The Crown wants to use this evidence across counts, to support an inference that the failure to perform under the contracts was not mere accident, but rather established a pattern of conduct.

140However, much of what the Crown relies on regarding similar fact was already admitted by Mr. Murray. There is no dispute that he took the money and did not do some or all of the work. The question is why? Mr. Murray has provided an explanation, which I have accepted. That explanation does not involve accident or coincidence. It involves a cascading effect from an unforeseeable set of circumstances that started with the unanticipated and abrupt cancellation of the GreenOn program with little notice, which was compounded by the loss of key, trained and required employees to do the work. It was further compounded by the need to retrain other employees in an environment when there was a documented shortage of skilled workers. It was then exacerbated by Mr. Murray’s ill health, the death of his mother and the poor weather. His licence was then revoked by the City of Sudbury. Regarding the work that preceded the GreenOn program, each contract had unique problems, which were explained by Mr. Murray. Those explanations were borne out in the evidence of the complainants and in the documentary evidence that was provided. Subsequent to the GreenOn program, Mr. Murray contracted for minimal work that did not require highly skilled workers for relatively simple jobs.

141For the reasoning as set out above, the elements above do not support an inference of the claimed pattern of conduct.

Browne v. Dunn

142The Crown identified several areas where Mr. Murray’s evidence raised an objection by the Crown because of a perceived violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn, which is a rule of fairness. It requires a witness to put his or her differing version to another witness to afford an opportunity to explain.

143The first objection raised relates to the claim of a change in window manufacturers when Mr. Murray became aware of the delays in receipt from Euroseal and switched to Gentek as a supplier. Specifically, the Crown cites the evidence of Judy Strato and the failure of the defence to put that claim to her.

144I have carefully reviewed the evidence of Ms. Strato and of Mr. Murray on this point. Ms. Strato said that she was told that there were manufacturer delays. She thought her windows were coming from Toronto and that she remembered the name Regency. She did not recognize the name Euroseal. Mr. Murray said that he originally ordered the windows from Euroseal, but when he discovered the delays that Euroseal were facing and that they would not give him firm delivery dates, he switched to Gentek. He said that he talked to Ms. Strato’s husband about that issue.

145Because of Ms. Strato not recognizing the name Euroseal but believing her windows came from Toronto (which would be true of Euroseal windows and not of Gentek windows), as well as Mr. Murray saying he spoke to Mr. Strato about switching suppliers, I find that this issue was explored sufficiently with Ms. Strato to satisfy the rule in Browne v. Dunn.

146The same was true for many of the complainants. Some were asked about whether or not they recognized the name Euroseal, and most who were asked did not. Of those who were specifically asked about being informed of a switch in supplier before the switch was made, none admitted to hearing that. This issue applies only to contracts involving windows. It is not unusual for customers to not know the specific supplier of their materials, and Mr. Murray testified that he was entitled to substitute materials by the terms of the contract. The reverse of the contract specifically says that EcoLife was entitled to substitute superior material without notice to his clients. However, Mr. Murray said that kept his customers informed about this change, and he clearly did not. This element factored into my assessment of Mr. Murray’s credibility and reliability, but ultimately it alone or in combination with the other factors did not cause me to reject his evidence.

147The Crown claims that Ms. Cameron and Ms. Crossman, and others were not asked questions regarding anticipated start date would not be until 2019.

148I have reviewed the evidence of Ms. Cameron. She sold her home in 2018 and oved in December. There does not appear to be any claim that the work was not anticipated to start until 2019. In fact, Mr. Murray said that he specifically instructed his son to call Mrs. Cameron to schedule the completion of the job for December of 2018 and that was how he discovered that she had sold her home and was moving. As well, Ms. Cameron’s job actually started within a week of signing the contract in July of 2018, but it was not completed.

149Ms. Crossman’s evidence related to two contracts. It is the second contract that was problematic and the work was not completed. Mr. Murray claimed that there were problems related to the stucco on the home needing to come off, which delayed the project, and Mrs. Crossman agreed that she got a text saying that. However, Mr. Murray claimed that he told Ms. Crossman that the work regarding the change to the stairs would not start until 2019. Ms. Crossman agreed that she had talked about a change to the stairs. Overall, I do not find that this violates the rule in Browne v. Dunn. Ms. Crossman admitted that she changed what she wanted regarding the stairs after the work started. It was that work that Mr. Murray said he would not be able to start until 2019.

150The Crown claims that issues relating to structure and permits for Robert Bouffard’s home were not put to Mr. Bouffard. Mr. Murray claimed that Mr. Bouffard did not want to get a permit which resulted in the structural choice of the replacement beam. Mr. Bouffard claimed that he told Mr. Murray to make the replacement beam up to code. Mr. Bouffard was cross-examined about the permit, and the term on the back of his contract regarding the customer’s responsibility to obtain a permit, and he said that he had not seen it before. He denied that Mr. Murray asked him to get an “engineer permit”. Mr. Murray testified that Mr. Bouffard did not want to get a permit, which would not cause an issue unless the house was inspected. This issue was put to Mr. Bouffard sufficiently to satisfy the purpose of the rule in Browne v Dunn.

151The Crown claims that issues relating to Tony Nash and abuse of EcoLife staff were not put to Mr. Nash. In-chief, Mr. Nash described an incident whereby Mr. Murray kicked him out of the office but Mr. Nash said that it was because Mr. Murray didn’t want Mr. Nash leaving with the order form for Gentek. Mr. Nash claimed that Mr. Murray struck him and he went to the police. Mr. Murray said he kicked Mr. Nash out due to his behaviour toward the staff and that Mr. Nash bumped him when he was leaving the office. He said that he showed to the police officers who attended, the internal video of his storefront. Mr. Murray’s claim about Mr. Nash is not central to the issues. Both Mr. Murray and Mr. Nash agree that there was a confrontation in the office and it regarded Mr. Nash wanting to leave the office with the order form. The rule in Browne v. Dunn has not been violated regarding this issue.

152The Crown claims that it was never put to Mr. Frattini that Mr. Murray decided to switch all of the window orders from Euroseal to Gentek. Mr. Frattini was not specifically asked this question, but his evidence does generally support this. As noted above, Mr. Frattini did agree that he had a conversation with Mr. Murray and that EcoLife’s business increased significantly in the summer of 2018. This does not violate the rule in Browne v. Dunn. Mr. Frattini would not be able to confirm this issue, and if Mr. Murray told Mr. Frattini that he was transferring all of his window orders to Gentek, it would be inadmissible as a prior consistent statement.

153The Crown claims that Mr. Murray’s claim of advising the client and converting the Bissonnette’s window contract to a GreenOn contract was not put to Mr. Bissonnette. Both Mr. and Mrs. Bissonnette testified that Mr. Murray talked to them about the GreenOn program. In fact, Mr .Bissonnette believed that it was in 2017 when he originally signed the contract. Mrs. Bissonnette believed that it was in the spring of 2018. Mr. Bissonnette testified that he was told that there were problems with window manufacturers. They both testified that Mr. Murray asked for a final payment in December of 2018, and they dated the cheque for October of 2018. There is no violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn, given the above evidence.

154The Crown claims that it was not put to Ms. Pearson that she originally signed a different contract than the ones that were put into evidence for less than the contracts in evidence. However, Ms. Pearson agreed that Mr. Murray “discounted” his contract by $4,000 and facilitated her application for financing to permit her to have one loan for her wedding and she was also able to finance her renovation job. What is important in this transaction is that Ms. Pearson was given the extra $4,000 by Mr. Murray from the loan proceeds, and she acknowledged that. This is not a central or material issue. As well, it was not unforeseen by the Crown, given that Mr. Murray claimed that this issue was explored at his earlier aborted Trial, and the earlier contract was put into evidence. He was not impeached on this point.

155The Crown claims that it was not put to Mr. Facendi that Mr. Murray claimed that Mr. Facendi was aware that the GreenOn application was a false application. I find that this was an inference available from all of the evidence. The GreenOn application was a multistep application, which required the homeowner to certify that the work had been done. Mr. Facendi said that he received the funds from GreenOn, and that the work was never done by Mr. Murray’s company. He kept the grant funds and used them to pay for the work done by another company. If Mr. Facendi received the funds, and kept them I can infer that he participated in the fraud on GreenOn regardless of what Mr. Facendi said. The “failure” to put this to Mr. Facendi does not violate the rule in Browne v. Dunn, it is an inference available on Mr. Facendi’s evidence regardless of his potential answer. Mr. Murray’s comment that Mr. Facendi was part of the fraud on GreenOn comes from Mr. Facendi’s participation by keeping funds he was not entitled to.

156The Crown raised an objection regarding Mr. Jedrezek’s evidence. It is the Crown’s claim that Mr. Jedrezek was not asked about converting the contract to a GreenOn contract, which violates the rule in Browne and Dunn.

157Mr. Jedrezek said Mr. Murray told him as he was working on the house that he might qualify for a rebate but did not specify what for.³ The work that was done on the house was done in June of 2018. He confirmed that he got a rebate cheque but did not know what it was for. He said that the work was not done so he did not cash the cheque. He said he reported to GreenOn that the work was not done and then gave the cheque to the detective. The cheque is in the amount of $3,900. Mr. Jedrezek also said that he went to Mr. Murray’s office to sign a document but he did not know what it was. He confirmed that he gave the secretary his email address. In cross-examination, Mr. Jedrezek was asked again about Mr. Murray telling him about the GreenOn program after the work had started, and he agreed.⁴ He also said that he signed the form with the secretary but did not read it. Mr. Jedrezek clearly was told by Mr. Murray about a rebate program, and he did not specify when he was told but it had to be in June of 2018. He had to have participated in the process by way of responses to the request for confirmation from GreenOn, but he said that he did not respond.⁵

158There is no violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn given this exchange with Mr. Jedrezek.

159The Crown raised an objection regarding Mr. Rainville not being asked if the job was contingent on “weather permitting”. However, tab 3 of Mr. Rainville’s exhibit # 21 is a contract that Mr. Rainville identified as the first contract. It is clearly noted on that contract regarding the estimated start and finish date “30 to 45 days weather and scheduled dates”. As well, the Crown filed a similar fact application in which they sought to have evidence apply across counts. The similar fact ruling is not limited to what the Crown wants to have apply, it is open to me to apply evidence relating to other complainants to this complainant. There is evidence in Mr. Rainville’s examination in‑chief that this issue was explored. Many other complainants testified that Mr. Murray told them that weather would affect the work on their job. As a general rule, they did not believe that weather was in fact a cause for the delay. It is also a matter of logic and common sense that weather would affect the work on a job that involves reshingling and removing siding and insulating a home. This is not a violation of the rule in Browne v Dunn.

160As well, the Crown submits that it was never put to Mr. Rainville that the contract was rewritten and that he and his spouse were asked to attend the offices of EcoLife to sign a rewritten contract. This was also part of Mr. Rainville’s evidence in-chief. Mr. Rainville said that when he signed the contract, it was to be rewritten. The handwriting on what Mr. Rainville identified as the original contract and the handwriting on what was identified as the rewritten contract are clearly different, and Mr. and Mrs. Rainville both signed the rewritten contracts. Nothing turns on this point, it is not a central or material issue in dispute and it came out of the examination in-chief of Mr. Rainville. It does not violate the rule in Browne v. Dunn if counsel does not revisit this issue in his cross‑examination. It would be a waste of time to do so.

161The Crown raised an objection relating to the rule in Browne v Dunn regarding Mrs. Chomiak’s evidence. Mrs. Chomiak testified that her husband had to fix the deck that was built by Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray, in his evidence, said that Mr. Chomiak had changed a component on the deck by splicing, and he said he was being held accountable for work not done by his company, since the deck had been altered by someone else.

162There are two problems relating to this objection. First, Mrs. Chomiak is not an expert and she cannot identify for the Court what was improperly done, only what she believed to be substandard and why she believed that. This is not conclusive evidence that the work was substandard, poorly or improperly done. Secondly, it was Mrs. Chomiak who was testifying and it was Mr. Chomiak who performed the work. This would have been a question for Mr. Chomiak and not for Mrs. Chomiak. The Crown chose to not call Mr. Chomiak as a witness, and certainly could have called him. This is not a violation.

163The Crown claims a violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn relating to Mr. Murray’s counsel’s failure to cross-examine on the issue as to whether or not Mr. Murray advised clients that the GreenOn jobs caused delays. The similar fact ruling answers this. There was evidence put to many of the complainants that Mr. Murray claimed that GreenOn was the source of delays, and they agreed. As well, the fact of GreenOn causing delays is a central issue only in that it explains why Mr. Murray was overwhelmed. Mr. Murray’s evidence was that he kept his clients informed about delays and what was happening. He also relied on news and media releases to inform his clients. He posted notices on his Facebook page and he told clients in text messages, phone calls and the like. The delays were not solely caused by GreenOn and the cancellation of the program, but also by bad weather, illness and injury and loss of qualified employees. To focus narrowly on a failure of Counsel to put to a particular or group of witnesses Mr. Murray’s claim of one of many causes for the delay in getting their jobs done is too close a focus. The whole point of the evidence of the complainants is that Mr. Murray was claiming that he kept his clients informed that their jobs were delayed, is not for me to find that they were each informed of the exact and ongoing cause of the delays of their jobs.

164The Crown raises an overall objection that Defence Counsel failed to put to the complainants that they were aware and consented to switch the supplier of windows from Euroseal to Gentek. I have dealt with this issue in paragraph 122 (i) above. This is not a violation of the rule in Browne v. Dunn, but my finding in paragraphs 126 and 127 affects my assessment of Mr. Murray’s credibility.

Criminal Record

165Mr. Murray has a criminal record. There are convictions for assault in 2000, two counts of failure to comply with a recognizance, assault and harassment as well as disobey a Court Order and forcible entry from 2007. The remaining entry post-dates the charges for this matter but relate to 17 counts of failure to file corporate income tax returns in 2019, which resulted in $17,000 in fines. In relation to the convictions that pre‑date the offences, there is a gap of at least 12 years between the date of conviction and the date of arrest for these offences. There is a further gap of six years between arrest and Mr. Murray testifying. The criminal record for offences has little probative value, given the gap and the fact that Mr. Murray remained record free in the interim.

166I am concerned about the convictions for failing to file 17 corporate income tax returns. However, I have no context within which to place these convictions. The fine in relation to the penalty is instructive. It appears that this may have simply been a failure to file returns in relation to an inactive company, rather than a failure to file and to pay income tax, given that tax owing factors largely in the fixing of the penalty. If there was a large amount of tax owing, it is likely the penalty would have been considerably harsher.

167The Crown claims that Mr. Murray’s evidence is vulnerable in that it sometimes lacked specific details. The Crown cited Mr. Murray’s claim of being “locked out” of his office in the spring of 2019, and that it was related to Mr. Murray’s claim of being bound by a Peace Bond. A close review of the evidence of Mr. Murray was that the original “lockout” was as a result of his landlord getting an order based on unpaid rent. In fact, many of the complainants saw a notice posted on the door saying exactly that, and Mr. Lachance submitted a photo into evidence of the actual notice on the door.

168Mr. Murray claimed that the lockout was due to 2 months of unpaid rent, which was a situation that happened to him annually. He said that as a result of being locked out of his storefront, he lost inventory and equipment. The Crown says that this evidence lacks detail and a legal foundation. Mr. Murray is not obliged to prove anything or to support his claim with anything, which is also acknowledged by the Crown. However, given that the notice was referenced in evidence by several complainants all around the same time that Mr. Murray claimed that he was locked out of his office, I accept this evidence.

169When the Crown challenged that this was a primary cause of Mr. Murray’s failure to deliver under the contract, Mr. Murray responded that he believed that he would re‑open his office and regain his licence. In fact, it is not disputed that Mr. Murray along with his wife, formed another company, paid to incorporate that company, paid for WSIB and other insurance, applied for a business licence and then Ms. Facendi met with the clients. No client was asked for any additional funds. If Mr. Murray was not accurate in his statements, I have to question why he would go to the lengths that he went to, to form another company and finish the work. The reasons cited by the Crown to disbelieve Mr. Murray’s evidence as inconsistent are not borne out in the evidence that I have accepted. It is the actions of Mr. Murray’s landlord and not Mr. Murray which were being challenged. The Crown believes that since Mr. Murray was habitually behind in rent in the late winter, that it should not have come as a surprise to him that the landlord locked him out. That is not Mr. Murray’s actions, it is the landlord’s action. Mr. Murray had a reason to be surprised. He was in this very situation in other years, but the landlord took no steps in years past.

Credibility Assessment of Mr. Murray’s Evidence

170The criminal record has does have an effect on my assessment of Mr. Murray’s credibility, but a limited one. It demonstrates that Mr. Murray neglected his legal obligations or has in the past completely ignored or defied legal obligations to file a tax return. Therefore, it is important in my assessment of his credibility to examine the controversial parts of his evidence in the context of the objective evidence. I have done that.

171As well, Mr. Murray claimed to have informed all of his clients who ordered custom windows that he switched suppliers in 2018 from Euroseal to Gentek. I have found above that he did not inform all of his clients, but as well that he did not have to inform them according to the terms of the contract.

172Mr. Murray claimed to have only sold two GreenOn contracts after the program was cancelled. The evidence that I accept is that he sold four GreenOn contracts. However, the difference in the number is not significant.

173Mr. Murray’s evidence consisted at times of rhetorical questions and political speeches. However, it was also responsive to the questions asked.

174The Crown says that Mr. Murray’s evidence should be treated with caution because he testified to being bound by a Peace Bond, and their corresponding concerns about the failure to provide documentary evidence to support that claim that this was an invalid excuse for the primary reason that Mr. Murray was unable to finish the work in 2019. A review of Mr. Murray’s evidence demonstrates that Mr. Murray claimed that this event was only a partial reason. He also claimed that his licence was suspended, which was verified in evidence. He further claimed that the weather delayed restarting his business in the spring which was supported by several customers. I find that it is unfair to Mr. Murray to focus solely on this factor to found his claim. It was a multifaceted complaint, not limited to the lock out.

175The Crown cites a concern related to Mr. Murray transferring orders from Euroseal to Gentek as evidence that he had prior awareness of the supplier problems. He then testified that he lost key installers and lacked certified staff, which the Crown says belied his claim that he believed that he could still finish the work. However, this was an evolving and dynamic situation, and as I observe elsewhere, Mr. Murray significantly reduced the sales of new business in September of 2018 and continued to reduce that business over the next several months. Hindsight is 20/20. Mr. Murray cannot have been able to foresee the future and a potential impact on his business of the cancellation of the GreenOn program, the requirement to do 18 months worth of work in 2 months and the corresponding impact on his schedule, the poor weather and his own poor health. As Mr. Murray testified, this was a chaotic storm, and he was caught in it. He testified that he was reacting to the evolving situation and doing his best.

176Mr. Murray did not claim to have paid for windows up front when they were ordered. He said that he paid for them and they were released by Gentek. He also had a credit line, which he used to cover the cost of windows which he ordered and pulled. This evidence is supported by Darren Frattini.

177The Crown points to the use of financing options, and the lack of understanding of complainants of the terms to support an inference of mens rea. In fact, many complainants acknowledged that they were aware that Mr. Murray would be paid the full amount. Ms. Pearson relied on that, so that she could get the money for her wedding. Each client knew what they were financing and signed the documents freely. The complaints by the complainants to Snap Financial and Home Trust were made because the complainants did not get satisfaction under the contract, not because the clients did not understand what they signed. This element does not support mens rea.

178The Crown suggests that Mr. Murray testified contrary to the admissions made on his behalf. The Crown first suggests that Mr. Murray testified that he submitted applications for GreenOn for work that was “starting” and not yet commenced. I accept that the GreenOn Application was a multi-step application which must be commenced by the approved contractor. I accept that Mr. Murray was referencing this process when he testified that his employees started the application process. This is not contrary to the admission regarding the steps that had to be accomplished before applicants were approved for GreenOn grants.

179Second, the Crown submits that Mr. Murray testified that the program was still active into 2019 when the ASF clearly identified that the program was cancelled in 2018. Mr .Murray testified as to his understanding of the cancellation of the program, and I have already found that the announcement was subject to the interpretation as understood by Mr. Murray. This is not contrary to the ASF, as drafted. The ASF states “following the June 2018 provincial election, incoming Premier Doug Ford announced the cancellation of the GreenOn rebate program on June 19, 2018.” Initially, the program’s website stated that the government would continue to honour rebates for those who signed a work agreement with a contractor for work that would be done before August 31, 2018, or submit an application by September 30, 2018. The application submission date was extended to October 31, 2018 and then to November 30, 2018. What is in issue is a matter of interpretation, and Mr. Murray’s interpretation of this statement is consistent with the ASF. Mr, Murray testified that the accepting of the paperwork was still active, not that the deadline had been extended. He said that his staff continued to submit application material after December 1, 2018 and the government processed that information.

180Third, the Crown says that Mr. Murray testified that he incorporated a new company in his wife’s name, called Maple Ridge, to keep promises to customers. The Crown linked that to GreenOn applications. There is no suggestion in Mr. Murray’s evidence that he took this step to preserve GreenOn rebate applications, but rather to ensure that he could proceed with work on the existing EcoLife contracts.

181The Crown suggests that the Defence submissions fly in the face of the admissions regarding the Crown calling into question Mr. Murray’s attempts to clarify the GreenOn cancellation. Rather, I read the Defence submissions to say that the Crown did not call anyone from GreenOn to testify as to the processing of applications past the application dates, not about the fact that GreenOn was cancelled and processing deadlines were put into place. However, that is not necessary. The evidence of the complainants, who provided emails from GreenOn, establish that GreenOn was continuing to process claims into 2019. The belief of Mr. Murray regarding GreenOn continuing to process applications past the deadline is borne out in the evidence and not contrary to the ASF.

182The Crown suggests that these factors go to the heart of an assessment of Mr. Murray’s credibility. Given my findings above, the claims by Mr. Murray were supported by the Crown’s evidence and by objective evidence, and they do not negatively impact on Mr. Murray’s evidence.

183Given all of the above concerns, I have evaluated Mr. Murray’s evidence, and while I treat some of it with caution, I cannot reject it entirely.

Evidence of Individual Complainants

184I will group the complainants in timeline order in order to assess their evidence.

Yvon Carriere

185The Crown used Mr. Carriere’s evidence as an example of where the evidence of Mr. Murray is completely contradicted by the evidence of Mr. Carriere and, therefore, Mr. Murray’s evidence should be rejected.

186The contract for Mr. Carriere was signed on February 2, 2017, but dated for December 15, 2016. This was not a GreenOn job, and it amounts to a problematic contract.

187Mr. Carriere and Mr. Murray both agree that the contract was backdated, but disagree for the reason. Mr. Carriere says that Mr. Murray wanted to get a government tax rebate but Mr. Murray says that Mr. Carriere would be getting 2016 pricing. I find that nothing turns on this point. What is important is that Mr. Carriere was well aware that his contract was backdated.

188The contract has a handwritten notation on it which says that installation was scheduled for May/June, but no year is noted. It is unclear if this notation was made when the contract was signed. Regardless, I accept that when the contract was signed, Mr. Carriere had an expectation that the garage would be built before his surgery, scheduled for November of 2017.

189A review of the contract reveals that EcoLife was responsible for pouring the slab. However, the contract is not clear regarding who was responsible for excavating for the slab. Because the obligations on EcoLife arise directly from the contract, and the contract is silent regarding an obligation to excavate, I can infer that Mr. Carriere was responsible for the excavation. It is a basic concept of contract law that the obligations arise from the contract. If the contract is silent regarding EcoLife excavating, then EcoLife had no such obligation.

190The contract states that Mr. Carriere was responsible for providing the fill for the slab and the excavating equipment and the packer. He was also responsible for the drawings, which were not provided until April of 2018. It is undisputed that the drawings were required to be completed before a permit could be obtained.

191Mr. Carriere testified that due to the height of the garage, he would have to get “special permission” and that the town and the neighbours would have to approve. He said that his garage was much larger than the average garage, as it was 26 by 50 feet and higher than the usual height.

192He was asked about obtaining the permit, and he said that it was not specifically part of the conversation with Mr. Murray, but that he understood Mr. Murray to be taking “care of everything”.

193This is further complicated by Mr. Carriere saying that he spoke to Josh, who was a project manager with EcoLife. Mr. Carriere testified that he was waiting for Josh to come and measure, so that Mr. Carriere could do the drawing. In a text message dated August 3, 2017, Mr. Carriere complained that Mr. Murray’s “guy” did not show up, and he asked for another timeline. There is a gap of 8 months before there is a text message provided in evidence.

194The next message is from April 2, 2018, in which Mr. Carriere asked Mr. Murray which day and time he would be attending to take measurements. I presume that the discussion regarded the measurements that were required for the drawing, based on the evidence of Mr. Carriere at Trial. As well, based on the tone of the message and the content of the message, it appears that there was some communication with Mr. Murray or someone from Mr. Murray’s company prior to this text message exchange.

195The next message is from April 4, 2018, in which Mr. Carriere says that today is not a good day to take measurements, and suggests “tomorrow” instead. Mr. Murray responded to that message with “No lol…its pretty bad out there eh”. On April 9, 2018, Mr. Carriere texted Mr. Murray, and told him that all the measurements were done, and he had made a footprint pattern, where the garage will be, and that he had made a “blueprint” for the garage measurement away from the house and all that. Mr. Carriere asked Mr. Murray to come and see it and pick up the blueprint.

196On April 12, 2018, Mr. Carriere again asked Mr. Murray to come and pick up the blueprint. On April 30, 2018, Mr. Carriere texted Mr. Murray to ask if he had a digging date scheduled. Mr. Murray responded that he was “behind schedule”. On May 3, 2018 after another inquiry by Mr. Carriere, Mr. Murray said he would call Mr. Carriere “this afternoon” and that Henry was going to look at it. On May 4, 2018, Mr. Murray asked if he could go to Mr. Carriere’s home the next day, because it was raining way too hard, and no one came in. On May 4, 2018, Mr. Carriere texted Mr. Murray and said that he was tired of “playing the game”.

197On May 7, 2018, Mr. Carriere texted Mr. Murray again and said, “I am home now, and will be home all day”. Mr. Murray responded with “ok”.

198The next text is from Mr. Carriere on June 5, 2018, asking Mr. Murray to call him. Several text messages follow over several days until June 15, 2018. Mr. Murray responded to some of the messages. On June 15, 2018, Mr. Carriere asked for his money back, and said he had doubts as to whether or not Mr. Murray ever intended to build the garage.

199Mr. Carriere could not remember if Mr. Murray called him in between the dates of the text messages.

200Mr. Murray responded to the text message cancelling the contract that there was a contract, and the garage was scheduled to start “this month”. In his message, he claimed that the delays were due to “your lot issues”.

201On June 18, 2018, Mr. Carriere said he had to leave and would not be home until 11:00 a.m., and that he had to leave again at 2:00 p.m. He then texted and said he would be home at 10 a.m. Mr. Murray responded by saying that “Henry and Jean Marc are in the area”, and he asked if they had shown up yet. Mr. Carriere responded by saying that it was Mr. Murray that he wanted to see.

202On June 19, 2018, after several text messages starting at 11:02 a.m., it is clear that Mr. Carriere was waiting for Mr. Murray and other workers to attend his home, and that Mr. Murray was promising to attend. By 6 p.m., Mr. Carriere told Mr. Murray not to bother coming, as he was going out.

203On June 26, 2018, Mr. Carriere again asked if Mr. Murray had a “digging date”. Mr. Murray responded by asking if “they” stopped by and looked at it, and said he would have to stop by and talk to Dana from Lafreniere. Mr. Carriere responded that “he” said he needed the “engineer plan so he could quote the job”, so Mr. Carriere told “him” to talk to Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray responded that he would call “him” tonight”.

204On July 4, 2018, Mr. Carriere texted Mr. Murray and told him Mr. Lafreniere “needs the engineer slab plans so he needs to know what kind of material to bring to quote me a price”. On July 6, 2018, July 9 and July 13, 2018, Mr. Carriere sent text messages to Mr. Murray, and it was evident that Mr. Murray had not responded. Mr. Carriere again said that Mr. Lafreniere needed the slab engineer “friend”, which I presume means “plan”, as he was “ready to dig anytime”. Mr. Murray responded that “it should be ready Monday! We sent it last week”.

205On July 18, 2018, Mr. Carriere texted Mr. Murray to advise that he had confirmed that no permit had been issued. That is the end of the text messages provided in evidence.

206Based on the contract and the text messages, I find that Mr. Carriere knew he was responsible to dig the slab. This is based on his text message between July 4 and July 13, 2018, in which he clearly stated he was attempting to arrange for a quote for digging the slab. If he was awaiting a quote for excavating for the slab, he was not expecting Mr. Murray to excavate for the slab, he was expecting someone else to excavate for the slab, and he would then pay that person.

207This evidence is not inconsistent with Mr. Murray’s evidence that Mr. Carriere was responsible for digging the slab.

208Further, some delay regarding the work for Mr. Carriere resulted from Mr. Carriere not preparing the drawings that were required to be submitted for the permit until April of 2018. This is also borne out in the text messages and in Mr. Carriere’s evidence. Mr. Carriere said that when the work was delayed into 2018, he changed the orientation of the garage. Given the evidence of Mr. Guillot, even if a permit had been obtained prior to April of 2018, another permit would have been required.

209As well, Mr. Murray claimed that the City of Sudbury required a cadastral survey, in addition to the drawings that were submitted in or around April of 2018 for a permit to be issued. Despite a claim that Mr. Carriere was responsible for this, Mr. Murray said that he paid for the survey, which was about $2,000.00. There is nothing in what Mr. Carriere testified to that contradicts this. Obtaining the cadastral survey also caused delays in obtaining the necessary permits.

210In fact, when Mr. Carriere was confronted with the contract which states that the contract did not cover certain items, Mr. Carriere said that it was his understanding that Mr. Murray was “going to do everything from the ground up” and agreed that the contract said something different than what he expected.

211Mr. Carriere was aware that there were two meetings with his neighbours prior to a permit being issued, which also caused delays. He was aware that the first meeting took place over a year after he signed the contract with EcoLife. He was not aware of the time gap between the meetings. This is consistent with Mr. Carriere not providing the drawings until after April of 2018.

212Mr. Carriere also said to his knowledge, Josh was to do the survey, the pickets and the digging and compacting. He was the “main guy” of Mr. Murray then. He agreed that the contract did not say that EcoLife was do the survey. He said that he ultimately did not get a survey done. He said that he gave the drawing to Liette from EcoLife in the second summer, meaning 2018, and it was approximately two years after the contract was signed. He agreed that Mr. Murray told him that he needed a survey about two years after Josh was supposed to do the work. When asked if it was closer to the time that the contract was signed, his answer was “not to my knowledge, sorry”.

213He claimed that he did not know that he had to provide drawings in 2017, he said that he did not know that he had to, despite the contract being clear on this point.

214Mr. Carriere confirmed that the weather was poor in the winter of 2018, and that there had been a big snowstorm in October of 2018. He said that the winter was “longer”.

215Mr. Carriere said that he told Mr. Murray to not do the work at the end of 2018.

216Mr. Carriere then contracted with another company, RoCan Homes and Renovations to dig and pour the slab as per the “drawings” on July 24, 2019. Mr. Carriere was responsible for the compaction after the slab was prepared. Page 2 of exhibit 10, tab 4, is an acknowledgement that RoCan had prepared the slab which was inspected by a city building inspector, and the homeowner was responsible for proper compaction on August 8, 2019. After that, RoCan was to pour the slab. Page 3 confirms that Ron Belanger prepared an engineered drawing, which was supplied by Mr. Carriere. Clearly, the finished garage required more than just Mr. Carriere’s drawing to be approved. It required engineered drawings, which were done by Ron Belanger.

217There is no evidence about when Mr. Belanger provided those drawings and who ultimately obtained the permit for the garage, but his drawings were referred to as engineered drawings. Clearly, more was required than the simple drawing provided by Mr. Carriere in order to obtain the required permit from the City of Sudbury.

218Overall, Mr. Murray’s evidence regarding the work to be done for Mr. Carriere cannot be rejected. Where it is inconsistent with the evidence of Mr. Carriere, I accept Mr. Murray’s evidence. Mr. Carriere’s evidence was inconsistent with the terms of the written contract, he did not fulfill his obligations under the contract, and the delay was his doing in failing to get the survey, changing the orientation of the garage, and significant delays in providing the drawings. He terminated the contract at the end of 2018, at which time, Mr. Murray’s company was closed for the season.

Richard Harrison (Stephanie Orsini) dated December 14, 2016

219Mr. Harrison testified as to the interaction between Mr. Murray, Ms. Orsini and himself. Ms. Orsini has since passed away. The contract related to the installation of five new windows and insulation, and it was not a GreenOn contract. It is one of the problematic contracts. It later morphed into a GreenOn contract.

220The installation was to be in May of 2017. The contract was for a total of $6,000. The $3,000 deposit was paid on January 9, 2017. Ms. Orsini wrote a letter to EcoLife on February 2, 2018 demanding installation or their money back. She sued in small Claims Court for $4,000 and cancelled the job.

221The obvious difficulty with Mr. Harrison’s evidence is that he testified to things that his wife did and said. He testified that his wife had most of the interaction with EcoLlife and with Mr. Murray. He testified that his wife contacted Mr. Murray from time to time, and that there was little to no response.

222He testified that he did not know anything about the GreenOn program until long afterward, and through third parties. He did not find out that the windows ordered for his home had triple pane glass packages until he saw his windows at Gentek. He said he did not know why he went to Gentek, but he thought someone from Gentek contacted him. He could not say when that happened, but it probably happened in 2018. He suspected that Gentek wanted payment.

223Mr. Richardson and Ms. Orsini are named specifically in the letter from Gentek, as being a customer of EcoLife, whose windows had been ordered and manufactured, and remained at Gentek in June of 2019. The letter is clear that someone from Gentek would be contacting them to ask if they wanted to purchase the product that had been manufactured for them.

224Mr. Murray testified that there was a scheduling error, and that the windows for this job were not ordered and installation was not scheduled, when it should have been done. He said that it “slipped through the cracks”. When the contract was first drafted, the job was not eligible for GreenOn. By the time he discovered the error, the job was eligible. This is consistent with the letter from Ms. Orsini. Mr. Murray was never asked how and when he became aware of the error.

225Mr. Murray said that he offered a discount, and ordered triple pane windows. He said that he met with Ms. Orsini at his office at least twice. He told her about the error and that the windows were now eligible for the GreenOn program. He said she was happy about that. He ordered the windows, but they were delayed in coming in.

226He said that he was served with the Small Claims Court documents in September or October of 2018, which surprised him. He said he then could not do anything until after the Settlement Conference, which was scheduled in November of 2018 because the matter was in court.

227He said he felt horrible and that he scolded his employees for making the mistake. He said that his workers were not a machine and that they made mistakes. In addition to offering the GreenOn rebate, he offered a discount of $1,500.

228Overall, I cannot accept Mr. Richardson’s evidence where it conflicts with Mr. Murray’s. He was having difficulties in remembering some events, and quite a bit of his evidence was hearsay. There was no application by the Crown to admit evidence relating to conversations between Ms. Orsini and Mr. Murray. As well, Mr. Murray testified that he spoke to Ms. Orsini about the error and the efforts to rectify it. I accept Mr. Murray’s evidence that the original job was not scheduled and the product was not ordered as expected, due to a mistake rather than malfeasance. I accept that he attempted to mitigate the mistake, and that the ultimate order for windows was part of the GreenOn program, with the prior knowledge of Ms. Orsini. I accept that the windows were ordered from Gentek, and that fact was supported by Mr. Frattini’s evidence. Because of the delays that Mr. Frattini testified to, I accept that the job was delayed due to manufacturer’s delays.

Jenny Lynn Shaw contract dated April 6, 2017

229Ms. Shaw contracted on April 6, 2017 for Versetta stone, trusses, work to insulate the roof, and other work. The total cost was $38,300. There was a second contract for $8,300. This was a problem contract.

230Ms. Shaw testified that she first spoke to Josh from EcoLife. She only wanted her roof to be done at first. Mr. Murray attended her home, and they talked about the job. She said that she and Mr. Murray talked about more work being done, and that he could make her house look like a showpiece, with new siding, windows and doors. This work would be done for a better price, because Mr. Murray could then use it to show potential purchases the quality of his work.

231She signed the first contract on April 6, 2017 for the roof and paid a total of $8,430 for payment in full of the contract. She then signed a contract for the rest of the work on the same date in the amount of $38,300 and paid a deposit of $16,000 in cash on June 8, 2017. She said that she did not get a receipt and said it took her a year to get a receipt. She went to Mr. Murray’s storefront to get a handwritten receipt. As part of her evidence, there is a handwritten receipt dated May 14, 2018, signed by Liette Langevin.

232She testified that Mr. Murray offered to do the entire bathroom, but that she did not have the money to do that. Instead, he did the bathroom wall, which was in very poor shape. She said that the work started, but there was no permit, and she had to wait some time for them to get the permit. She said that the roof got done and the bathroom wall was done, but she was not happy with the work. The siding was stripped and not replaced and the eavestrough and fascia were not replaced. EcoLife replaced the bathroom window, but no other windows.

233Photographs were entered into evidence, which Ms. Shaw said reflected the current state of disrepair to her house. One photograph depicted the place where Ms. Shaw said workers from EcoLife attended to fix a metal piece that was hanging. She said that she did not contact Mr. Murray after the work stopped to report her dissatisfaction because of all the trouble she had in getting the work started in the first place. She said she basically fired Mr. Murray. She estimated that the work on the roof was worth about $10,000 and that she would have agreed to have Mr. Murray’s company return to do the work. She never asked for her money back. She believed that the $16,000 that she paid was for half of the promotion work that Mr. Murray’s company was to do.

234On cross-examination, she said she could not remember if any of the work was to be done for free. She agreed that it is not noted on the contract, but she said that it was discussed with Mr. Murray “back and forth”. She did not recall if there was a back page to her contracts.

235She agreed in cross-examination that when the roof was being done, the workers found mould and that is when she and Mr. Murray had a discussion about “promo work”. She applied for a loan and was rejected. She confirmed that the place on the roof where the mould was found required new sheeting and trusses, and that was additional to the terms of the contract. She agreed that this work was on the entire front of the house. She agreed that mould was found in the insulation as well but did not know if new insulation was installed. She agreed that some of the soffit had to be removed and replaced due to mould. She agreed that the loan was to pay off the balance of the renovation, but she was denied. She said that she and Mr. Murray agreed that he would take an ATV that she owned as partial payment for the balance of the renovations, but he did not come and get it. She sold it to pay for other bills.

236She agreed that when the siding was removed, more rot was found. The porch had problems, which also had to be fixed.

237She denied that the work done and the cost of materials used exceeded the amount that she had paid. She confirmed that all of the work on the back porch was finished. She confirmed that the fascia board was done. She believed that some work was done in the winter but did not specify a month. She said that the workers would work on the job for a while and then stop, and come back some time later.

238She then said that when she gave Mr. Murray the $16,000 he started work on someone else’s home and never really came back. This is inconsistent with her earlier evidence that the workers worked in the wintertime. She confirmed that Mr. Murray asked for more money to complete the work in relation to the roof and the bathroom wall.

239David Murray said that almost all of the work on the contract was done. There was some shingling on the roof that had not been finished and they had to go back later. The work on the bathroom wall was unanticipated, as were the repairs to the structure of the roof. That work was extra, and not included in the contract. He was not aware that the workers did not replace the siding on the house, where they had taken it off, and that the siding was not part of the contract. I have reviewed the contract, and there is no provision for siding.

240He testified that when the workers started working on the roof, they discovered mould, and as the work progressed, they found more and more mould and rot. He said that the money paid was for the work that was done, including all the extra work.

241The second contract that was signed was for anticipated work, for which Ms. Shaw was to get a loan, which was denied. The shortfall between the anticipated loan and the work was to be made up by Mr. Murray taking the ATV. Because she was not approved for the loan, Mr. Murray did not take possession of the ATV. Accordingly, he said that his company did not do any of the work regarding the second contract, and he did not take any money regarding the second contract.

242In cross-examination, Mr. Murray denied upselling Ms. Shaw. He said he was trying to avoid having her home “shut down” because it was full of mould and rot. He insisted that he was paid for the work that he did, and that he did not take a deposit on the second contract. He said that his workers did the best that they could do, and that he gave her a fair price. Mr. Murray testified that he gave Ms. Shaw a better price for all of the extra work for paying in cash, and then incorporated the same work into the second contract. He said he did that to permit Ms. Shaw to get a loan for the total amount of work, which would ease her financial situation. His evidence became confusing on this point, in that he talked about a contract for $11,000, which was not in evidence, and he related that to the reduction in price.

243Overall, I found Ms. Shaw’s evidence to be inaccurate. She agreed that there were major issues that arose during the repairs to her roof, which led to significantly more work that had to be done. She verified issues related to mould and rot, which then led to replacement of trusses and roof sheeting. She is not an expert, but estimated the cost of what she received as about $10,000. This is a significant underestimation, based on what she admitted was required. Her bathroom wall had to be rebuilt, her roof, at least in the front portion of her home had to be completely rebuilt including trusses and sheeting, and she chose not to finish the rest of her bathroom because of money. She never asked for a refund of any money, and she did not ask Mr. Murray to come back to finish any additional work. I find that she simply ran out of money to proceed any further.

244Mr. Murray’s evidence is not without some issues, but overall, his evidence was unshaken. He testified that the contract that was signed for over $38,300 incorporated the cost for work on the first contract, and the extra work on the first contract, as well as the “promo work” that Ms. Shaw testified to. Ms. Shaw agreed that she applied for but was not approved for a bank loan, and Mr. Murray said that because she did not get the loan, he did not take the ATV and did not do the additional work. I accept that the second contract in the amount of $38,300 was for work that had already been done and for work that was anticipated. No additional payment was made on that contract, and it incorporated $24,300 worth of work that was performed.

245While this evidences sloppy business practice, it is not deceitful to Ms. Shaw. I find that she knew what the purpose was for the contract that cited $38,300, and that it incorporated work that was outlined in the roofing contract, and it included the $16,000 cash that she paid.

Debbie Chomiak

246Mrs. Chomiak and her husband contracted with EcoLife to do various renovations around their home in 2017. This is another problem contract. She testified that a friend of hers had hired EcoLife to do some work on her home. She said that her friend thought that they did a good job, but that they were slow. She said that she and her husband did not care and contacted Mr. Murray. They got a quotation dated April 21, 2017. They ultimately paid a total of $50,000 on a contract for $60,000.

247They paid the first deposit of $30,000 when they signed the contract and second deposit of $20,000 was due and paid when the workers started work on April 28, 2017. The work included roof trusses, install 3 doors, new soffit and fascia, new shingles on the home and garage, new front deck, columns front and back, gables as well as other work. They expected June 2017 for installation, but she said she told Mr. Murray that September was fine too. She said that she and her husband were very lenient.

248The workers replaced the shingles on the garage, and replaced some shingles on the house. She agreed that work stopped due to issues with the septic bed, but she believed that other work could have been done on the project that did not involve work in the back of the house. She said that they contracted for doors, and that the doors were never installed.

249She testified that Henry was the project manager at first, and he did the drawing for the permits. She said that the permits were issued to her based on Henry’s drawings. Then Henry and Dan could not agree on how to do the job. She said all of sudden there was “no Henry, the secretary would not pick, and Dave would ignore. There was excuse after excuse”. She said that the workers did do the roof on the house, but that the job was “shoddy”, and had to be replaced. She complained that the worksite was not kept clean, and that there were pieces of wood with nails sticking out, and that the workers did not clean up after themselves. She said that she had to clean up. She agreed that work started in September of 2017.

250In July of 2018, she said Henry came over to show the company responsible for installing the helical piles where to put the holes for the posts for the front porch. She claimed that they were “off” by 7 inches and had to be redone. She also claimed that the front steps were fastened to the house by cement nails and not lag bolts, which in her mind was improper. She said no vents were installed in the roof. She said she kept asking about the doors that were ordered. She picked the doors from a catalogue. No one at EcoLife would show her that the doors had been ordered. The secretary and Josh said that they could not show her.

251Through Ms. Chomiak, entered into evidence was a letter from a law firm dated March 6, 2018 seeking payment in full. A refund cheque of $23,000 from EcoLife was returned NSF on March 31, 2019. She and her husband had sat with Mr. Murray and his wife and they confirmed that they did not have the money to pay the refund, but that they would give cheques and asked them not to cash them right away. They signed full releases in March of 2019. It was related to a settlement. On July 1, 2019, Mr. Murray provided a $5,000 refund cheque.

252She said initially she and her husband just wanted doors, but after discussing with Mr. Murray, the work expanded based on what her husband wanted. The work included removing a ridge on the roof, a new front deck, installing a roof over the back deck, and roof vents. She confirmed that work started but stopped, because the health unit became involved, and that a new permit had to be obtained. She said that the back deck was not part of the contract, but she confirmed that they talked about it. She claimed that she was told by a building inspector that the back deck was not done properly, and her husband had to fix it.

253In cross-examination, she said that Henry and Dan were working together, but then Josh took over as project manager. Josh did not come to her home. When asked if Dan was the cause of the project delay, she said she did not know what was the cause, but she felt like she was just being pushed off, and she used the word “bottleneck”. She did not recall specifics of conversations between Dan and Henry, but she did say that she thought there was an issue between Dan and Henry, and that all of a sudden, Mr. Murray’s “people” could not build it the way Henry had drawn it. She said that all of a sudden, Henry told her that Dan did not work there anymore either. She agreed that she wanted the job done by September 1, 2017 or she wanted her money back. She denied that she fired Mr. Murray or EcoLife, she just wanted her money back or she wanted the job done.

254She confirmed that she did not remember dates, that she was relying on dates that she had written in a booklet. She confirmed that before any work was done, there was a deck behind the house. She further confirmed that her husband dismantled the existing deck, before the work was done, and that she got a permit based on drawings for the work that were done by Henry.

255She first insisted that communication with Mr. Murray was not by phone calls, but rather by text message. She later said that there were no text messages asking that work that did not need a permit be done while awaiting the permit. She said that it might have been in a phone call. She confirmed that there was a conversation between Mr. Murray and her husband for replacement of the back deck, and that there was a price given by Mr. Murray of $6,600. She said that she never paid any additional money, and said that the back deck was only to be done if the rest of the work was done and they were satisfied.

256She did not remember when she first approached a lawyer about her dissatisfaction, but thought it was close to January of 2018. She did instruct her lawyer to send a letter telling Mr. Murray to not return to the property. Her lawyer also sent a letter dated February 12, 2018. She agreed that the letter told Mr. Murray that he was not to return to her property but said that she did consider the contract to be terminated at this point. She insisted that the back page of the contract that she had was blank. She confirmed that she received 2 refund cheques on April 8, 2019 postdated for July and October of 2019.

257Mr. Murray confirmed the contract. He said that they started work after his workers finished a couple of big jobs that they were working on. He said that this was a large home, with an attached three car garage. He characterized it as a big job. Murray explained the “hole” in the roof that Mrs. Chomiak complained about. He said that when workers removed the uneven roof, at the request of the Chomiaks, they installed a ridge cap for ventilation. He said that this style of home had no real attic space, so traditional vents were not appropriate. The ridge cap allowed for ventilation, and it was designed that way.

258He agreed that he was not originally supposed to do the deck, but he got a phone call from Ms. Chomiak’s husband asking him to do it, after the initial discussion about doing it with both Mr. and Ms. Chomiak. He said that Ms. Chomiak’s husband went to get the permit for the deck, and that is when the issue regarding the septic bed came up and once the septic bed issue was resolved, his workers began working on the deck.

259He said his workers stripped the shingles on both the garage and the house, rebuilt the roof peak which involved trusses, and installed new shingles. He could not touch the back deck until the issue of the permit and septic bed was addressed, so his workers moved on to another job. Once he was able to return to work on the back deck, he arranged for a company to come and install the helical piles for the deck. Then his workers began working on the deck. He estimated that the job was 60 percent finished.

260He said from time to time, the weather delayed the work, because the roof had to be opened up. He was concerned about moisture getting into the home and causing issues, and he said it was not ideal to do the roof while it was raining. He said winter came and slowed the work down. He confirmed that Ms. Chomiak picked out doors but did not make her final choice until into the fall. The door that she chose in the showroom was black, and she originally chose two white doors to be installed elsewhere. She later changed the colour of the last two doors from white to black to match.

261Mr. Murray thought that the white doors had been ordered, but said that there were issues between Henry, who was the production manager, and Dan, who was a worker. He said Henry was then no longer a production manager, and Josh stepped in. Josh was supposed to order the doors but did not. Mr. Murray discovered that the white doors had never been ordered when the colour choice was changed, and he was able to order black doors instead. When the door colour was changed Ms. Chomiak also changed the colour of the fascia boards.

262He explained that Henry moved out of the position of a production manager, because Dan was questioning him in front of customers, and they were infighting. Henry stayed with EcoLife, as an installer. When EcoLife sent Dan to do the work, he said it cannot be done that way, even though the permit was granted by the Building Department based on Henry’s drawings. Mr. Murray was informed that Dan quit, and he spoke to Ms. Chomiak, who told him that Dan said it could not be done the way that Henry had designed. He said he reassured Ms. Chomiak and then arranged for Henry and another worker to attend and start work on the front porch.

263When pressed about why his workers did not install the doors or do the capping, when there were delays due to other issues, Mr. Murray said that this was a construction site. Installing doors was the last thing that was done, because there was potential for damage during construction and he would be held liable.

264He confirmed that he received the letter from Ms. Chomiak or her lawyer telling him to not return to the property. He contacted his lawyer and he “let the lawyers battle it out”. He acknowledged that there might have been some deficiencies, but that is normal in construction that that was not finished. He said that the deficiencies would be corrected by the time the job was done. His workers never returned to the job, because the letter told him to not return. He negotiated directly with Ms. Chomiak and her husband in the spring of 2019 and ultimately provided a post-dated cheque. He said that he asked to be contacted before the cheque was cashed, and then his licence was pulled shortly afterward. That was why the cheque bounced. He was charged shortly afterward. He did provide the other cheques.

265He reviewed the photographs of the work, and explained that the back deck was in progress and not finished when the work was interrupted. He confirmed that Ms. Chomiak may have believed that the wood that was used was old, but that it was new from the lumber yard, and commonly looks like what she was complaining about. He said that his workers had cleaned the site, despite her complaint that they had not, and he pointed to the neat pile of material that was covered by a sheet of plywood. He said that the wood with nails sticking out was a building technique to hold something temporarily while it is being constructed, and it was pulled out of the pile. He agreed that the job was not finished and was interrupted. He explained that Ms. Chomiak had control over the permit, and she arranged for an inspection by the City of Sudbury mid-build, without notifying him. Then he got the letter telling him to not return, and he did not, because in his view she cancelled the contract.

266Introduced into evidence at Exhibit 28, tab 12, is a copy of the short Inspection Notice issued by the Building Department of the City of Sudbury. It is important to note that this Notice makes no reference to any of the work that Ms. Chomiak claimed was done poorly. It references a report and some minor work that needed to be done.

267Mr. Murray pointed out that in many of the photographs entered into evidence, snow is visible. He explained that the work stopped late in the year of 2017 and said that the weather “caught us”. He said that during the initial phases of work, the workers used dump trailers to remove debris, and the debris that was left was a very small amount. He insisted that some of the photographs showed work or alterations that Ms. Chomiak and/or her husband did, rather than what his workers did.

268Nothing was put into evidence from the City of Sudbury regarding any deficiencies on the worksite, so the only evidence I have is from Ms. Chomiak and Mr. Murray.

269The photographs put into evidence have typewritten notations on them. I have ignored all of those notations. Ms. Chomiak explained each photograph in her evidence. The notations are not admissible evidence, and in some instances they contain inadmissible opinion.

270Mr. Murray agreed that there were times when Ms. Chomiak reached out to him and he did not respond. He said that he had already directed her to speak to the project manager. He confirmed that there were times when he spoke to either her or to her husband by phone. He stopped at her job when the job began. When there were interruptions in the work, the workers had to be put on other jobs. They could not just simply wait for the interruption to be resolved. Once the interruption was resolved, the job was put back in the schedule. That sometimes caused some delays, but that was how the scheduling worked.

271Ms. Chomiak was clearly dissatisfied, and Mr. Murray was clearly frustrated. Mr. Murray said that she did not understand the realities of construction work, and eventually he just wanted to get out of the contract too. Despite his frustrations, Mr. Murray was not critical of either Ms. Chomiak or her husband, beyond saying that they altered his work, and did not seem to understand the realities of construction. He clarified that construction work happens in stages, and certain stages had to be completed first before others were done. He said that the back deck had to be built before the roof extension over the back of the house was built, because it had to sit on something. He said that drip caps, capping, fascia and soffits would be installed as finishing work. He said that the doors would be replaced last, given that this was a construction site and they were subject to damage. He said that the front porch was almost done, and the workers were working on the back deck when the work was interrupted. Once the back deck was built, the roof could be finished, and then the finish work could be done.

272Overall, I accept Mr. Murray’s evidence. Ms. Chomiak made several complaints about the work of EcoLife, and related her complaints to the Building Inspector. Those complaints do not appear in the Short Inspection report. Ms. Chomiak was dissatisfied and Mr. Murray wanted out of the contract. Ms. Chomiak told Mr. Murray and his workers to not return to the job site and he did not. All of that is clear from the evidence.

Daniel Savard May 2017

273Mr. Savard testified that he contracted with Mr. Murray in May of 2017. This contract is also one of the problem contracts.

274His contract is written on a document called a quotation. The work to be done included siding, which included board and batten, roofing. He said that Mr. Murray suggested the change to the style of the roof from a flatter roof to a more pitched roof. He said Mr. Murray suggested that the work included taking off the bricks of the home, replacing them with siding and redoing the entire roof, by replacing the stick frame and shingles, which would raise the roof by 12 or 16 inches.

275He said that when the workers took the brick off, “I guess” he wanted the wall to be flush with the basement. The photographs show a home with a hip about halfway up, and it was this hip that he wanted to be removed and the walls of the upper portion of the house to be built out to be flush with the lower portion of the house. He said that Mr. Murray suggested windows and a door, and Mr. Savard agreed.

276The original quote had a provision for weeping tile, which was crossed off. Mr. Savard said that he found out later that the area that he lived in had good drainage, so weeping tile was not required. He testified that this resulted in a decrease of $10,000 of the contract. The contract specified that the contract was to cover all materials, labour, permits and taxes. $10,000 was added to the contract, for the extra work regarding windows, the door and the picture window and “the two by six that work that has to be done”. The quotation has substitute work, involving insulation and framing. The total amount of the quotation was not changed. Then there is a notation for a door and windows. He said that the notations were made when he came back after three weeks of working out of town. His work involved three weeks working out of town, and three weeks at home.

277In the quotation, Mr. Savard agreed to provide all electrical work. He said he did not really read that part of the quotation. Mr. Savard actually had the original quote in the courtroom, and it was entered into evidence. He testified that there was nothing on the back of the document. He said that the agreement included putting vinyl siding right up to the second storey windows. Versetta stone was to be installed in the lower part of the home.

278He paid a total of $50,000 toward a $55,000 quote. His evidence was confusing on this point. He said he gave a $35,000 cheque, and that $10,000 was cancelled because the workers did not show up when he expected them to. He said that the workers did not show up before he left, so he cancelled that cheque. He said that “he” showed up later, and Mr. Savard was kind of mad a little bit, and said “he” owed Mr. Savard $5,000 for the material he bought, the window, the two by six, so Mr. Savard gave him a $5,000 cheque.

279He testified that Mr. Murray told him the work would take three weeks, and it was supposed to start right away. He understood that the work would be done while he was on the next three week work cycle and it was not. Mr. Savard said that the deposit was to buy materials and to pay the workers while he was gone.

280He wrote a cheque for $5,000 on June 15, 2017 to pay for material and the picture window. He then wrote another $10,000 cheque, which cleared on July 3, 2017 to replace all the windows and the doors except the patio door. The windows and doors were not included in the original quote. After he paid the money, Mr. Savard said workers would come from time to time to do work. Various reasons were given for failure to work, such as guys were sick or they were busy somewhere else. He could not remember all the reasons given.

281He confirmed that the first storey was framed, the second storey was framed with lengths two by four lumber, about which he was not happy because he felt that it should have been two by six lumber because for insulation it was not the same. He said the original documents showed that it was supposed to be two by six. I have reviewed the quotation, and there is no mention of two by six or two by four regarding the framing. He then said that that is what “he” had said. I find that Mr. Savard is mistaken about this issue.

282Mr. Savard said he expected the work to be done right away because of the rainy season in the fall. He identified photos of his house taken before the work was done, and after the work started. It is clear that work had been done to remove the “Mansour” roof, and to remove all of the brick. The entire home was covered in Typar. There were no openings made for windows in the Typar in the photograph. Mr. Savard confirmed that the roof was “closed” at this point, and that he could live in the house, because he had no choice. He testified that his home was left like this from late August until he could get it done the next year.

283Mr. Savard said that he went to the city to inquire about the permit, and discovered that there was no permit. He then said that mid-October or September he was told by Josh that there was a permit. He talked about a time-period when he went away and when he came back he asked if “they” got the permit” and he was told it is on its way. He was never asked when he went to the city to find out about the permit, but it is apparent from his evidence that he checked before Josh told him that the permit was “on its way”. He confirmed that Mr. Murray told him to communicate with Josh, as he was the manager.

284Ultimately, Mr. Savard had to pay someone else to finish the job. He said that he paid to have the framing work done by EcoLife workers replaced. He said that EcoLife workers did not replace the shingles on the roof. He said that Mr. Murray did not replace the doors or windows as agreed.

285Mr. Savard said that he expected that all of the work would be done while he was gone the first time, after the quotation was drawn up and signed. However, this would not have allowed for the permit to be issued. This position does not make sense, given that the City of Sudbury required the permit.

286Mr. Savard said that changes to the contract only came after he came back the first time, after entering into the contract. The copies of the cheque put into evidence confirm that he signed the cheques for the initial deposit on the same date as the contract. The next cheque that was put into evidence was in the amount of $5,000 and it was dated in June of 2017.

287He then agreed that there were discussions over the phone after the initial contract, where he, Mr. Murray and Josh had conversations over the phone about changes to the contract. He confirmed that the discussions continued when he returned. He agreed that about a month after he returned he discussed replacing windows, and that became part of the contract. He also agreed to replace the doors. He confirmed that he thought it was a good idea to replace the windows and the doors, and he willingly added those items to the contract. He agreed that historically there had been water damage associated with the roof, and that he did not like the style of roof. He agreed that in order to remove the gable ends, which was necessary to redo the roof, the siding had to be replaced.

288Mr. Savard said that he had paid $55,000, when he had earlier said $40,000. Then he said the amount that he paid was $50,000. I found this evidence to be confusing.

289Mr. Savard confirmed that when the brick was removed, the workers told him that there was very little insulation and suggested that it be upgraded. He also confirmed that as the workers worked on the roof, they raised the issue of the roof not being flush with the foundation, and that it would take additional work to fix that issue, because he wanted the roof to be flush with the foundation. He confirmed that he did not want a “foundation lip”. He confirmed that he wanted the existing eaves to be extended at least 12 inches, which also was not part of the original agreement. He did not remember any discussion about engineered trusses. He could not confirm that this extra work affected the permits, because he was not the one who was dealing with them. He then said he asked Josh about why the work was not getting done, and Josh told him they were waiting on a permit. He said that the work for framing and insulation was done in August of 2017.

290Mr. Savard said the main roof was removed and all the frame was done in August of 2017. He then said that water got in and the insulation had to be removed because there was no more roof and it was their error.

291He confirmed that the workers put aspenite sheeting and then Typar over the insulation, and he said that occurred in August of 2017. He could not remember asking for the pitch of the roof to be changed. He agreed that one window was installed and it involved enlarging the opening to accommodate it. He agreed that he changed the door colours after the agreement for the doors was entered, but that it was in 2018. He told Mr. Murray that it would look nicer with a black door, and Mr. Murray agreed. He admitted that Mr. Murray took him to other jobsites to show the other work that EcoLife was doing, but denied that this step made it clear to him that Mr. Murray was still interested in doing the job. He did agree that Mr. Murray never said that he was not going to do the job. When asked if Mr. Murray ever told him about the GreenOn program, first Mr. Savard said that that was before that day, and then said, “No, I don’t remember that”. He then said when he ordered the windows, he remembered Mr. Murray saying something about some kind of a program and that he was getting a good deal. He fixed that time to when he gave the $10,000 cheque. When he asked how come it was so cheap, he said Mr. Murray told him that they will take pictures and then send them to the window fabricator for advertising, or something like that, and that he remembered that. He was asked if he was told about a government program, and he said yes, that it was for insulation and windows, and that it was in 2018. He said he was not told about delays with GreenOn.

292He said he believed that the roof could be done in the winter, because a “real contractor” could have done it in the wintertime too, but that there was no conversation about that. He said that last time he heard from Mr. Murray was that he confirmed that they got the permit for the roof, and they would be coming in the next week or two weeks, if the weather was “there”.

293He then confirmed that there was a conversation about the roof, and concern about water getting in, but he was concerned about more damage caused by the existing leak. He then said that Mr. Murray should have gotten the permit for the roof at the same time as he got the permit for the siding, and confirmed that he had been given the permit for the siding. He agreed that his house was warmer after EcoLife put in the insulation.

294He confirmed that the siding permit was placed in his window while he was gone during the first three-week period of work after the quotation was turned into an agreement. He said he saw the siding permit and the weeping tile permit.

295While he was with Mr. Murray on the tour of the jobsites, he confirmed that he knew that Mr. Murray was on the phone with Gentek, but it was not about his job.

296He confirmed that he started a civil action in June or July of 2018, but it was not processed.

297He confirmed that EcoLife workers built the upper wall out to make it flush with the foundation.

298Mr. Murray testified that Mr. Savard was confused. He said that there were constant changes to the contract. They got the permits right away for the initial work, but the contract was then changed. The first change was to remove the weeping tile work. The workers installed the new door and window that were in stock, and then they removed the brick and installed foam insulation. That had to be taken down, because Mr. Savard wanted to reframe the house and install different insulation. A new permit had to be pulled for that. Another change that was made was for the roof. Mr. Savard wanted the roof to be knocked off and a new roof constructed.

299Mr. Murray said he got into an argument with the installer that recommended changes to the roof, because he was worried that this would significantly delay the job. The issued permit did not reflect what the installer was discussing with the customer, and it would have to be amended. When the customer wanted the change, then Josh had to get information regarding the trusses on the proposed change in order to get the new permit. Mr. Murray said that the customer requested engineered trusses.

300This also called for a new permit. This put the job late enough into the year, that Mr. Murray felt that removing the roof would cause a liability issue, and the job was delayed into the new year. He believed that Mr. Savard was happy with the delay, because this was a change that he requested.

301When shown photographs of the home, showing Typar all around the home, he said that this upset him. It looked like an amateur job, and it never should have been left that way. He said that they then had to remove the roof, raise it, and shingle it. They would then install siding and the stone work.

302Mr. Murray said that this job was affected by GreenOn, because of the delays caused by the program, but that was after repeated changes to the contract, and repeated changes to the permits. The job was delayed into the spring and summer of 2018.

303I accept that Mr. Murray did not start this work as a GreenOn job.

304Mr. Murray called this a revolving contract in that there were changes being proposed all the time, which then caused delays because they were required to get a new permit when structural changes were made. Therefore, there was no completion date discussed. Murray said that he spoke to Mr. Savard in the late spring of 2018 and explained the problems with labour and GreenOn. He told Mr. Savard to contact him when he was ready to recommence the work, and he never contacted Mr. Murray. He then said that he met with Mr. Savard in July, and it was at that point that he explained the GreenOn problems to Mr. Savard. The workers who were qualified to do the roof for Mr. Savard, were also certified for GreenOn work. He explained that he had to devote that workforce to the GreenOn jobs.

305He said that he was unaware that the job had been left with the house just wrapped in Typar. He said that Mr. Savard never complained, and he was embarrassed when he saw the photographs. He said that Mr. Savard kept changing the contract, and it was difficult to communicate with him because he was gone all the time. Some of the work had to be redone, and he was frustrated. Some of the changes required changes to the work permits. Redoing the work and having to get the permits changed caused delays.

306He testified that his workers did not do anything to the roof, because of the changes. If the roof was leaking, it had nothing to do with any work that his workers had done. He said that there was no contract for the roof, and there was no cost worked out for it at that time. He had to pull his workers until the changes to the roof were clarified.

307He said that when he sold the original job it was to be about four weeks. With all the changes it became a six month job, and they could not finish because they were still waiting on the permits for the roof. At first the job was not a GreenOn job, but he said that Mr. Savard could now benefit from GreenOn grants, given all of the delays.

308Overall, I am concerned about the evidence of Mr. Savard. He was tentative and uncertain about aspects of the contract, and it was only on cross-examination that he admitted to the constant changes to the contract. Mr. Guillot from the Building Department was clear that the many changes involved in this contract would require another building permit. Mr. Savard seemed to be unaware of that.

309Mr. Murray said that the work on the job had to stop and be clarified before it could continue, due to constant changes. Then there were delays because they had to apply for new permits. His workers had to be redirected to other job sites and could not just sit idly by while waiting for that process. Mr. Murray said that he became frustrated with Dan, who was suggesting constant changes to Mr. Savard. This appears to have been a pattern for this worker, given his interference in the job for Ms. Chomiak.

310I am concerned that Mr. Murray offered to change the contract, to permit Mr. Savard to benefit from the GreenOn program, but that was not done to deceive Mr. Savard in any way. Mr. Savard testified that he was aware of that.

311I find that I have no reason to reject the evidence of Mr. Murray, despite the concern about GreenOn. His evidence was supported in Mr. Savard’s evidence regarding the constant changes to the contract, the payments, the cancellation of the $10,000 cheque and the delays. His evidence is supported by Mr. Guillot regarding the need to obtain new permits for the proposed changes.

312Overall, his evidence was unshaken on cross-examination, it was internally consistent and consistent with other evidence.

Sylvie and Noella Perrier – May 2017

313Noella Perrier and her late husband, Leonard, contracted with Mr. Murray’s company on May 10, 2017 to build an addition and roofing. This is also one of the problem contracts. She testified that the work needed to be done. The anticipated cost was $28,840. She said that there was nothing on the back of the contract.

314The contract included new soffit, eavestroughs and fascia on the complete home, insulation and siding as well as the new addition and the roof. Although she expected the addition to be built in September or October of 2017, she said that there was no expected completion date. She testified that she paid $23,000 in deposits over two installments. She paid the first installment of $15,000 and she believed that was for materials. She confirmed that she was not told that the money would be used for materials, she just believed it was. She paid $8,000 and the reference was for fascia and soffit. She said that the day after the contract was signed the roof was done and the siding was removed, and the gable ends. She said that the gable ends were never finished. She did not make the last payment of $5,840, which was due when the addition was done.

315She believed that the roof was done on May 11, 2017 by another contractor, but not done properly. She described that the water was coming in between the roof and where the eavestrough was.

316She said that Mr. Murray was not around and they could not reach him but could not remember details. She identified a letter that was signed April 16, 2019, asking for her money back. The letter described her attempts to contact Mr. Murray, without success, between September and November 14, 2017, and the steps that were taken the following year. This letter contains hearsay, and is a prior consistent statement, so it is not admissible for the truth of its contents. Ms. Perrier testified that the contents of the letter are accurate, but she was not asked if it revived a present memory.

317However, it is admissible to explain what Ms. Perrier did and why. Ms. Perrier confirmed that there was a family emergency, that prevented her from contacting Mr. Murray. On January 12, 2018, the letter outlined that she stopped at the office of EcoLife and spoke to “Muriel”. The letter outlines that on January 25, 2018 “Joshua” came to the house to have another letter signed for another building permit. The first permit was signed in May of 2017. She believed that it was Mr. Murray’s responsibility to get the permit. On June 13, 2018, a secretary from EcoLife told Ms. Perrier that she thought the work on the contract was completed, because it was filed in the completed section. Mr. Murray did not call, but a secretary called and said that the work would start the week of June 18, 2018. However, no one showed up. She called again, and was told that the office was overwhelmed with windows and insulation jobs and that those jobs needed to be done before the subsidies ran out. The letter details that Rob came over on July 31, 2018, and asked for a copy of the contract. She confirmed that no further work was done on the job.

318She could not remember if it was snowing in early November of 2017. She said that Mr. Murray did not tell her that snow and cold could delay her job. She confirmed that all the text messages to Mr. Murray were through her daughter, Sylvie.

319She agreed that the contract does not mention a permit. She had no knowledge of a building permit that might have expired. She confirmed that the medical issue lasted from November to January, and she was pretty sure that she told Mr. Murray or his company that she did not want work to be done during the medical issue. She confirmed that she saw news articles in the spring of 2019 regarding criminal charges against Mr. Murray. She also said that she was aware that EcoLife offices were closed in the spring of 2019. The police attended her home afterward, and it was a surprise to her. Her husband had passed away by that point.

320I will consider Sylvie Perrier’s next, and then the evidence of Mr. Murray.

Sylvie Perrier

321Sylvie Perrier could not remember texting or calling Mr. Murray about the concerns related to the contract with her parents, until she was shown the text messages that were put into evidence. She said that her father changed the foundation of the mudroom from posts to footings and that she communicated that to Mr. Murray. Her texts confirm that the project also had to wait because the hydro had to be marked. She could not recall any communication with Mr. Murray after November of 2018. She confirmed that she authored the letter from her mother, but she was just taking her mother’s words and typing them down. She did not remember having a conversation with Mr. Murray that she and her mother wanted the work on the project to pause due to the medical emergency in November of 2017.

322Mr. Murray testified that he attended the home and he told Mr. and Mrs. Perrier that he would send someone to do the first part of the job, the roof, but that he needed a different worker to do the addition. He said that there were problems with the roof, and it had to be resheeted, not just replace the shingles. He believed that they were dealing with either Henry or Josh, because it was their job. He was on the road, doing sales.

323He said that the job stalled when they called the office and said to hold off in the late fall of 2017. Then the foundation for the addition changed, and the permit had to be changed. Josh went to the home and got the authorization for the permit signed. Mr. Murray then said that it ran into GreenOn, and the entire project got delayed due to GreenOn. He said that he went into panic mode when GreenOn was cancelled, and all the 2017 jobs that had not been cancelled got put on the back burner. He said he did talk to them and he instructed his staff to talk to them. He asked for their understanding, but that he did not have enough manpower to do all the jobs. He said that he had conversations with Sylvie, and later found out that what he said went on Facebook, which upset him.

324The evidence of Noella Perrier left me with some questions. She appeared to have no present memory of the information contained in the letter, she simply agreed that it was true. She was not asked if it revived her memory, so it cannot represent a present recollection revived, based on the letter, and there was no application for the letter to be admitted as a past recollection recorded. I attach very little weight to the contents of the letter. Noella Perrier did not type the letter, her daughter did. Her daughter said that she simply typed what her mother said, but that she suggested wording. In other words, it contains what her mother told her.

325Mr. Murray confirmed that the contract did not include Sylvie Perrier, but that he had conversations with Sylvie. Sylvie could not remember having conversations with Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray said that he instructed his staff to contact Ms. Perrier, and it was his expectation that they would do that. Mr. Murray said that he had a long conversation with Sylvie Perrier in March of 2019, and he explained the reasons for all of the delays. He said that it was amicable, and that he told her that he intended to finish the work. He then discovered that that what he said was put on Facebook.

326Mr. Murray claimed that there were problems when the roof was repaired, and that they discovered rot. The roof required more work than simply replacing shingles. They had to resheet the entire roof. That would have required a permit, and caused delays. Noella Perrier could not remember discussions. Further, he said that there was still time in 2017 to do the addition, but the family asked for the project to be halted. This also caused a delay.

327I accept that there was a delay in the fall of 2017, due to more extensive work that had to be done on the roof. I accept that the project was delayed due to the family emergency, and the corresponding instructions from the family. I accept that there was a change to the footings, as instructed, which caused a change to the permit. I accept that the work could not restart until late spring or summer of 2018, and that the work was affected by the GreenOn program cancellation.

Josee Viau – June 13, 2017

328Mr. and Mrs. Viau had discussed replacing windows. This contract is one of the problem contracts.

329Mr. and Mrs. Viau had gone to a few home shows and were in the market to replace theirs. They were approached by a person going door to door from Mr. Murray’s company. They made arrangements to meet with Mr. Murray, and replace half of their windows in the current year and the other half in the following year. The contract is dated June 13, 2017. Ms. Viau testified that when she first talked to Mr. Murray, they talked about a credit of up to $5,000 for window replacement. The original estimate was over $30,000 to replace all of the windows in her home, plus two patio doors. She asked for an estimate to concentrate on the basement windows. Ultimately, the contract was drawn up for three basement windows and two patio doors. The total cost was $14,800 and she paid a deposit of $7,400. They selected triple pane windows. The expected date of installation was September of 2017, weather permitting. She recalled a discussion that weather could impact any installation date expectation. She also testified that she and Mr. Murray talked about delays on other jobs which might have an impact on the start of their job. She confirmed that they had met before, through the work she and her husband did through Scouting. Mr. Murray asked for a 50% deposit, to help toward payment of the windows, which were very expensive. They also felt comfortable paying half because they already knew Mr. Murray.

330She testified that she and Mr. Murray had some back and forth texting and phone conversations in September and October of 2017, when her job was not started. She visited the store on occasion, and spoke to Josh. She said she was not getting any clear information about when her windows were going to be installed. She said that Mr. Murray told her that there had been some rainy days that inferred with the schedule, as well as a big job that required a lot more work than what was originally anticipated. That job was scheduled for three days, and it took three weeks, which interfered with the schedule. Mr. Murray could not or would not give her a firm date to install the windows and doors. She suggested that the windows be provided to her, and she would find an installer. Mr. Murray told her that this step would potentially void any warranty on the windows, because the installer had to be properly certified.

331When it became clear to her that she was not going to get the work done before winter set in, she wrote a letter cancelling the contract and asking for her money back on November 17, 2017. She had additional conversations with Mr. Murray after sending the letter, and agreed to extend into 2018. In May of 2018, she instructed a paralegal that she hired to file a claim in Small Claims Court to give Mr. Murray three options, return the funds, do the work or give her the windows so that she could pay to have the windows installed.

332Ultimately, arrangements were made to have Henry come and measure for the patio doors in June of 2018, but he called in sick. The arrangements were as a result of hiring the paralegal and negotiating directly with Mr. Murray. She brought to the meeting a “different window layout”. Mr. Murray said that he would take $1,500 off of the original invoice to compensate for the cost of the retainer of the paralegal and talk to his supplier to see what he could do. Mr. Murray said he would send someone to remeasure the patio door. That worker called in sick on the day that he was to come. In July of 2018, Mr. Murray told Ms. Viau that he was extremely busy with the cancellation of the GreenOn program. Ultimately, no windows or patio door were installed.

333Ms. Viau filed a claim in Small Claims Court, had a trial on October 23, 2018, at which time Mr. Murray did not attend and she obtained a Judgment.

334In cross-examination, she testified that she had not heard of Euroseal. She remembered that the manufacturer was from Toronto, and that someone would have to drive to pick them up “when they were needed”, which corresponds with what she was told by Josh (which is hearsay but informs what she believed, that the windows could not be kept at EcoLife, but were stored at the manufacturer’s until ready to be installed).

335She said that Mr. Murray did not tell her the windows would take longer to manufacture, “not necessarily”. Full payment would have been made when the work was completed. She agreed that she changed the windows but had an expectation that the new style windows would be installed by mid-July of 2018, based on the conversation in mid-June of 2018. She believed that the GreenOn program was active in the summer of 2017.

336She testified that she first cancelled the contract in 2017 in November in person at Mr. Murray’s office, when she spoke to Josh. She confirmed that Mr. Murray always gave her the impression that he wanted to finish the work on the contract, and that he never cancelled the work.

337When she originally spoke to the police, it was before she hired the paralegal. She was directed to Small Claims Court, and that she was advised that it was a civil matter.

338Mr. Murray agreed that the contract was not signed right away, because there were some changes to what Mr. and Mrs. Viau wanted. He testified that when the contract was signed, he expected to be able to complete the work in September or October of 2017, but that there were sometimes complications such as manufacturer’s delays or problems with employees. He said that this was part of the life of a contractor, to deal with complications. He had those complications on this job.

339He testified that EcoLife ordered her product. Her patio doors were a specialty size and they had to wait for them to be manufactured. Once they were ready in September or October, then the job got scheduled. He said that this was all the back end stuff that clients do not see. He went through three project managers in three years, which had caused problems for him. As well, other jobs had caused problems because of what he called “can of worms” problems, which can delay a job for four or five weeks. He said that he could not complete her job because she cancelled the contract. He said that there was some negotiation for the next several months, and then GreenOn was cancelled.

340He said that he has little recollection of what happened over the months after June of 2018 due to the chaos that GreenOn caused, and he had no recollection of Ms. Viau getting a judgment. He testified that her cancellation delayed the completion of the project into when the GreenOn program was cancelled, and it was significantly affected by that cancellation. He testified that he just could not get to the work because he had to redirect his installers to GreenOn jobs. He did not know if he was going to get any further extensions, so those jobs took priority.

341He said that the manufacturer had a 72 hour cancellation window on specialty product, and the patio doors were specialty product. Therefore, he was stuck with the doors and he had to pay the supplier for them.

342Mr. Murray testified that the contract does not specify a manufacturer, but the product described identified it as a Euroseal contract. Mr. Murray said that Ms. Viau’s job may have qualified for GreenOn, after it was cancelled and then reinstated. However, he just could not get the job done. He was dealing with her legal representative and said that he was swamped and could not say when the product was going to be available. He told the legal representative that he would get someone to do it. He denied using GreenOn as an excuse and said that his manufacturers had a queue and so did he. He could not just bump someone’s job up and neither could the manufacturer.

343He confirmed that he stayed in contact with her, and that he instructed his staff to stay in contact with her. He expected that his staff followed his direction.

344When confronted with the text messages negotiating the contract, he said that he was not pressuring Ms. Viau, he was giving her options for the original agreement. Mr. Murray said that the original delay was because of weather, backlogging all of his jobs. He said that the text messages bear this out, as Ms. Viau in her text in September acknowledged that weather was rainy and that it might delay their work. He said he tried to advise her of what the problems were, but she was being unreasonable. He testified that sending someone to measure for the doors in June of 2018 could mean that they were just getting ready to do the job, not that they were re-ordering the doors.

345He then said that he had to switch the windows from Euroseal to Gentek, and that they went back into the queue, which caused delays. This was inconsistent with his earlier evidence in which he said that the windows had been received in either October or November of 2017. However, it is consistent with Ms. Viau saying she changed the window configuration.

346He said that he could not give a date because Gentek could not give him a date. He said that he knew these people through boy scouts and did not want to ruin their relationship.

347I find that this contract was delayed due to the problems with a supplier, then the original cancellation, and then the change to the configuration, which then took the timeframe into the chaos created by the GreenOn program cancellation. The contract was cancelled again, and Ms. Viau went to Small Claims Court.

Gerry and Anna Bissonnette – June 2017

348Mr. Bissonette testified that they were looking to have the windows replaced in their duplex rental unit. The unit was divided into an upper and lower unit. They entered into two contracts on the same day, but one was to be completed in June of 2017 and the other was to be done first. The upper unit was done first, and it was for $6,840 and it was paid in full. That work was done in 2016 and was completed and paid.

349The second contract was not to be done until 2017. Mr. Bissonnette paid a $1,000 deposit toward the second contract. He made a further payment of $3,000 toward this contract in October of 2017. He later was asked what he did after he paid in full for the lower windows, but he had not said that he paid in full for the lower windows. His evidence was that he had paid $4,000 toward the lower windows and paid the entire balance of the upper windows.

350In December of 2018, he testified that he paid the balance for the windows for the upper unit. Apparently, he went to Mr. Murray’s office and claims he was told that if Mr. Bissonnette paid the balance for the windows, Mr. Murray would finish the job. He said he felt at the time that he had nothing to lose when paying the remainder of the balance of the contract.

351He testified that he tried to call Mr. Murray and went to see him several times. Sometimes he got a call back, and promises were made. He was told about worker injuries and various things. Mr. Bissonnette is now suffering from leukemia, and it has affected his ability to remember. He said that Mr. Murray shared that there was a GreenOn program, and that he thought it was a good idea. He thought that was in 2017. He said he was told by a secretary that it would be a good thing that the windows were not installed because of GreenOn. He confirmed that Mr. Murray told him that the GreenOn program had made it hard to get windows and that things were getting really busy. He went to his Member of Parliament, France Gelinas, as a last resort. He later contracted with another company to do the windows for the lower unit for a total of $8,742.81.

352In cross-examination, Mr. Bissonnette said that when Mr. Murray was to install the windows in 2017, Mr. Bissonnette was gone to Florida, and then there were problems with getting windows, which Mr. Bissonnette did not realize at the time. He just knew that there was a GreenOn program but did not know much about it. He said that he knew he qualified for GreenOn when he signed the contract because they were supposed to be installed in 2017, but he did not know anything about GreenOn continuing. When challenged about GreenOn not being available until December of 2017 at the earliest, Mr. Bissonnette said that maybe it was another grant program, because his son had windows done in 2016 through him and he got a rebate. Mr. Bissonnette said that it was not possible that the reference was to Green Star and not GreenOn, because he had just heard of Green Star on the day he was testifying. The contract that Mr. Bissonnette signed on May 7, 2016 specified Green Star windows. When that was pointed out to Mr. Bissonnette, he said that it did not change his answer, because “who cares what type of window it is, you know?”

353He agreed that the installation of the windows was weather dependent. He also agreed that he and his wife went to Florida each winter, and that he was in Florida in the wintertime of 2018 to 2019. He said that his son, for whom Mr. Murray had done work, lived just down the street, and that Mr. Murray could have contacted him. He also said that he had tenants who occupied the unit, and that he believed that no one contacted them. He said that every time he came back, nothing was done and that the weather cannot be bad all the time. When asked whether he had told Mr. Murray to contact those other people, Mr. Bissonnette said that Mr. Murray could have figured that out. He then said that Mr. Murray was told that his son had keys for the house, and he could get ahold of him when he needed to. He agreed that he came back from Florida in April in the spring of 2019, and he saw a closed sign on Mr. Murray’s offices. He left messages but did not get ahold of Mr. Murray. He did not know that Mr. Murray lost his licence, and that he could not communicate with his clients.

354Mr. Bissonnette said that Mr. Murray told him that he had the windows that were ordered, but that there were too many in the warehouse. He said that later, Mr. Murray told him that he did not have the windows. He had no idea when he had that conversation with Mr. Murray about not having the windows. He said that he was sure that Mr. Murray told him about delays with window manufacturers, and he said that Mr. Murray told him that he was on the list of customers who were going to be getting their windows through the GreenOn program. He confirmed that he was told about injured workers. He said that it was probably true that he was told that people were quitting their jobs at EcoLife, and he confirmed that Mr. Murray told him that jobs were being delayed by that. He confirmed that he talked to Mr. Murray about his mother passing away, while at Mr. Murray’s office. This had to take place before Mr. Bissonnette and his wife went to Florida in late 2018 and early 2019. He said that he never contacted GreenOn directly because he was not good with computers and stuff. He said that he believed some of the excuses, but you cannot believe everything when nothing is happening. He said that he had no intention of paying the final payment, and that it was his wife’s idea.

355Anna Bissonnette also testified. She confirmed that she and her husband were happy with the work that was done on the upper unit. She said that she expected the work in the lower unit to be done in 2016, but I think she was confusing the upper and lower units. Her evidence differed from her husband’s regarding which payment was for which contract, but little turns on this given that no one is calling into question whether or not the amount paid was over $5,000.

356The copy of the cheque showing final payment is dated October 28, 2018 and it was certified on December 18, 2018. Ms. Bissonnette said that she was certain that the payment was made on December 18, 2018 and she did not know why the cheque was dated October and not December. She said that they paid the final payment because David asked them “…to pay in full because before he could fit, do it”, page 180, line 18, June 9, 2025. She said that they had split up the jobs for tax purposes because these two units were rental units.

357Ms. Bissonnette said that she and her husband went to see P.C. Williams in 2018, and then went to see their MPP, Ms. Gelinas, with no response from Ms. Gelinas. They went to the offices of EcoLife, and looked at the “board” and their names were not on it. Despite that, Ms. Bissonnette believed that maybe Mr. Murray had a date, and that their name was coming up. She testified that she believed Mr. Murray told her in the summer of 2018 about the GreenOn program, and she believed that this was the first time he mentioned GreenOn. She remembered that Mr. Murray told her that “his” back was sore and that he could not work, but she never explained about whom the reference was made. She testified that Mr Murray wanted final payment in December of 2018 to do the installation.

358She claimed that Mr. Murray told her that he would do the work on the contract while she and her husband were in Florida, and the work would be finished when they returned. She said that she and her husband would tell her son when Mr. Murray needed to access the unit to do the work. When pressed about not telling Mr. Murray that, she said that she was sure he was told. She then said that Mr. Murray was to notify her son, and that she and her husband would not have left knowing that she would come home and Mr. Murray had not spoken to her son. She then said that when they left, they told their son that Mr. Murray was going to contact them, and they would contact their son when the windows were to be installed.

359She confirmed that they returned to Sudbury in April of 2019. She confirmed that Mr. Murray’s office was closed when they returned. She confirmed that most of the communication was with her husband and sometimes she was involved too. She said that Mr. Murray told her that the windows were in, in 2018, but that they were in a warehouse, so they could not see them. She said that Mr. Murray told her that there were delays with manufacturers and injured workers. She said weather might have been a factor, but that her son’s windows were installed in January. She confirmed that she was not asked to sign any paperwork for GreenOn.

360Mr. Murray acknowledged that this contract was a mistake by his company. He said that the $1,000 deposit was not properly documented and it might have slipped through the cracks. He acknowledged that his company made mistakes. He said that the glass package had changed, and that they had to wait to order the product to make it match. He said that he put Henry on all of the scheduling in the spring of 2017 when there was a staff change. He said that they benefited because it could now go through GreenOn since the error was not discovered until later in 2018. He said that the date of the cheque for the final payment proves that they wanted to show final payment before the end of the GreenOn program. To qualify for the program final payment had to be made by October 31, 2018. He said that they benefited from the delay, because they could qualify for GreenOn and that he did not demand the final payment rather the Valiquettes wanted to ensure that they qualified for GreenOn. He said that this was one of the jobs that they were trying to squeeze in, but they just did not get to it. He also said that this was the period (October and November of 2018) when he started getting really sick.

361Mr. Murray disputed that he was told to call their son to do the installation. He said that he was waiting for them to tell him when they were returning from Florida. He said that there was no proper deposit given. The documents prove a payment of $1,000 when the contract was signed and then a payment of $3,000 in October of 2017. The final payment was made in December of 2018. I find that it did not come to light until October of 2017 that the product had not been properly ordered. By that time, Mr. Murray said that he was starting to have trouble with Euroseal. He testified that after getting this second deposit, they left again for Florida and did not tell him when they would be back. He said he did not think he even had their phone number when they left the first time.

362Mr. Murray denied that anyone told him to contact the tenants and said that Mr. Bissonnette had to contact them himself. He did not remember anyone telling him to contact their son. He said that he did not get involved until 2018, when it came to his attention that the contract had not gone into production. I believe this meant that the windows had not been ordered, and that the job had not been scheduled for installation, although he was not asked what this meant.

363Ultimately, Mr. Murray said that he could not finish the job because his licence was revoked in April of 2019.

364Mr. Murray testified that he had a lot of problems with a production manager, David Prentice, who was intoxicated on the job and some jobs were not properly handled. He was terminated in the spring of 2017 and Henry took over. It took Henry some time to get up to speed. It was likely during this time that the error was made.

365Overall, there is little dispute between the evidence of Mr. and Mrs. Valiquette and that of Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray has provided a partial explanation for the delay as being an error on the part of his staff. I accept that explanation. Further, I reject Mr. and Mrs. Valiquette’s claim of instructing Mr. Murray to contact their tenant or their son while they were out of the country. They could not give specific information about telling Mr. Murray who to call along with contact information. In fact, Mrs. Valiquette said that they would have instructed Mr. Murray, not that they did. Mr. Valiquette said that Mr. Murray could figure it out. Mr. and Mrs. Valiquette left Sudbury for about four months each winter, between January and April. I accept that Mr. Murray was waiting for them to return in April of 2017 to schedule their job. I accept that there was an error made regarding properly recording their deposit. I accept that Mr. Murray was not aware until October of 2017 that the error had been made. I accept that the windows were then ordered, but that the supplier was delayed in delivering product. I accept that Mr. and Mrs. Valiquette again left for Florida in January to April of 2018, and that Mr. and Mrs. Valiquette were told that the order was then eligible for GreenOn. Then the GreenOn chaos ensued and Mr. and Mrs. Valiquette made the final payment in December of 2018, believing that they would still be eligible for the rebate.

Mariette Bradley – June 23, 2017

366This is another problem contract. Ms. Bradley testified that the original contact with Mr. Murray’s company was to build a shed. The discussion turned into a discussion about building a garage. She said that they were not ready for a garage at that point, but that Mr. Murray convinced them to do it. Ultimately, she and her husband contracted for a 20 x 26 foot garage. The total cost was $44,200, and she and her husband paid a total of $34,000. She testified that she paid a deposit of $20,000 in June of 2017, and then an additional $14,000 in November of 2017, when Mr. Murray called and there was another man on the phone, and they wanted a further deposit to purchase materials. She said that Mr. Murray promised several times in this phone call that he would have the garage done by Christmas. She said that when the contract was signed, there was a verbal agreement to start the work in the summer of 2017 and it was to be completed by the fall of 2017. Nothing is noted on the contract regarding start and completion dates.

367She believed that a permit was part of the package, and that someone came to her house in the fall of 2017 to get a paper signed to get a permit. The contract shows that permits were part of the contract. She said that they dug the hole in 2017 and stayed like that for a year, before they installed blocks in May of 2018. She did not sign an additional cheque, but her partner did. She was not part of the conversation with her partner about providing the money, but she believed that it boiled down to having to give more money to finish the job. To her, a foundation did not have to have a hole, just a cement slab. In the photographs entered as exhibits, she identified that the photographs show cement blocks outlining the shape of the garage, with sand in the centre, not a cement slab.

368The job was left in an unfinished state for a year and-a-half to two years, with just cement blocks and sand. She testified that there was no cement keeping the blocks together, that they were just sitting there. She tried to cancel the contract and get her money back, but she said Mr. Murray said he could not refund the money, and that there was a contract. She told him that he had a contract too, and he had not fulfilled it. She still does not have a garage today.

369She denied that she had a conversation with Mr. Murray that there was a problem with the ground, and that it was not level. She said she was not aware of any changes to the permit, and that she only saw one permit. She said that she had paid more than what she was supposed to pay. She did not remember that changes were necessary once Mr. Murray got to the site and checked out the ground. She did confirm that a deep hole was dug. She said that the only time she spoke to Mr. Murray was when the contract was signed. She confirmed that subcontractors came and dug the hole, and that she believed that they were not Mr. Murray’s direct employees.

370To her she had a turnkey contract, and that if costs ran over it would not be her responsibility. She contracted for a garage, and she believed that she should not have paid anything further than what she contracted for. She believed that the weather should not have had any impact on construction. She admitted that she did not have any experience with construction. She did not recall any workers coming in the spring of 2018 with compactors.

371She agreed that she had contacted a lawyer to start a Small Claims Court application in June of 2018. She agreed that the claim was filed at the beginning of the fall of 2018. She believed that it was still pending. She agreed that Mr. Murray’s employees were working on her jobsite in the spring of 2018, installing blocks. This conflicts with her earlier evidence regarding workers installing the blocks and leaving them to the weather. Based on this evidence, she had to have taken the photographs in 2019 or later.

372She agreed that she was told about employee problems and labour problems. She said that it was always an excuse.

373Mr. Murray confirmed that the project started and stopped. He said that it became a bigger job than anticipated. He said that they were still waiting on the permit in the fall of 2017. He said most of his dealings were with Mr. Bradley, and not with Mrs. Bradley. He said that they went to do the slab, but found that the ground had been disturbed, and it was no longer virgin ground. It now required a foundation, which changed the job. He said that Mrs. Bradley was getting frustrated that nothing was getting done, and he tried to explain.

374He said that 8 inch walls had to be put into the ground, to serve as a foundation. He said that he negotiated with Mrs. Bradley that if they paid the second deposit toward the job, he would absorb the additional cost of the foundation. The additional deposit was $14,000 and the cost of the foundation was $15,000. He said that they never would have finished the foundation in time for the winter because they would not have gotten the permit in time. So they dug the hole in the fall, and returned in the spring to put in the cement block foundation walls. He said that they could dig the hole without the permit, but they could not do any more work until the permit was granted. They restarted work in May of 2018 because they had to wait for the ground to thaw and dry. He said that his company arranged for the fill, and that Mr. Bradley wanted more fill so he gave an extra $2,000 to get additional fill to do the whole yard.

375Mr. Murray viewed the photographs in evidence and agreed that is what the job looked like. To him, the job was ready to move forward, with compacting the sand to pour the concrete floor and then to start work on the walls. The job did not get finished because the worker who was assigned to the job just stopped showing up and there was equipment that was missing. He had other workers who could do some of the work, but then GreenOn was cancelled. He said that he told Mr. Bradley that there were delays due to the GreenOn cancellation. Lawyers were involved at this point. He asked if they could put it off as long as possible, because his back was against the wall.

376In the photograph he identified the rebar that was placed in the cavity in the blocks forming the walls. He testified that all of the cavities were filled in on three walls. He testified that it was only the front wall that was not filled in. The photos bear this out. The installer who was responsible for pouring the floor stopped showing up and took the equipment. He explained the blocks that had separated had had water getting in and freezing. He said that it was easy to fix that issue. He said that the same workers who could work on the garage, were the workers who were certified under GreenOn. He said that he had to redirect those workers to finish as many of the GreenOn jobs as he could get finished. He testified that when GreenOn was cancelled he was forced to “change gears”, and focus on those jobs.

377He did not know anything about a blank authorization form and said that the City would not accept a blank form. He did not remember Mrs. Bradley asking for her money back or that he said that it was a binding contract but he did say that she was upset and he would have said that. He said that “I was in the middle of working on a patient, and all of a sudden bombs were dropping everywhere, it was chaos while I was doing this around June 19”. He said he was just managing as best he could. He did not have the manpower or the people skilled enough to do the bigger jobs as well as the GreenOn jobs. He was just doing the best that he could.

378I accept that this job was delayed due to the required change in the foundation, which caused a change to the permit. Mrs. Bradley did not appear to appreciate that this kind of a problem occurred, and the consequences of this problem. In fact, her position was that it was not her problem and it should not increase her cost. I accept that lawyers got involved, which would then cause Mr. Murray to believe that this contract was going to be cancelled. His shifting of his workers to GreenOn jobs was reasonable.

Jedrezek – July 25, 2017

379Mr. Jedrezek’s contract is also a problem contract, that was converted to a GreenOn contract. He said that he contacted EcoLife because he wanted to have some work done. After talking to Mr. Murray, he decided to go with EcoLife, because the cost was better and the products seemed to be eco-friendly. The work to be done was insulation, siding, soffit and fascia, two windows, stonework, a steel door, eaves and mould removal, among other work.

380The total contract was for $21,700, and then there was a later quote of $35,317 which incorporated the first contract. It was signed on July 25, 2017. The work did not start until June of 2018. In the intervening time, he went to the office, and was shown the “board”, and shown where his name appeared on the board. He confirmed that when the work started, the workers found mould, which caused additional costs. The porch and siding had to be removed to remediate it. He said that Mr. Murray had told him that the delay in starting his job was that he was behind in getting contracts done. He said that when the workers started work on the back of the house they found more mould, which had to be remediated, and increased the cost. They also discovered that the roof needed some work, which he authorized and it was done.

381He said Mr. Murray told him later that he might qualify for a rebate but did not specify what for. He confirmed that he got a rebate cheque but did not know what it was for. He said that the work was not done so he did not cash the cheque. He said he reported to GreenOn that the work was not done and then gave the cheque to the detective. The cheque is in the amount of $3,900.

382He said that the sliding door and the steel door were not replaced. The siding was not capped. He was expecting a “free window”, which was not replaced. Some of the siding was not replaced. He said that the window that was replaced with a smaller window was to be finished on the inside and it was not. He said that normally contractors get the permit, but that he had to get it himself. In his text messages, he texted to Murray that he got a stop work order for the porch, and that he needed to get the permit. He testified that Mr. Murray said that he already got the permit.

383He testified that he was constantly trying to communicate with Mr. Murray, and that sometimes Mr. Murray would respond and sometimes he would not. The text message bears this out.

384In cross-examination, Mr. Jedrezek acknowledged that he had previously testified that he had signed a document with one of Mr. Murray’s staff in the fall of 2018. He did not read it. He confirmed that the insulation had been installed, but that he did not know what the rebate covered. He assumed that all of the work had to be done on the job in order to qualify for the rebate. He confirmed that mould was found when the siding was removed, and that the insulation and mould had to be removed before they could proceed on the work. He agreed that ultimately three windows were to be replaced.

385He said that there was water infiltrating through the walls in the basement, which was a problem. Mr. Murray’s company had to go all the way down to the sill plate to remediate the mould and the water problem. He was not there to see if any studs or plywood had to be replaced. He agreed that the problems with mould would have delayed the completion of the contract and said that it was common sense. He confirmed that the insulation was replaced with superior insulation. He did not know if Mr. Murray took photos of his home, but the survey that he received from the GreenOn program said that he did. He later said that the photos of his house were not of the windows that were part of the agreement to replace. He said they were photos of the other side of his house. However, I have to question how he knew this when he said he was not aware of the photos, except for the survey, and he did not know what the grant was for.

386As well, he said that he was aware that Mr. Murray changed the date of the contract to qualify for the GreenOn grant. However, there is nothing on the original contract that would qualify for the grant. There is no insulation mentioned, and the two windows that are referenced were not the specialty glass or triple pane windows that were required. The handwritten contract references two different kinds of insulation, and the contract is not dated. Payment for the contract was made on June 25, 2018. This is the only contract that outlined qualifying services, and it was not dated. It was paid in the timeframe where GreenOn work was authorized. Mr. Jedrezek’s conversation with an unidentified person from GreenOn is not admissible as hearsay. It is only admissible to explain what Mr. Jedrezek did.

387There is one typed contract and one handwritten contract. Mr. Jedrezek confirmed that all the items in the handwritten contract were finished and the work of $12,317 was paid in full. He said that the only work not done was the corner piece on the back of the house to remediate where his dog was rubbing his chain. However, this item was specified on the contract in the exhibit book at tab 1, and not the handwritten contract.

388There is a notation on the typed contract for an additional charge of $1,300 for extra repairs. There is no mention on the contract of a permit being Mr. Murray’s responsibility, however, Mr. Murray accepted responsibility in a text message and in his evidence said that he should have gotten the permit. He was not certain when work stopped but believed that it was around September of 2018.

389He agreed that the majority of the work was done on the contract. When asked what value he would put on what was completed, he said he had no idea. When asked if it would come up to $35,000, he said he had no idea how much the materials cost. When asked if he felt he got the full value of what he paid, he said not really.

390Mr. Murray testified that he was still working at the end of 2018 and into 2019 to process all of the GreenOn applications, and that was why Mr. Jedrezek got his grant money. Mr. Murray did not think he needed a permit for the porch, because it was under two feet. However, it might have been a little over that, so he agreed to pay. However, he said that it was a fine rather than the cost of the permit.

391He said that the little amount of work left undone would have been done in the spring of 2019, but his illness and then losing his licence prevented him from finishing the job.

392I accept Mr. Murray’s evidence regarding this contract. This was one of the jobs that Mr. Murray called a “can of worms”. Once the work started, problems started arising, such as mould and the basement wall leak. It became a much more complicated job, that consumed much more time. In the end, Mr. Jedrezek was unsure if he got “full value” for the money that he paid. Accordingly, I find that the Crown has not proven that this contract was unfulfilled, based on the additional work that was required to be done and Mr. Jedrezek’s evidence.

Kevin Fajcz – July 2017

393This is another problem contract. Mr. Fajcz said that he contacted EcoLife because he was having problems with a roof and that there were ventilation issues in the attic, which would have been in July of 2017. He identified a Siding and Roofing Quotation, signed in July 20, 2017. He said that they did not talk about siding at first, rather it was focused on the roof and the ventilation problem, and it was also going to include insulation in the attic. He thought that Mr. Murray took notes and came back with a typed contract, but he did not think it was the same day.

394He said that the agreement to solve the ventilation problem for the roof was to raise it three inches. He said that there were a couple of ways to do it. He said that Mr. Murray had a ventilation expert named Jack. He said there was a second appointment, and Jack came and looked in the attics and came up with an idea that raised the roof rather than turn his second story into a construction area. He said that because of the age of his house, there was a discussion about possible rot, which he called a realistic expectation. He identified that the top of the contract showed a date of July 20, 2017 but the bottom of the contract referenced August 31, 2017. He said that he believed that the contract was actually signed on August 31, 2017 and that he paid his deposit on that date, but he could not be certain. He said that he could not get a start date, and he said that Mr. Murray told him that he was busy and he would get to the job in due time. He said that they talked about that Mr. Murray’s company would get to the job when his current work was finished, so he knew he was in the queue.

395He agreed that there was another meeting, where he changed the contract. He thought it was in August. He went to the showroom because he had been thinking that a metal roof would be a better solution. He and Mr. Murray discussed that Mr. Murray had a metal roof that he had sold to another customer who changed his mind. They agreed on the metal roof, and then Mr. Fajcz added siding to match. He identified the second contract as being additional to the first contract (but the first was for a shingled roof). He believed that he contracted for board and batten siding on his entire house, but only got board and batten siding on the top part. He got vinyl siding on the first floor. He then said that he was not sure if the board and batten siding was only for one part of the house. He said that the reference to no charge for the Versetta stone was that it was an incentive for Mr. Murray to get the job done.

396He identified that part of the contract that says metal shake roof $9,944 and said that this was the amended contract to the first contract. He said that he had already paid for shingles, and then he wrote a cheque for $9,944. Then it said 45 days paid $24,996 remaining $11,627. Mr. Fajcz said that this referenced that he was asked to loan Mr. Murray $20,000 and it was a 45 day loan but was not sure why it said 45 days. When he paid the first contract payment, and then paid the $9,944, his expectation was that the $9,944 was for the entire second contract, meaning not just the roof but the siding too.

397His attention was drawn to a notation on the contract that said “advanced 20k to EcoLife 45 days minus …”, and he identified the handwriting as David Murray’s. He said that he did not know why Mr. Murray was asking him for a loan, but that they had talked about divorce and he had a lot of friends in the same position. He understood how much trouble that could be. He said that he told “at the beginning of the process but I thought this money was going to be paid to him eventually, and it was supposed to come back to me in 45 days, so I thought I’d do him a, a solid and may be that would give, give him the impetus to move my job up the pole and maybe get done a little sooner.” Page 24, June 24, 2025, line 20.

398His attention was then directed to another notation which said “5,373 if the roof work is finished, then 5,373 to be returned to Kevin 45 days”. He said he thought that is what it read. He was not sure what it meant.

399He identified another agreement in tab 3 for a contract dated January of 2018. He identified it as the other work he agreed to. He said Mr. Murray told him he could rewrite the agreement for the siding and insulation, and that he could get money back from GreenOn for this work if he did. He was asked if the amount on the contract of $11,700 was a ‘real amount” and he said it was. He said that the contract was written up in March and it was backdated to January. He said he was told that it would help him qualify for GreenOn and it should probably have been done when the insulation and siding were done in the first place. It was overlooked and that was how he understood it. He did not pay an additional $11,700 because he felt that it was covered in the original contract so there was no additional payment to his knowledge. He said that this contract was for work that had already been completed on his home, and it was for the insulation. He did not remember if GreenOn came when he signed the original contract. He doubted that he knew anything about GreenOn in the summer of 2017.

400He believed that in March of 2018 the GreenOn program was likely coming to an end and in order to be sure to qualify for the program, Mr. Murray wanted to move it back a few months, and he said that this was what he was going to be submitting on behalf of Mr. Fajcz. He was not sure if an amount was discussed, but he would be applying and hoping to get something back. He said it was Mr. Murray’s idea to “create” this third contract. He said that there was no reason for this contract to exist, apart from Mr. Murray’s suggestion to go to GreenOn for the rebate.

401Tab 4 is another contract. He said that early winter of 2018 was pretty cold. He had a cracked window and wanted to do something about it. Near the end of the winter, he was thinking about his roof again, and so he thought he would ask Mr. Murray to come and look at the window. He said the next thing you know they were talking about doing the whole house. He was going to do triple pane windows. He said he was not really keen on the idea but the price was good, and he signed the contract.

402He said he had been thinking about changing the window for a while but did not want to get into changing windows in the winter. He was hoping to reboot the relationship with Mr. Murray, and there was no scheduled date for the roof. He insisted that the contract was signed in March of 2018. He was told that the contract was dated January 10, 2018 to get it under the wire for GreenOn rebates for the windows as well. He said that the contract was for 10 windows, and he thought that it involved a door as well but could not find the door on the contract. He confirmed that it said foam framed vinyl jamb and trim. He did not believe that there was anything on the back of the contract.

403He identified making a payment of $5,000 for roof repairs on August 8, 2017. He said he had written a $10,000 cheque earlier than August 11, 2017. He said that he paid the $5,000 for materials to help get the job started. He also wrote a cheque for $9,944 on August 11, 2017 for the upgraded amount to buy the metal roof. He identified another cheque in the amount of $20,000 and the memo line says siding, foam insulation, stripping, build out, but he identified it as the loan agreement with Mr. Murray, and he believed that if he advanced this loan to Mr. Murray it would move his job up the queue faster. (There is nothing in evidence to support this other than Mr. Fajcz’s word. Mr. Murray disputes this and explained why he called it an advance). He expected that it would be paid back, and he said it says 45 days. He said that he did not discuss repayment of the loan with Mr. Murray. He was going through a fair bit of anxiety at the time, as an older man training to do a new job in the workplace. He said that he had a discussion with Murray who said you have a contract and these are legally binding documents that meant I was going to get my work done. (This only makes sense if he was trying to cancel the contracts), so he did not worry about the money as much as he should have.

404He confirmed that the work that was done was the siding and insulation, soffit and fascia, and the window capping was done by around Christmas time, and then in the spring the Versetta stone was done in 2018. He said for the roof, he never came to the top of the pile. He said he called and texted Mr. Murray about that. He said that Mr. Murray hired a subcontractor to do the siding and insulation. (Murray says that it was his employee who brought his own guys), and it seemed to be all that was doing to be done by the end of the year.

405He identified a Snap Home Finance agreement. He said that it was kind of insisted on by Mr. Murray to pay for the windows. He said he was kind of willing to pay cash on most of this stuff, thinking that it was going to speed up the process, but Murray said this loan was interest free and it was his preferred way of doing the window job, so he agreed to the Snap Loan. He said that there was an application process for the loan, and he agreed that Mr. Murray took him through the forms. He made a cash downpayment on the windows, made by way of e-transfer. This money was to be refunded when the loan was approved, but he had to pursue Mr. Murray for the refund, which he got in two installments.

406He said that he signed the window contract for $11,700 at the same time that he signed the contract for the siding, and it was for the same amount. He said that the Snap Loan was for the windows, but the loan says, “siding and insulation”. He said he was told that the siding and insulation contract was for work already done, and that the contract was simply for purposes of applying for GreenOn. When asked if Mr. Murray told him that the loan was for siding and insulation, Mr. Fajcz said, “that’s what the agreement was, the loan was to pay for window, to pay for the window, the siding and insulation was already paid for by the other cheques.” June 24, 2025, page 42, line 25. He signed the Snap Loan document on March 18, 2018. He said that the two contracts were done at the same time. He identified that he signed the acknowledgement and acceptance, and that he must have just skimmed it without really reading it. He said that he was signing a lot of documents and did not really understand what he was signing. He thought it was just a finalization for the loan, and the loan was for something that had not yet been done. He said that the document seemed to be more about accepting that the siding and insulation was already done (why would a loan company need to know that), which had nothing to do with the loan. He did not know when he realized that the siding agreement had been swapped out for the loan, and the loan was again to pay for the siding and insulation which was already done. When his attention was directed to a portion of the form where it talked about being satisfied with the work, he said that it did not make sense to him at the time. He said it still does not make sense to him. He was pressured into signing that one. He paid a total of $3,575 on the Snap Loan and then stopped paying, based on a conversation with a person from the Snap Loan company.

407He identified an email that he sent to Mr. Murray in March of 2018, where he was asking for his refund of $2,700, and that the person who was to install the Versetta stone had not attended yet. He wanted to tell Mr. Murray that he was satisfied with the work that had already been done. He identified a letter dated April 12, 2018 in which he terminated the contract with Mr. Murray and he wanted his money back. He said that he had previously signed up and paid for his job in 2017 and we were now starting in 2018. Page 46, line 22, June 24, 2025.

408He was suffering a lot of anxiety on his job and in waiting for this job, and he had to cut out what was necessary to continue to function. He felt that this job was going nowhere, so this had to be what was cut. When asked if he had an expectation of when work was to start on the roof, he said that he did not. He felt that Mr. Murray was going to get to him early in 2018 and he was not getting any reassurance of that at all.

409He said that he never heard from GreenOn. He pursued Mr. Murray by phone calls and going to the office but never got a start date. After he sent the letter, he was not prepared to let Mr. Murray do the work. He had a friend who offered to negotiate a settlement with Mr. Murray, but it never materialized. He was not certain how much out of pocket he was but believed it was somewhere in the $30,000 range. He agreed that he had seen other jobsites done by Mr. Murray, and that he was impressed with those jobs. He testified that he ultimately had his roof replaced in January of 2020 by someone else.

410He agreed that a permit would be required, and that it would take time to obtain a permit. He agreed that he changed the contract for the roof, but he believed that it would not cause any delays because Mr. Murray had the metal roof on hand. He said that GreenOn never had anything to do with his decision to enter into contracts with Mr. Murray. He said that he read through all of the Snap Loan documents but then said not carefully enough. He believed that all of the labour for the roof was included in the first contract, so it made sense that there was no additional charge for labour for the metal roof.

411He agreed that Mr. Murray told him that the GreenOn program was cancelled, and that there was ongoing debates about extensions. He remembered that Mr. Murray sent him a press release from SAWDAC. He agreed that he understood that there was a “building season”.

412When confronted with the email dated April 17, 2018 regarding a proposal from Mr. Murray, he disagreed that the proposal related to discussions of a date for installation. Instead he insisted that he was hoping that using this phrasing meant that he was hopeful that Mr. Murray would make a proposal. However, the wording of the email says that he wanted to consider the proposal before making a final decision. This does not make sense. He could not remember what the proposal was, and then said it was not really a proposal.

413Mr. Murray responded with his own email, saying the weather had not been good, and he agreed that the weather had delayed the work. He confirmed that he was told that there were manufacturing delays regarding windows.

414He agreed to sending a letter to Mr. Murray by Purolator courier, cancelling the contract, and getting his money back. His attention was drawn to a letter that he sent to Mr. Murray identifying the Snap Loan as connected to windows and asking Mr. Murray to cancel the Snap Loan. He said that Mr. Murray had the power to cancel the SnapLoan because he had the power to sign him up for the Snap Loan. He never reached out to GreenOn and never got any communication from GreenOn.

415The only documentation regarding a “loan” between himself and Mr. Murray is the notation on the contract as being an advance. He agreed that there were no text messages between himself and Murray about the loan and said that he had changed phones. He agreed that Mr. Murray never told him that he was not prepared to do the work.

416He believed that Mr. Murray had been operating for several years without a licence. He agreed that he had become a member of the Facebook group, Victims of EcoLife, and he thought it was sometime in 2019, but denied that he had heard about fraud allegations in the media before he made his complaint to police. He contacted police and did not pursue civil ligation as against Mr. Murray.

417Mr. Murray said that he agreed to refund to Mr. Fajcz, his job fell through the cracks and he felt bad. He insisted that he told Mr. Fajcz that the window manufacturer had changed, but he could not remember how. It would have been by phone call or in person at his house or in the office. He found out that Mr. Fajcz wanted to back out of the contract when he communicated through a third party and threatened to go to the police and the media in June or July of 2018 and he remembered he was sitting beside the campfire with his family. The windows could not be installed because it takes weeks to get them, and then there were problems with Euroseal.

418Mr. Murray said that Mr. Fajcz only signed up for windows in January, the first contract was for the roof and then he changed what roof he wanted in the months after the contract was signed. They were ready to do the roof in the winter but could not open up the whole roof during winter weather. He qualified for the GreenOn rebate because of the insulation work that was done.

419The stone work was finished, and Mr. Murray said that he had photos of Mr. Fajcz with his thumbs held up in front of the home showing the stonework. He said that the photos show the stone before they finished the work, but that they continued to work and finished the stone. Mr. Murray disputed that the windows contract was backdated. Mr. Murray said that they were mostly done the stone work, and had not done the roof or the windows, when Fajcz wanted to cancel and he was floored. At first, Mr. Murray could not remember if the window contract was backdated but then said that it was not based on the letter at tab 11. They originally contracted in 2017, but because the work was not done in 2017, he qualified for GreenOn and then ordered windows.

420Mr. Murray denied that his preferred method of payment was a Snap Loan, because it could take weeks for approval and payment. He preferred cash and cheques because it was less paperwork and less time. Mr. Murray insisted that Mr. Fajcz knew exactly what he was signing, and that he is a grown, intelligent man. He did not misrepresent what the loan was for.

421He agreed that Mr. Fajcz gave him $2,700 in January but believed that it was a cheque. He said he must have forgotten to refund the money when the snap loan proceeds were advanced and Mr. Fajcz reminded him. He agreed that he started the siding project in 2017 but did not finish it. He changed the contract date because the job did not finish, in order for Mr. Fajcz to qualify for GreenOn credit for insulation. The roof was to include lifting the roof by three inches to give it better air flow, so it was not a simple roofing job.

422He disputed that he took a loan from Mr. Fajcz, but what he did take was an advance payment for the work done. They did have a conversation about divorce and how tough it was, but the “advance” was not a loan, it was money toward the job. He did not call it a deposit or a payment, he called it an “advance” against future work. He said that there was no interest payable and no repayment terms. He expected to do the work that the advance was to cover.

423Mr. Murray said Mr. Fajcz kept changing the contract. He would meet with Jack, and then the job would change. He liked Jack’s ideas, but the contract was constantly changing. When the discussion about raising the roof arose, originally the plan was to do it from the inside, which involved removing plaster. Jack suggested doing it from the outside, and he called it scabbing. Mr. Fajcz liked Jack’s idea of doing it from the outside better. He agreed that he charged over $9k for the roof but said that it should have been over $30k. He was doing Mr. Fajcz a favour, and Mr. Fajcz was taking stock off his hands.

424He said that he did not backdate the original contracts, but that it took a while to get the deposits, and the contract changed regarding the roof. He remembered that the first meeting was in July and Josh was with him, because he was training Josh. He said that the first contracts were signed with him, and the others were rewritten with the office. He agreed that the fourth contract was for windows and said that it was with Euroseal because he did not know that Gentek was selling vinyl jamb windows at the time.

425He said that Mr. Fajcz did not have enough money to do the windows, which was why they did the Snap Loan. He said he only started using Snap Loans in late 2017. He only had enough to give a deposit for the windows, which was to be refunded when the Snap Loan was processed. He did not use Snap and Home Trust as a means of persuasion. He denied that Mr. Fajcz did not need the loan to pay for the windows, and that was not what Mr. Fajcz said in his home. He said that Mr. Fajcz was the only client who said he was upsold, and that it was not true. He said that the financing was a tool and not a trap.

426He said that he had never been faced with such a monster, referring to GreenOn and the cancellation of the program.

427Murray said that he got the permit for the siding, but that the metal roof did not need a permit and neither did the windows. He said when Mr. Fajcz was trying to cancel, his company was just trying to schedule the big jobs that they did not get to in the previous year. He did not take any steps to cancel the Snap Loan. He said that Kenny Roussel had worked on this job before he moved to the Bradley job and had disappeared with the equipment. He had hired Mr. Roussel about a month before, and Mr. Roussel brought his “own guys”.

428He agreed that offering zero percent financing gave him a means to encourage clients to sign up, but he said that the client was helping him out so he was helping the client. He said that he never scheduled the roof job in 2018 for Mr. Fajcz because Jack quit and then others quit, and he had to refocus on GreenOn jobs.

429Overall, I found Mr. Fajcz’s evidence about a loan between himself and Mr. Murray to not be reliable. There are no documents which identify the $20,000 payment as a loan. Payment of the money is not in dispute. What is in dispute is what was the money for. Mr. Fajcz said it was a loan and Mr. Murray said it was a payment toward the work that was to be done. There are no terms of repayment, other than a notation of 45 days. Mr. Fajcz said that he never pursued repayment of this money, which is astounding, given that he did pursue Mr. Murray for $2,700 for a deposit that was to be returned to him. By the time he communicated his protest about the deposit, the loan would have been overdue by at least six months. Given the circumstances, I cannot find that Mr. Fajcz advanced a loan to Mr. Murray as opposed to advancing funds on the contract. Therefore, this cannot be relied upon by the Crown when claiming that Mr. Murray’s company was showing signs of insolvency because he asked for a loan from a customer.

430Further, Mr. Fajcz said that he had made changes to the contract regarding the roof from shingles to metal and that was based on a conversation with Jack. That is consistent with Mr. Murray’s evidence. He agreed that the work for the siding, fascia and soffit, insulation and window capping was all done. That is also consistent with what Mr. Murray said. The work that was not done related to the windows and the roof.

431Mr. Fajcz said that he was aware that there were construction seasons. He said that he had his roof replaced by another company, but that roof was not raised. He did not specify whether or not the replacement roof was shingles or metal. He had an expectation that Mr. Murray could have redone his roof in the winter, but replacing a metal roof is a far different job than replacing a shingled roof with another shingled roof. As well, there was an expectation that the roof was going to be raised, which was a change after the original contract was signed. That change would have necessitated a new permit.

432Mr. Fajcz said that he entered into the contract for windows in March of 2018, but the contract was dated for January. Mr. Murray did not think that he backdated the contract but could not be certain. In either January or March of 2018, Mr. Fajcz would have qualified for the GreenOn program, as long as the program requirements were fulfilled. I find that nothing turns on whether or not the windows contract was backdated.

433Mr. Fajcz said that he read all of the loan documents before he signed them, but that he did not read them closely enough. That is not Mr. Murray’s responsibility, it is Mr. Fajcz’s. The loan clearly referenced siding and insulation. I found Mr. Fajcz’s evidence to not be reliable on this point.

Kandiah Vijayakanthan – August 2017

434This was another problem contract. Dr. Vijayakanthan was looking to replace the roof on his home. It was 31 years old and needed to be replaced. He contacted Mr. Murray’s company and entered into a contract.

435The contract is dated August 8, 2017. He paid a deposit of $8,150 on the same date. When the contract was signed, Dr. Vijayakanthan was told that Mr. Murray was working on a house and had another house lined up. Their home would be done next. No timeline was discussed. Dr. Vijayakanthan’s home was a large three storey home built on a slope.

436He said that he waited until September and contacted Mr. Murray again. He claimed that Mr. Murray told him he was busy doing a roof, but that he would get to Dr. Vijayakanthan’s roof in about a week, but he did not come. This pattern repeated in October, with promises to come but no one showed up. Mr. Murray sent an employee by the name of Josh to the house in October. Josh explained that he was responsible for scheduling and that the weather was getting too bad, so the work would not be done until the spring of 2018. Dr. Vijayakanthan said that he agreed, because he did not want his roof opened up in bad weather and risking damage.

437In the spring, when no one came, Dr. Vijayakanthan said that he called a couple of times in May and June. He said that when he spoke to Mr. Murray, Mr. Murray was not as cordial as he had been before. He then lost confidence in Mr. Murray’s company and started a Small Claims Court action. He was not happy with the first paralegal, so he hired another one in the fall of 2018. He got a default judgment on April 4, 2019.

438In cross-exam, he said that he saw the names of some of his neighbours on the board, so he assumed that Mr. Murray was doing work for them. He did not notice the back side of the contract and did not read it. He agreed that Mr. Murray never told him that his company was not going to do the work outlined on the contract. He was not aware of Mr. Murray’s mother passing away, and he did not remember knowing anything about the GreenOn program causing delays.

439This makes sense since he cancelled the contract in June of 2018, which was before GreenOn was cancelled.

440Mr. Murray said that Dr. Vijayakanthan agreed to put his job off until the next year. Mr. Murray then said he explained to Dr. Vijayakanthan that they were busy with GreenOn on jobs, and that the workers who were skilled enough to do this job were also the ones who were certified to do the GreenOn work. He said he became aware that Dr. Vijayakanthan wanted to cancel his contract after the protests. This timing is problematic, since Dr. Vijayakanthan sued in Small Claims Court and got a default judgment by April 4, 2019, which was immediately after the protests. In order to get the default judgment, Mr. Murray had to have been served no later than about March 1, 2019 or before the protests.

441Mr. Murray then said that when they went to do the roof in 2018, he became aware that Dr. Vijayakanthan had contacted a lawyer, which then stopped the work. He said that the house was a large, three-story home and it required specialized workers with specialized equipment. His company was bound by the Occupational Health and Safety legislation, and the job had to be done safely. It required a big team of workers to do it, and the Ministry of Labour was all over their butts.

442He said that the job would have been done in April or May of 2018, but that he was still in talks with the lawyer into the summer of 2018. That put a stop to the work. This aligns with Dr. Vijayakanthan’s evidence.

443Mr. Murray explained the board that Dr. Vijayakanthan referenced. It was the board upon which all the jobs were scheduled. He had three production managers and office staff who were responsible for putting jobs on the board. Jobs were managed by his employees. He did not take day to day responsibility for the scheduling of the jobs on the board, but he said that was what he paid people to do. The board was simple, but it worked. He said that he could not do all of the jobs, and if he tried it would be even more of a mess. If a job was going to be bumped up in the queue, he instructed his staff to contact the clients whose jobs were going to be affected to get their consent to be bumped. He acknowledged that it was possible that staff error resulted in some jobs not being properly tracked or scheduled. This was an important admission. He was not foisting responsibility for errors, he was accepting it.

444He said that in the summer and early fall of 2017 he was working on a house across the street from this home. They ran into some problems that delayed that job. He agreed that he had a conversation with Dr. Vijayakanthan about starting the job the following week, but that it was also raining a lot and the job across the street delayed his schedule. He said that he talked to Dr. Vijayakanthan, and he agreed that he did not want his roof done at that time of the year and agreed to wait until the spring. The delays from the house across the street extended over September and October of 2017.

445Mr. Murray believed the work would start in May or June of 2018. He was aware that Dr. Vijayakanthan had contacted the office and spoken to either Josh or Henry in the spring of 2018. He was not privy to the conversation but then found out that Dr. Vijayakanthan had called a lawyer, and the work could not start.

446He said that he could not start the job in May of 2018, because he was still finishing jobs that had been scheduled before this job, and he cited the Bradley job.

447Overall, the evidence of Mr. Murray and Dr. Vijayakanthan aligns, and there is nothing controversial about it.

Brenda Perry and Mary Perry for Richard Perry – November 10, 2017

448This is another problem contract. Brenda Perry confirmed that her brother had passed away in May of 2019. She remembered that Mr. Murray came to their home to talk to her brother about getting new windows. She sat in the living room, while Mr. Murray and Mr. Perry sat at the kitchen table. She said she wanted her brother to do this on his own. She confirmed that the contract was signed on November 10, 2017. She said that her brother had some physical ailments, but that he had no trouble with understanding conversations. She said that the windows were her brother’s idea because the windows were quite old. She was not really listening to the conversation while Mr. Murray and Mr. Perry were talking about the windows. Afterwards, she asked her brother how he was going to pay for the windows and he said to not worry about it. She said that she did not find out about the Snap Loan until later when she had to take her brother to the bank to make a payment. She confirmed that she lived in Mr. Perry’s house between 2017 and 2019. She was present when the EcoLife workers took down the siding and did not replace it. She confirmed that no windows and no doors were replaced. She took her brother to EcoLife offices once, but did not go into the office, because she just let him do it.

449She ran a renovation business with her husband in her early years and believed that the weather did not interfere with the work to be done because she had done work in all kinds of weather. She testified that it had been about 20 years since she had done any work installing windows, and that she had no experience doing triple pane windows.

450Mary Perry said that she was not aware of the arrangements with the Snap Loan until her brother died. She was his Estate Trustee. She called Mr. Murray in May of 2019 to tell him that her brother had passed away, and that she wanted to schedule to have the work completed. She said Mr. Murray told her that he had not worked in six months, that he had manpower issues and weather issues, but he had all the materials on hand. She asked him to drop off all the materials but he said that it was a liability issue. He said that that he would call her in the next couple of weeks to arrange to install the material. She said that she was not fully aware that Mr. Murray had lost his licence when she talked to him.

451Mr. Murray said that he did not remember talking to either sister until after his business was closed in 2019. He dealt directly with Richard Perry. He remembered that Mr. Perry was in the hospital in the fall of 2018, and he visited with him for about an hour.

452He identified a contract from September of 2017, for 11 windows and one door. He later executed a Snap Loan for the windows with Mr. Perry because Mr. Perry went to the office and inquired if he qualified. He had to pay in full for the windows in order to qualify, so Mr. Perry wanted to do the loan. Mr. Murray facilitated the loan document and Mr. Perry was approved. Mr. Murray then said he would do the siding at no cost.

453Mr. Murray negotiated with Mr. Perry to discount the job if Mr. Perry agreed to do work on Mr. Murray’s fleet of trucks. Mr. Perry was a mechanic and he agreed. When the workers took the old siding off, they discovered that the concrete wall had to be specially prepared in order to install the new siding. The worker doing the work was not qualified to finish this part of the job. Right around that time, Henry had quit, and a lot of his workers were bouncing around. He then got caught up in the GreenOn cancellation. He thought that the agreement was signed in January or February, and the work was to be done in either May or June. He said that he stayed in contact with Mr. Perry and kept him informed. The windows took a long time to come in, but they came in, and Mr. Murray remembered seeing them in the warehouse.

454The problem regarding the house being a block construction, meant that a specific permit was now required for the strapping over the block construction, which was not known when the work was arranged. It also required a differently skilled worker. He also identified that there was rot around the doors which had to be fixed. He testified that he did ongoing training with his workforce, and that he was always present.

455He remembered one sister contacted him after his company was closed and he lost his licence in 2019. He reassured her that once he got his licence back, he would do the job. When asked if Mr. Perry ever got his windows, Mr. Murray said that Mr. Perry came to the office in late May or June and they talked about the siding. He was told about the process and how we do things. He was told about the crisis of GreenOn and that only certain guys could do it because of certification. Henry and Frank had just quit, and Mr. Perry then went into the hospital. Then they started the siding and ran into the problem with the block walls.

456When asked about the lien on the home, he said that it was standard for Snap Loans to secure a lien. He did not explain the liens and said that the customer should ask the bank about that. It was not his responsibility, and he could not take steps to remove a lien. He said that he thought that Brenda Perry reached out to him to talk about completing the job, and he explained that his licence had been revoked. He kept the discussion short, because he was not supposed to be talking to customers.

457Neither Ms. Perry is able to give evidence about the formation of the contract and the terms of the Snap Loan. Ms. Brenda Perry was present in another room when the contract was made, and she stayed outside when Mr. Perry went to EcoLife to apply for the loan. Ms. Mary Perry did not know about the loan until after Mr. Perry died. There is nothing in their evidence that is capable of refuting anything that Mr. Murray claimed.

458Ms. Brenda Perry was not qualified as an expert, and so her opinion about the ability to install windows and doors in winter weather is based solely on her own experience which was dated. Mr. Murray routinely closed his offices over about six weeks of the winter months, the windows were only contracted in November of 2017, and it appears that no deposit was taken until the Snap Loan was arranged later. There is unequivocal evidence in the form of Mr. Frattini’s evidence that there were problems with the manufacture of windows which caused delays. I accept Mr. Murray’s evidence that there were problems with installing the siding, due to the construction of the home and he needed to get permits as well as the appropriate worker to do the work. By this time, this job got caught up in the GreenOn storm, which caused delays.

459I do not accept that Mr. Perry had any cognitive vulnerability. Ms. Brenda Perry said that he had no difficulty in this regard and, in fact, she wanted him to do this on his own. She expressed no concern about Mr. Perry’s ability to contract or his capacity.

Christopher Meandro – November 23, 2017

460Mr. Meandro said that someone from EcoLife was canvassing door to door in early November and he contacted EcoLife to arrange for some work. He signed a contract for seven windows for a total of $4,600. He paid a deposit of $2,300, for Gentek Regency double pane windows. He had heard of Gentek before, but not the model of window. He said that Mr. Murray showed him multiple samples of windows before he made his choice.

461He said that there could be some writing on the back side of the contract, but he could not be sure. He thought that the installation of the windows was weather dependent but could not be sure about that. He wrote a cheque for $2,300 on November 23, 2017 and said that they talked about installation in the spring of 2018. He acknowledged that in Sudbury the city would get a fair bit of snow, and it was not typically melted until March so he did not expect installation until then.

462He said that after he began contacting Mr. Murray in the spring of 2018, Mr. Murray brought up the GreenOn program. He explained that the tradespeople have to do specialized training and be trained through the government. He said that the windows had to be installed by October 31, 2018. He was advised that Mr. Murray’s “main guy, Jack” had to have a tumour removed, and that the weather was interfering with the schedule. This conversation had to have taken place after June 19, 2018 due to the cancellation and the deadlines being imposed.

463He asked for his money back and was told by Mr. Murray in mid-September that he would install the windows by the end of October. He was shown a picture of the windows and assumed that his windows were in the pile. He met with Mr. Murray in his office, and Mr. Murray seemed rushed and overwhelmed. Mr. Murray offered him $500 and Sudbury Wolves tickets, but Mr. Meandro just wanted his windows installed, so he said no. After many requests for a date or his money back, Mr. Meandro said that it just continued.

464He confirmed that his communication with Mr. Murray was 50 percent phone calls and 50 percent text messages. He was never asked for more money and Mr. Murray never said he was not going to finish the work. He could not remember signing anything, but he did remember getting electronic documents. He could not say whether the photos that were shown to him were of Mr. Murray’s warehouse or Gentek’s warehouse. He said that he reached out to Gentek, and they confirmed that there were no windows in their warehouse with his name on them. This is contrary to the evidence of Darren Frattini.

465He agreed that there were times when Mr. Murray reached out to him but he was not available. He recognized the name Euroseal as being a window manufacturer and could not say whether or not his windows were originally ordered from Euroseal and then the manufacturer was switched. He agreed that he cancelled the contract on September 7, 2018 and wanted a full refund but later said that he would have been happy for Mr. Murray to install his windows after that date.

466Mr. Murray confirmed much of what Mr. Meandro said. He identified the contract, but he said that he contacted Mr. Meandro in the new year to tell him about GreenOn. He said that he spoke mostly to Mrs. Meandro. He offered the program to Mr. Meandro and told him that the glass package would have to change, which increased the price, but Mr. Meandro was not asked for more money. He could not remember if he ordered windows from Euroseal or Gentek at this time. He agreed that he sent photos to Mr. Meandro but said that the photos were not from his own warehouse. He said that if he had the windows, they were the Euroseal windows, and not the Gentek windows. He did not take Gentek windows from their warehouse.

467He received the letter from Mr. Meandro in 2019, asking for a refund, but did not respond because his licence was revoked and he was instructed to not speak to clients. He denied influencing Mr. Meandro to upgrade or buy more expensive products. He said that he gave them options and let them choose.

468He said that the GreenOn program was shortened from 3 years to 90 days, and it caused chaos. He was doing as many jobs as he could, and he completed many jobs. This was a job that he did not get to because he could not be in two places at once. He did not specifically recall offering Mr. Meandro hockey tickets or cash but said that he did that often to ensure that he maintained a good relationship with his clients when they were not happy. He said he would have offered a rebate, not cash.

469He said that when the GreenOn program was cancelled, it made him work in a very rushed manner, and he sometimes made mistakes. He said it felt like the rug was pulled out from under him, and the goalposts were moved on all of his contracts. He identified the photographs of the windows as him being transparent and telling his clients that he has all these jobs to complete, that they were working with insufficient manpower and doing their best, and that the photo was not taunting Mr. Meandro.

470He agreed that Mr. Frattini said that he exceeded his credit limit with Gentek. He said that it happened from time to time and that he paid. He was given a timeline of 6 months to pay at one time. He said that he was always a good customer to the manufacturers. He said that Gentek was having credit issues themselves, and that they had financial pressure. He said that Frattini could have told him no in June of 2018, when he was approved for credit, but he was not.

471He said that the $79,000 owing to Gentek was nothing. And that he was expecting to see an invoice of over $250,000. He said that if the manufacturer stopped supplying, he was unable to do his work or pay his bills. He had been stung on a job for $50,000 and had to sue.

472When asked what he did with the money, he said it was like a credit card. The deposit money came in and it went into his bank to pay his rent, his truck payments, his insurance and WSIB and his staff. He did not segregate the money and did not believe that he was required to do that. He said that he had $300,000 to $400,000 in receivables. He got behind and was trying to catch up. He said that it happened every year, but this year was especially bad because he hardly sold any jobs after August of 2018. He said he would have ordered the windows in January of 2018, not in November of 2017, and at that time he expected to be getting windows in a couple of weeks. He was guessing that the manufacturers do not have that many orders in the winter and that windows would not have been installed until March. He said that these windows were likely never originally ordered from Gentek because of the switch of the glass package to a GreenOn approved package.

473He confirmed that Mr. Meandro’s contract started as a Gentek window order, but it was changed when he switched to GreenOn. He said that the client was aware. He said that he sent Jack to measure windows in January of 2018. He later explained that the windows were likely never originally ordered from Gentek but were ordered from Euroseal when the contract was changed to a GreenOn contract.

474He said that he did not respond to some texts in the spring of 2018 because Henry was supposed to talk to him, as the production manager. He confirmed that sometimes they texted and sometimes they talked on the phone. The phone conversations were more detailed and lengthier.

475He said around June 15, 2018, he was swamped. He had recently found out about the delays with Euroseal, and not getting answers. He was working with Gentek to switch contracts. GreenOn was a popular program, and he was working hard to keep up. At this point, he said that he still did not understand that it was a problem that was industry‑wide regarding the manufacturers. He switched to Gentek because they gave him firmer delivery dates, and by the end of the summer he was still waiting for the product to come in. He had maintained telephone contact with Mrs. Meandro.

476He said all the windows that he had ordered in 2018 started arriving in September. Between September and October he had 300 windows to install in 6 weeks.

477By the end of November of 2018, Mr. Murray said he was really ill, with a fever and he was bedridden. He had a heart attack and was struggling and his health was deteriorating. Josh stopped showing up, and Mr. Murray had to let him go. He said that the weather was really bad starting in the first week of November, with major storms with freezing rain and ice. He said that he was still trying to work in November, not knowing why he was sick.

478Despite Mr. Meandro saying that he did not receive anything from GreenOn, his text messages say that he did receive communication around the first week of December of 2018. Mr. Murray had arranged for extra staff to help with the application process, and that this documentation may have been in error. He was trying to supervise but could not ensure that everything was done correctly. He said that he was catching mistakes and calling GreenOn to report that no work was done. The text message Mr. Murray tells Mr. Meandro to do nothing with the communication from GreenOn. He confirmed that he continued to send applications after the November 30, 2018 deadline because the program continued to accept them. He had no control over the program, and he was just doing his best. He believed that it was a soft deadline because GreenOn employees were continuing to call to ask for more information. If the grant applications were not successful, he could redirect the clients to other grant programs.

479Based on this evidence, I find that Mr. Meandro’s contract at first did not involve GreenOn because the program did not exist. It had been announced but was not effective until December of 2017. I accept that Mr. Murray talked to Mr. Meandro, and the order was switched to a GreenOn contract. It was during this period between January and June that Mr. Murray was having trouble with suppliers providing product and he switched to Gentek as a supplier, and then GreenOn was cancelled. Based on Mr. Frattini’s evidence, there was a significant backlog of orders, due to the surge in orders and shortages of components. This contract was directly affected by that. Mr. Meandro then cancelled the contract in September of 2018, and he refused the offer by Mr. Murray to follow through with the contract for further consideration.

Craig Hannon – December 10, 2017

480This was a GreenOn contract. Captain Hannon was referred to Mr. Murray through Mr. and Mrs. Cooley, who were clients of EcoLife. He and his wife contracted with Mr. Murray for a complete renovation of the exterior of his home. He testified that Mr. Murray attended his home on January 15, 2018. Mr. Hannon noted that the wrong date had been typed on to the contract, which he pointed out to Mr. Murray. The date was scratched out and corrected. (Mr. Murray agrees with this. He said he used the Cooley contract as a template and forgot to change the date).

481Captain Hannon said that one contract was for windows and the other contract was for the remaining work. When the contract was signed, he paid $20,000 and later Mr. Murray asked for an additional $7,400. He said that the discussion started with windows and later expanded to the full exterior. GreenOn was raised by Mr. Murray. He said he was led to believe that the doors on the home and some exterior siding and insulation would also qualify for GreenOn. When asked in cross what he was told would qualify for GreenOn, he said windows, maybe doors and insulation.

482He said that he had a budget to start and the work quoted was within their budget. When reviewing the contract, he claims to not have known that there was a cost built in for “unforeseen issues” but said that it was written on the contract and he should have known.

483He identified the two additional contracts dated March 10, 2018 and March 30, 2018 as rewritten contracts. He said that they were the same as the January 15, 2018 contracts, but that they had to be rewritten because of a legibility problem. He said that he and his wife signed the rewritten contract dated March 10, 2018 on a different date. He could not remember what date it was. He said that he signed both rewritten contracts after March 30, 2018. A review of the contracts show that one is dated March 10, 2018 and one is dated March 30, 2018, both are signed by Captain and Mrs. Hannon. He said he believed that Mr. Murray told him that the contracts had to be rewritten if he remembered correctly. He said that he signed after March 10, 2018 due to qualifying for GreenOn. He could not remember the conversation about resigning and seemed to remember that Mr. Murray was not at the office when Mr. Hannon and his wife attended to sign the redrafted contracts.

484Captain Hannon said that he gave the second payment of $7,400 in February by way of a bank draft because Mr. Murray wanted more money. When asked what it was for, he said to purchase materials for the renovation work. He said that there was no discussion of a start and end date for the work, but he waited until the spring to start asking about a date. He agreed that his expectation was that it was going to be an open ended contract until the end of the year because he did not know how long the job was going to take. He said that the roof was finished in June of 2018, but nothing else was done. He said that the quality of the work was good and cleanup was satisfactory.

485Captain Hannon waited until August of 2018 to start contacting Mr. Murray about finishing the work because his faith was starting to wane. Several emails were put into evidence. His email contact continued until mid-December of 2018. Then Captain Hannon said that he did not contact Mr. Murray until March 29, 2019, because his work could not have been done during the winter. He contacted Gentek about the windows behind Mr. Murray’s back because he wanted to store the windows at his home. He confirmed that Mr. Murray took him to Gentek and showed him the windows. This is reflected in an email from December 13, 2018, and it references a “productive meeting” with Mr. Murray.

486Captain Hannon got an email regarding his qualifying for GreenOn, but was not provided with an Incentive Number, which he required in order to access the website. In December of 2018, he said Mr. Murray told him not to do anything with the GreenOn application because they had to supply photos. He communicated with Mr. Murray to renegotiate the contract, with a definitive start and end date with penalties built in if the work did not get done on time. He identified a letter that he sent to Mr. Murray on December 10, 2018. The letter does not request a start and finish date with penalties. It asks for a refund if Mr. Murray wanted to retain their business. He later said that he never wanted out of the contract, he just wanted the work done. When confronted with the clear wording of the letter, Captain Hannon insisted that he was not cancelling the contract, he just wanted a start and end date or a refund. When confronted with his email from August of 2018 threatening legal action, as being an attempt to cancel the contract, Mr. Hannon said that that was an interpretation but that was not what he meant. These were serious external inconsistencies.

487When asked if he felt that Mr. Murray was doing his best to work in the situation, Captain Hannon said that it was a fair comment. He confirmed that when GreenOn was cancelled, Mr. Murray was looking into other government rebate programs. He did not remember a conversation with Mr. Murray about the manufacturer of his windows going out of business.

488Captain Hannon agreed that he went to Gentek to see the windows but said that he was not worried about the windows being ordered, he was worried that the windows were not paid for, which does not make sense. He agreed that Mr. Murray never said that he was not going to do the work. He said that he saw a Gentek sales order for his windows in July of 2018.

489Captain Hannon agreed that he was told in the summer of 2018 that Mr. Murray had to send employees for training, which caused some delays. He agreed that he was told in the early summer of 2018 that GreenOn was cancelled, and that potentially Mr. Murray said that this event would cause delays for customers. He claimed to have never seen the terms and conditions on the back of any of the contracts that he signed and was given.

490Mr. Murray said that he first met with Mrs. Hannon and that Captain Hannon was away. She caught the error on the date and changed it and initialed it.

491He said he went back on a different day for the siding contract. He also said that he returned because Gentek was offering a way to show pictures of the house with their model of windows installed.

492He applied for GreenOn approval about a week after his mom died, maybe in the first week of January of 2019.

493He remembered dealing mostly with Mrs. Hannon. Captain Hannon disputes this.

494Mr. Murray said that he was not aware at first that his office staff was asking clients to come to the office and sign rewritten contracts. He became aware that staff were doing this in November of 2018 when he was assisting with submitting the applications for GreenOn. He later said that he became aware late in the summer. This is an inconsistency, but it is really not material.

495Mr. Murray was able to start the roof work in July, because he had a crew available to do that work. It did not require any of his workers who were GreenOn certified, and he recalled the names of the workers he sent. He said that this customer wanted the work for windows and siding to be done all at the same time, but one installer had cancer and the other installer could not do windows but could do siding. Another installer had been hurt and could not work and the windows were not in yet. He said that “he” agreed to wait and was “fine” with that.

496Captain Hannon was told that his job would be installed in 2019, and that there was a different grant program.

497Mr. Murray was challenged about not telling his customers that his licence had been revoked. He said that he told Gagne, Hannons, Cooleys, Lachance and Stratos. He said that anyone who called was told. Myhers knew from the media. When challenged about not telling customers that he had formed another business, he said he told them a business but that they did not yet have the name.

498He agreed that he asked for more than the 25 percent deposit for most jobs, and he agreed and said that it depended on the job. He said that he typically took between 25 to 50 percent.

499He said that most of the GreenOn jobs were sold in January of 2018. He absolutely expected to be able to do this work. He said a few were grandfathered in from the previous year. This is consistent with the evidence of some of the complainants.

500When asked why he was selling GreenOn windows as early as January of 2018, he said he was approved for windows before he was approved for insulation, and he was approved by that date. He checked with the GreenOn program. While this evidence is hearsay, it can go in to explain why Mr. Murray acted in the way that he did. He said that backdating contracts into December had nothing to do with GreenOn, it was to get his clients a better deal. He said he had trained and certified his workers. He could sell but he could not install until he got the final approval, which included the insulation.

501When it was suggested to him that he put his clients off, Mr. Murray said that he did not put them off. He met with them, spoke to them, called them, and told them what was going on.

502He said it was originally a Euroseal contract, switched over to Gentek. There were delays with receiving the windows from Gentek, and he had committed to install the windows in July of 2019 and then lost his licence. He ordered from Euroseal, switched to Gentek and then had to pay for both. He believed it took six months for the windows to come in and it was likely November when they did.

503He said they paid 50 percent of the work not the entire contract. He agreed that it was a reasonable expectation that the work would be done in 2018. He said that the contract was for more like $35,000. In fact, the letter from Captain Hannon on December 10, 2018 says that that total cost was $34,000. Mr. Murray said around this time his communication was less because he was ill, he was dealing with the GreenOn fallout and his mother was in the hospital and ill. He said that he never tried to mislead anybody, he was giving the information that he knew at the time.

504He said that he told Jody Hannon that he had to switch manufacturers and it was only after the roof was installed that he was communicating mostly with Captain Hannon. He remembered stopping where she worked at the Bank of Montreal to talk to her.

505Overall, there is little difference between the evidence of Mr. Murray and Captain Hannon. They differ in that Captain Hannon claims that the contract was backdated and not corrected. Mr. Murray says Jody Hannon caught it as an error and changed it. The contracts show a change to the dates of the contracts and initials, which were identified by Mr. Murray as those of Jody Hannon. Mr. Murray says that most of his initial contact was with Jody Hannon at first and then Captain Hannon after the roof was done. Captain Hannon says that most of the communication was with him and not his wife. Captain Hannon said that he was not told of a change in window manufacturer. Mr. Murray says that he told Jody Hannon.

506Captain Hannon says that he believed that Mr. Murray told him that the contract had to be rewritten, if he remembered correctly, but that Mr. Murray was not in the office when he and his wife attended to sign again. Mr. Murray says that he was not aware of the rewritten contracts until later in the year, and he was not clear on whether it was August or November but did say it was when he was helping the clerical staff in submitting applications.

507Captain Hannon said that he signed the rewritten contracts after March of 2018 to qualify for the GreenOn program. Mr. Murray says that he sold the contract on the basis of GreenOn, which would make the timing January of 2018.

508Where the evidence differs, I have difficulty accepting Captain Hannon’s evidence. His evidence about his efforts to not cancel the contract but to negotiate new terms are not borne out in his letter to Mr. Murray. The letter is clear on this point. As well, if he was simply concerned about the windows being paid for rather than the windows having been ordered, it leaves the question as to why he would make inquiries of Gentek, ask the secretary from EcoLife to show him the work order and then go to Gentek to see his windows.

509Mr .Murray remembers details of his conversations with Mrs. Hannon, and Captain Hannon was sometimes away during these interactions. I accept that Mr. Murray met with Mrs. Hannon and the first contract was signed. I accept that Mr. Murray had conversations with Mrs. Hannon, about which Captain Hannon may have no knowledge, including the change to manufacturer for the windows. I accept that the windows were not received until November of 2018 and, therefore, could not be installed before then. I accept that Mr. Murray was ill, that his mother was dying in hospital and that he was having trouble keeping installers in his employ, which started during the summer months of 2018 and worsened as the year progressed. I accept that the windows could not be installed until into the spring of 2019, at which time, Mr. Murray’s licence was revoked and he was unable to do the work.

510The first document that bears signatures is a Siding and Roofing Quotation, and it has a zero total on it. It appears on the face of it to be a quote and not a contract. It may have been turned into a contract later, but the document put into evidence has no pricing on it at all. The rewritten contracts do not have any amounts owing or cost noted on them. I accept that these contracts were simply rewritten because there were problems with the original contracts being legible. Because Captain Hannon and Mr. Murray both agree that the total amount was $34,000 or $35,000, I infer that there is another contract for work that has not been put into evidence.

Natalie Cooley – December 10, 2017

511Mrs. Cooley identified the two contracts entered into evidence were between her husband Brian Cooley and Mr. Murray. Her name does not appear on the first contract and her signature does not appear on either. Both contracts are dated December 10, 2017. She said that the first contract was between Mr. Murray and Mr. Cooley and not her.

512She said that she did not see an attachment or back page with terms and conditions, but she did not sign the contracts.

513She testified that they had gotten two other quotes before deciding to contract with EcoLife. Mr. Murray’s prices were a little cheaper, and they included soffit and fascia at no charge, which the other’s did not. She said that she did not have a discussion with Mr. Murray about the name of a manufacturer, that she remembered. She did know that the windows were triple pane windows. She did not remember if there was a conversation about the manufacturer, and that the manufacturer had to be approved for the GreenOn rebate program.

514When asked in-chief if she remembered having a conversation with Mr. Murray that the choice of window might affect the manufacturing lead time, which would also affect the installation date she could not remember. The name Euroseal did not mean anything to her, but she said that as far as she knew, the manufacturer was from Sudbury. She did not know how she came to know that the manufacturer was Gentek, but she found that out “later”. She did not remember having any conversation with Mr. Murray about changing manufacturers. She confirmed that her home needed the work done for the roof and the windows.

515She said that the first meeting with Mr. Murray was not in December of 2017 when the contract was dated, and that it was in January of 2018. She identified that the second contract was signed on January 24, 2018. She said that she knew at the time that Mr. Murray had a lot of work already lined up, and that she had no concerns about his ability to complete the job. She testified that they gave a $10,400 deposit for the windows on January 24, 2018 by bank draft. She remembered that Mr. Murray came back to her home on January 25, 2018 and they discussed siding on the garage as well as the house. She did not remember if Mr. Murray went over every single line of the contract, and she did not really look at the contract. She said he had a portable printer with him, and that she was guessing that Mr. Murray added in handwriting some items, and that he was supposed to give them “a proper contract”, but that they never got one.

516She said that Mr. Murray suggested backdating the contracts because the window company he was dealing with had a special deal on the windows in December, and that they would get a better deal if the contract was dated December of 2017. She did not have a concern about that because they just wanted to get their windows at a better price.

517She identified the rewritten contracts as being dated, but that she went into Mr. Murray’s office to sign them in November. She spoke to Mariella. The contents of the conversation with Mariella was not objected to, but it contains hearsay. It is only admissible to explain what Mrs. Cooley did. She signed a blank form at the office and expressed her surprise because she understood that the GreenOn program ended in October. The completed documents were received by Mrs. Cooley by fax on November 7, 2018. She later agreed that she signed the blank document, and it was her request since she had to get back to work not because someone wanted her to sign a blank document.

518She gave two deposits and expected that the deposits were to pay for materials.

519She said that after she signed the contract which included a patio door that Mr. Murray had in his showroom, he contacted her to install it. She said she told him no, that they wanted to wait and have everything done at once. She said that he wanted to do the siding first, and she refused. She later said that she wanted the job to start “…from the beginning right to the end complete, not getting seeming done in …February and then the siding in June and then the windows in the fall, no.” Page 181, line 26, June 18, 2025.

520She confirmed that she was aware that the permit had been issued by contacting Mr. Murray’s office and speaking to Liette. She said that she picked it up in 2019 but was not asked from where and when in 2019 she got it. She confirmed that she specifically asked Mr. Murray to get a building permit because she had a nosy neighbour and she wanted to ensure that everything was in compliance, because she thought a permit was required for either the siding or the windows. She admitted that she filed a complaint to the Better Business Bureau about a homeowner whose job was finished, and hers was signed before theirs. She felt that it was unfair. Mr. Murray confirmed that he and Mr. Cooley spoke about this, and that the homeowner with the finished job had ordered stock windows. That homeowner was not part of GreenOn.

521She confirmed that she was aware from the news and from Mr. Murray that when Doug Ford was elected the Premier of Ontario, he announced that the GreenOn program was cancelled. She was aware that the first deadline was August 31, which was extended to November 30, 2018.

522She said that she pursued a start date from Mr. Murray, but he kept promising in two weeks or two days, but no one ever showed up. She confirmed that Mr. Murray told her that his mother had died. They also discussed the weather being a factor. He also talked about manpower and GreenOn being cause for the delay. She could not remember if she found out that his licence was revoked before or after he was charged, but she became aware of it. She was aware that Mr. Murray could not contact clients.

523She confirmed that Mr. Murray never asked her for more money, and that he never told her that he was not going to do the work. She confirmed that she went to Mr. Murray’s office but did not think that it was in 2019. She could not be certain. She confirmed that right into the spring of 2019, Mr. Murray was trying to find a way to complete the contract.

524Mr. Murray said that he met with the Cooley’s in the third week of January of 2018. He suggested backdating the contract so that he could get 2017 prices. He was either not approved or just approved to sell windows with GreenOn rebates. He agreed that the second contract had handwritten changes because Mrs. Cooley suggested adding siding work for the garage, to match the house. She also wanted to add insulation and other work. He said that Mrs. Cooley brought up GreenOn. Mr. Murray said that she was present when the contract was discussed, but that she left before it was finalized. Mr. Cooley paid the deposit.

525He said he could start right away, but the work was going to depend on installers, and that he had the patio door in stock. It was delayed to May or June at the Cooley’s request because they wanted all the work to be done at once. He said that Jack was sent to measure the windows again in March, likely because GreenOn wanted to ensure that there were no errors. He confirmed that the windows were ordered from Euroseal, and he expected to get them within 12 weeks at the latest. They were never received from Euroseal. They were later received from Gentek. Mr. Murray said that he was in a panic because Euroseal was not delivering windows and not giving him answers. He changed suppliers to Gentek.

526Mr. Murray remembered a conversation with Brian Cooley, in which there was an argument between Mr. Murray and Mr. Cooley about installation, when Mr. Cooley again refused to have the patio door and siding installed in the summer of 2018. Mr. Murray said that he was going to have to bump their job and Mr. Cooley was upset about that. He told Mr. Cooley about the change in manufacturers. He said that windows came in in three or four packages in either September or October.

527Mr. Murray explained that he could have done all the other work on the contract, other than the windows, but Mr. Cooley refused. When he refused, the schedule had to be redone, in order to bump the Cooley job and accommodate someone else’s job. This permitted him to do the work for Mrs. Crossman.

528He had initially trained five installers and certified them for the GreenOn jobs. He lost four during the summer months and trained four more in August of 2018. He just kept losing installers and had to do his best with the workers that he had. He said he kept his workers and customers apprised of what was happening. The customers believed they were excuses but they were reasons.

529On December 10, 2018 she emailed Mr. Murray and asked for a refund. She said that she was hounding Mr. Murray and nothing was getting done. He kept telling her a couple of weeks. Terry was supposed to come and he did not. In an email to Mr. Murray in December she asked for the terms and conditions of the contract. She said that she never met with Mr. Murray again.

530She got an email from the GreenOn program which she deleted. She then got another email and contacted Detective Williams. At his suggestion, she contacted GreenOn and told them that nothing had been done.

531She knew her brother-in-law, Captain Hannon, had contracted with EcoLife and did not know when his roof was done.

532She remembered having a telephone conversation with Jason Neal from SAWDAC in September of 2018.

533She agreed that Mr. Murray told her that his installers had to be certified, and that he was having problems with his employees. She later confirmed that Mr. Murray spoke to Mr. Cooley for the second contract, which was done while she was at work on January 25. She then said that she was at the house when the contract was signed on January 24.

534Mr. Murray was asked if he was still willing to do the work. He said he had been attacked by them, name calling, they called the Better Business Bureau and they called police on him but he was still willing do the job. He was told he could not speak to anyone after his licence was pulled. He said he went to the mayor and to the building department and he was talking to Detective Williams throughout this whole process. He said he was frustrated because it did not matter what he said or did or who he talked to, his clients believed that he was lying to them.

535He later agreed that he had backdated contracts for a group of several named clients in order to protect them for the GreenOn rebates, and one of the names was Cooley. This is a relatively minor inconsistency.

536He insisted that he met with Brian Cooley in his office at the same time he met with Captain Hannon in his office. Natalie Cooley was not there, and Brian Cooley was not called as a witness.

537Mr. Murray said that the application process for GreenOn was a multistep process. The customer had to provide payment in full, proof of payment, and the contractor had to provide documentation such as before and after photos and to ensure that the installers were certified. If the application was started but the work was not done, the application would not be processed. He said that there was nothing wrong with starting the application, even if the work was ultimately not done. The final step was the client certifying that the work had been done and the final payment had been made. That step was not completed for Mrs. Cooley’s job, despite EcoLife starting the application process.

538Overall, there is little difference between the evidence of Mrs. Cooley and that of Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray provided explanation for his actions. Mrs. Cooley agreed that Mr. Murray offered to start her job and to do all but the windows, and it was her choice to turn him down. I accept that the windows were not received by EcoLife before Mrs. Cooley cancelled her job.

Catherine Gagne – March 21, 2018

539This was a GreenOn contract. Mrs. Gagne and her husband had gotten a couple of quotes and decided to go with EcoLife for work on their home. They wanted to replace 9 windows. Mr. Murray took a 50 percent deposit for the windows, which was $4,746. The contract is dated March 27, 2018 and so is the deposit. She could not be certain of the manufacturer that they chose but only knew the type of windows. She thought that it might have been Gentek. She was aware that there were jobs scheduled before hers but expected the work to be done in June. She wanted the work to be done quickly because of the grant program and because of the weather.

540Mrs. Gagne said she let things go for a while and then she started calling and texting. Mr. Murray sometimes responded and sometimes he did not. On December 1, 2018 she got an email from GreenOn and she was surprised because the work had not been done. The email was congratulating her on getting the work done. She did not submit anything to GreenOn because she said Mr. Murray said that it was his responsibility to submit the documentation. She said that she was still willing to give him another $5,000 just to get the job done.

541Mrs. Gagne believed that the windows were never ordered because she went to the Gentek warehouse several times. This is contrary to what Mr. Frattini said. She said that Mr. Murray invited her to go to the warehouse to see if the windows were in, and she and Mr. Murray could not find them. He said that the windows were not in yet. She said that she talked to Darren at Gentek and she did not find her windows. If this is the case, it would have been after EcoLife was no longer operating, but her windows may have been at EcoLife.

542She agreed that there was a back page to the contract, which she gave to counsel. She understood that the terms included a term that the contract was not subject to cancellation. She believed that the windows were hers, even if she did not pay the whole contract because she had paid for the deposit. Therefore in her mind, the windows were hers.

543She agreed that she was in regular contact with Mr. Murray in several ways. She said he was not keeping her up to date, but rather that she was hounding him. She said that Mr. Murray told her that he had lost some employees, that some were installers and that others had to be sent to Toronto to be retrained. When asked about the winter months, she said he told her he still did not have the windows to put on the house. She agreed that the summer was a wet summer. She said that the timeline for completion of the job was a verbal discussion for completion in June.

544She was aware that Mr. Murray’s mother passed away. She agreed that she contacted SAWDAC, the government, her MPP at the suggestion of Mr. Murray.

545She went to a home around the corner from her home with Mr. Murray, to see a jobsite at the suggestion of Mr. Murray. She saw some workers installing windows. She did not know who the workers were, but Mr. Murray told her it was an EcoLife jobsite.

546Mr. Murray testified that he went to Ms. Gagne’s house to sign the contract, which was amended later because she wanted changes. He said he probably told her that the work would be done by July or August, because he expected the wait time would be the standard 8 to 12 weeks. The contract was with Euroseal, because the package that was ordered was only available through them. Gentek did not offer the same jambs, casing and frames as indicated on the contract.

547He said he did not know how long the windows were going to take, and then he had to switch manufacturers when he could not get answers. He said he had no idea how bad it was at the time. He had done this work for 30 years and had a 20 year relationship with Euroseal. When he changed manufacturers, her job went back in the queue. He said that he was able to do all the foam and insulation jobs because there were no problems getting those supplies. The windows were the problem. He said if his licence was not suspended, he would have finished this job. He agreed that he went to Gentek three or four times with Ms. Gagne to see if her windows were in. After his licence was suspended Mr. Murray said he notified several clients that his wife was trying to form Maple Ridge, and he thought Ms. Gagne may have been told.

548He said that he was completing other jobs, while waiting for the windows to come in, and then to get to these window jobs.

549He said that he gave a potential completion date of June of 2018 for this job, and others because he did not know how big the surge was and that there was going to be a problem with suppliers. He was asked if he gave a completion date of the first week of June and said no. He admitted that there was no completion date on the contract, and that he would never give a firm completion date. He knew that the manufacturers were busy, but he did not know how bad it was. He said he gave an approximate date, because he had to wait for the product and then schedule the job.

550He confirmed that in a text message he asked for a copy of her contract. He said that it might have been lost in all the confusion, but it was found, and he confirmed that the windows had been ordered about 10 days after the contract was signed, to permit the client time to cancel. The windows were originally ordered from Euroseal and then switched to Gentek in June. He confirmed that he offered a discount to her because of the delays.

551He said the manufacturing delays and the effect of the GreenOn cancellation was all over the news. It caused a huge public outcry. That was why he referred Ms. Gagne to SAWDAC and to her MPP.

552When confronted with the text messages from December of 2018, Mr. Murray said he was very ill and responding from his bed. He was not “blowing her off”.

553He admitted to conversing with Ms. Gagne after his licence was suspended. He said the rules were not clear about what he could and could not do, and he may have had a brief conversation early on during the suspension. He disagreed that he had earlier said that he had communicated with clients after he had a conversation with Mr. Adair from the City of Sudbury. This is clearly contrary to his earlier evidence.

554He insisted that the windows had been ordered from Gentek, and that maybe they were still in the queue or being held back by Gentek, and that it was out of his control.

555Regarding submitting the GreenOn application, Mr. Murray said that he had brought on many members of his family to process applications, hoping that the installations would happen in time for the client to get rebates. There were mistakes made and when he realized that an application had been submitted that was not appropriate, he told the client to not respond.

556Overall, there is little discrepancy between Mr. Murray’s and Ms. Gagne’s evidence. I accept that Ms. Gagne’s windows had to be reordered from Gentek, because Euroseal was not giving delivery dates and not delivering product. The windows were delayed for manufacture, given Mr. Frattini’s evidence. Mr. Murray confirmed that he attended Gentek with Ms. Gagne several times to see if her windows were in yet. The winter interrupted that, and then in the spring of 2019 Mr. Murray said the weather delayed work, and then his licence was suspended. I accept all of that.

Robin Cameron – April 2018

557This was a GreenOn contract. Mrs. Cameron said that she and her husband were looking to replace some windows on their home, so they stopped into Mr. Murray’s company’s storefront and left their name and number. Mr. Murray met with them in their home.

558Despite the contract having a date in April of 2018, Mrs. Cameron said that she remembered that their meeting was after the first week of July, when they were on vacation. The contract shows April 9 and April 14, 2018, and she was not sure why the dates were different, but that Mr. Murray said that the contract had to be backdated in order to qualify for GreenOn. She said that she did not know anything about GreenOn until Mr. Murray told her about it.

559She said he told her that April was the cutoff, and the paperwork had to be in by July 9, 2018. She said she and her husband paid a deposit of $1,000 by cheque toward the over $7,000 contract. The cheque was cashed on July 10, 2018. She said that when they had not heard anything by August, she and her husband started contacting Mr. Murray. He responded and told her how busy he was. She said he had to sit her down and tell her how busy he was. The last contact she had with Mr. Murray was that the windows were not in yet, and they had until late fall to install them. She was familiar with the storefront as she passed it every day on her way to work. She thought maybe the storefront had been there for a year, but she was not sure. She said that she pursued a civil claim, and that she reached out to the police to lay a charge.

560She and her husband sold the house and moved in December of 2018. She remembered that her husband received a phone call on December 10, 2018 when asked if she got a phone call from Mr. Murray’s son. She did not remember a back page or another page to the contract. She did not ask for the windows to be given to her because she no longer owned the home. She said that Mr. Murray may have mentioned problems with the government program, but she could not remember.

561Mr. Murray said that the date on the contract was probably a stupid mistake, and he agreed that they met in July of 2018. When asked if there was a purpose to backdating the contract, he said that there had been an extension of the GreenOn program, and he was afraid that the client would not qualify, so he backdated. This was based on past experience with grant programs. He said that Ms. Cameron was definitely aware of the backdating. He was not concerned about completing the job before the end of October, which was the cutoff date for the extension, because he could always go to another grant program being offered by the City of Sudbury. He was pushing for December of 2018 or January 2019.

562He said that Ms. Cameron stopped by his office a couple of times. Her office was about 300 feet away. She last stopped by in 2019. He agreed that there was a conversation with her in October of 2018, where she was inquiring about her windows. She told him that they were selling the house. He said no one had mentioned it to him before that, and that he still did not have the product. He instructed his son to call a number of customers in December of 2018 to try to schedule installations. He discovered that the house was sold and now he was now stuck with custom windows for which he had only been paid a deposit.

563Mr. Murray identified the Regency Window notation on the contract as being a Gentek product. He said he would have just recently had the conversation with Darren Frattini from Gentek, who promised windows in less than12 weeks, so he would have told Ms. Cameron that her windows would likely have been installed in September. He identified Ms. Cameron’s contract as 6 regency windows and knew because there was no jamb extensions.

564He agreed that he sold this job after the cancellation was announced but said that there was a grace period. He believed that he was protecting his clients by backdating the contract, and that he had other grant programs that could be accessed if they missed out on this program. He said that there was a lot of confusion about the cancellation of the program, and that there had been an extension.

565He denied that he continued selling GreenOn jobs because he was greedy and knew that he could not possibly fulfill these contracts. He said that if he was greedy he could have continued to sell GreenOn jobs into August and September and he did not. He said that the government announced that no one would lose money on the program, and he believed them.

566He said at the time of the first announcement, Doug Ford was not yet sworn in and, therefore, was not in power. He said that the information was unclear and there was a lot of uncertainty. He said he backdated the contract to April because he did not know what the government was going to do, and he was trying to protect his client. At the time, he believed that selling the contract on that date was allowed and that he was doing nothing wrong. He also said that the clients were aware, and that if they were not accepted for this program, he would try another grant program.

567There is nothing controversial about either Ms. Cameron’s or Mr. Murray’s evidence.

Judy Strato – April 2, 2018

568This was a GreenOn contract. Judy Strato met with Mr. Murray on April 2, 2018 and got a quote to replace 10 windows. She then got other quotes for the same windows. She knew about the GreenOn Program, and David Murray told her his company was GreenOn certified. She did not remember if there was a back page to the quote which she said she considered to be a contract. She believed that they met about six weeks later, and she committed to EcoLife. Mr. Murray came to her house, they agreed, and Mr. Murray asked for a 50 percent deposit for the windows. They went right to the bank and got a bank draft for $9,400. Mr. Murray followed her to the bank. It was about a five minute drive from her home. She said from the beginning Mr. Murray said that the windows would be installed in late July or early August and it would take about five days. She said that she wanted it done ASAP.

569When nothing happened in July she said she started calling Mr. Murray in August. Mr. Murray was reassuring her that he would get there, and she kept on getting the same message as time went on. He said that he had difficulty getting the windows and that there was a backlog in getting the windows from the manufacturer. She said by November winter was coming, and he told her that her job would be delayed until spring. She said that many times he would not answer when she called, so she called from another phone and he answered. She could not remember if Mr. Murray ever gave her an alternate phone number to reach him.

570She said he became quite frustrated with her in November and again in the spring. Mr. Murray told her that his company had to close because of the lack of rent payments, his grandmother died, he was under a lot of stress, and the excuses started. She was not being rude, and he was tired of her phone calls, and he was tired of her asking for an installation date. Around that time, she heard of the gathering of people downtown who were also included in some of EcoLife’s problems.

571She inquired with a lawyer regarding suing but did not actually sue. She said that she was never asked to fill out paperwork for GreenOn.

572She thought the existing windows in her house were single pane Pella windows, and she agreed that the windows she was ordering were superior. She said he came with a brochure for Regency windows. She believed that the brochure had the name Gentek on it. She was aware that the GreenOn rebate required triple pane windows. She did not recognize the name Euroseal but believed that her windows were going to be coming from Toronto.

573She agreed that the EcoLife contract was the highest of the three quotes that she received before contrating with EcoLife. She was aware of work that EcoLife did for a neighbour, but not at the time she gave Mr. Murray the bank draft. She agreed that the contract had no start or completion dated noted on it and no estimate of the time needed to complete the job. She said Mr. Murray did not coerce or threaten her to hand over the bank draft.

574She could not say when she became aware of the cancellation of the GreenOn program but that it might have been in 2019. She did not read anything in the papers about the GreenOn delays in the media. When talking about the timeline, she said that the other two quotes she got stated four to six weeks for delivery for their windows, and that was where she got the information about delivery date.

575She denied that Mr. Murray said that there were delays with the manufacturer but then said that Mr. Murray told her that he was overloaded and that they had back orders. This is also contrary to what she had said moments before. She described Mr. Murray as being frustrated with her phone calls. He never swore or threatened her. He got angry. When asked if his frustration was explained by Mr. Murray, she said he had deaths in the family, the EcoLife building being closed, he had family issues, a new baby, so there were many frustrations expressed.

576She agreed that the weather in the winter of 2018 and spring of 2019 was wet and snowy. She said November was a very cold and snowy month.

577She said that he stopped answering her calls in the spring of 2019, but he answered when she called from a different number. She was aware that the licence was suspended. She agreed that Mr. Murray and a lady came to her house in the spring of 2019. She believed that the woman’s name was Pamala and believed that she said she was his wife. She said that “she” said that “she” was not allowed to speak to anyone involved in the situation, and that his wife would do the talking. She said Mr. Murray never told her his wife was taking over the contract. They didn’t ask for any more money. This was the first and last time she saw this woman and she never heard from Mr. Murray afterward.

578She remembered calling Gentek and speaking to Darren. She agreed that Darren told her that they had too many windows to be able to confirm her order for her. She agreed that Mr. Murray never said that he was not going to do the work.

579Mr. Murray believed that he may have started with Euroseal for this contract, and that the notation of Regency windows might have been a mistake. He remembered dealing mostly with Mrs. Strato’s husband, Stan, and bringing a cross-section to the house for Stan. He remembered that Mr. Strato sat at the table the entire time, and that Mrs. Strato would get up and walk around so she was not present for some of the conversation. He later said that he could tell it was a Euroseal contract and that after the quote was given, he had a conversation about the jamb. The name should have been changed, and it was an error.

580He remembered double checking the measurement for each window on the day that they decided to proceed. He said he might have told them that the windows would be installed in early fall, but that he did not know how long it would take to get the windows. He said historically, every year as the manufacturers got busy moving from spring into the summer, the lead time for production would get longer.

581Prior to this he had rarely sold Gentek windows and thought that this job may have started as a Euroseal job and then switched to Gentek, which caused delays.

582He said that there was a delay with windows arriving, large orders were coming in every two weeks, at the time of the contract the election had not happened yet, there were many jobs ahead of hers and there were scheduling problems. He said that they just did not get to her job.

583Mr. Murray testified that he talked to Ms. Strato and explained the reason for the delays. He called her a nice lady. He said that his company was caught up in this. He always believed that he could do the work. In that late fall it became clear that the further extension would not be granted. He was still waiting for the product to come in and he was still willing to do the job. He said he could not have foreseen that the winter would be the worst winter in 30 years.

584He consulted with a lawyer after his licence was suspended. He said he felt like he was being sucked into a twister with this stupid program. He said he was going to start over again, when he could not get his licence reinstated. He had done it once before, and he intended to do it again. His wife met with the Stratos and the Myhers. He wanted to give his son a company to take over. He had worked in the industry for 30 years.

585He did not think that he spoke to Ms. Strato after his licence was suspended because he had spoken to some clients, and what he said was being reported on Facebook. He did not want to get into any more trouble.

586There is nothing controversial about the evidence of Ms. Strato and Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray said that this was a job that they just could not get to, and I accept that. The delivery of windows may have been delayed by a switch of manufacturers, but that is not clear. Mrs. Strato was clearly aware of the delays in receiving product, because she said she was told that. She later said that she was not told. It was her impression that Mr. Murray was doing whatever he could to do this work.

Eric Lachance – April 2, 2018

587This contract was a GreenOn contract. Mr. Lachance knew Mr. Murray, as their sons went to school together. They had gone to some of the same parties and knew each other. Mr. Lachance wanted some windows to be replaced and had heard about GreenOn. He had also heard that Doug Ford was going to cancel the program if he was elected. He was going away in the summer and wanted to have the job lined up, so he contacted Mr. Murray in May of 2018. He said that Mr. Murray came to his home on May 23, 2018 and they entered into a contract and he gave Mr. Murray a certified cheque. He said that the contract was backdated to April 2, 2018. He was aware that the contract was being backdated, and he said he was told that Mr. Murray had another window order for the same date and this order was tied with that one. He thought that the name Regency was the brand name for the windows but was not sure. He did not remember Mr. Murray mentioning directly the brand of windows. He also wanted doors to be replaced as well as a side lite.

588He said he was gone for July and August. A neighbour had a key. He was expecting installation by September. When asked if Mr. Murray explained the GreenOn program, he said that Mr, Murray talked about the need to provide hydro and gas bill, and once the windows were installed, photos had to be sent to GreenOn to show that the job was done.

589After making multiple attempts to transfer funds electronically, he borrowed $3,000 from his wife’s small business and wrote a cheque for $9,000, which paid the invoice in full. The invoice is marked paid in full. In the text messages, Mr. Murray expressed his gratitude that the invoice had been paid in full, and that it took pressure off of him.

590He said that his wife had to make some decisions about the door, and then he went away on vacation. When he came back he started making inquiries about the windows. The text messages establish that the final decision about the door was made on May 23, 2018.

591On June 20, 2018 Mr. Lachance asked if his windows would be installed before the end of August, because of the cancellation of the GreenOn program. The next text is dated September 9, 2018, in which Mr. Lachance is again asking when his windows will be installed.

592When he asked, Mr. Murray told him that there were some delays from GreenOn, he said that there was a lot of demand on windows, and that they were still waiting for the windows to come in into October of 2018. They had an earlier winter which made it difficult to do installation. Then as time went on the weather warmed up again, and he contacted Mr. Murray and asked what is going on. He saw some issues with Mr. Murray’s licence which needed clarification, and then he had to bring in his hydro and gas bill.

593He confirmed that on May 23, 2018 Mr. Murray did not explain any issues with delays in ordering windows. This makes sense, since Mr. Murray did not have the conversation with Mr. Frattini until later.

594He asked again in late September, and Mr. Murray sent to Mr. Lachance a copy of a post from WindowWise and SAWDAC explaining about the delays and cancellation of GreenOn. When Mr. Lachance pressed Mr. Murray for a date for installation before October 31, 2018, which was the last date for installation, Mr. Murray said technically they had until November because there were no auditors.

595On November 21, 2018, Mr. Murray asked Mr. Lachance to bring in the rebate paperwork. Mr. Lachance identified that as the request by Mr. Murray to bring in his hydro and gas bill. He continued to talk to Mr. Murray in the late winter and early spring of 2019. He then started communicating with Mr. Murray over Facebook because his cell phone was not working. He started seeing in the news that Mr. Murray’s licence was pulled and then when he went to the office, he saw a bailiff’s notice.

596Mr. Lachance got a letter from GreenOn by email congratulating him on having his work done and asking for confirmation. He did not respond to the email.

597He agreed that Mr. Murray told him that he was not making any money on the contract. He was aware that there was a large increase in volume of window orders because of the GreenOn program, and he said that there was a lot in the media about that. He said that when he ordered Mr. Murray did not tell him that there would be delays because of the volume of orders, but they had that conversation afterward.

598He confirmed that he did not follow the steps for the GreenOn approval, because he did not have any proof that the windows had been installed.

599He knew that Mr. Murray’s licence had been suspended in April of 2019, but Mr. Lachance believed that he could contact Mr. Murray. In his contact with Mr. Murray, on May 25, 2019, he was telling Mr. Murray that unless Mr. Murray delivered the windows and the entry door to him by May 29, 2018 he would be contacting the police. He said that he knew Mr. Murray could not communicate with him. He then contacted the police.

600He said that he was not aware that the manufacturer of his contract had switched, and he confirmed that Mr. Murray was consistent in stating he was going to do the work.

601He had a vague recollection that Mr. Murray’s wife was going to set up a company with his wife. Mr. Murray did not ask him for more money. He confirmed that Mr. Murray told him that he was trying to get his licence reinstated.

602Mr. Murray said that he was shocked that Mr. Lachance and others were being contacted into December and January after GreenOn was cancelled. He said that this shows that there were no firm deadlines. His son and others in the office were filing the paperwork for all the GreenOn contracts. His son was 14 years old. He saw nothing wrong with putting his son in charge of filing this paperwork.

603Mr. Murray said his first contact was with Mrs. Lachance, who wanted work done on her office and he said he was too busy. He agreed that the contract with Mr. Lachance was backdated, but Doug Ford was not elected yet. He did it so that the customer wouldn’t lose out on the grants. Mr. Murray confirmed that there were no changes made to the contract after it was signed. The contract says regency triple pane windows. He said they may have discussed brands and Mr. Lachance had to talk to his wife, who was not present during their conversation. He expected to be able to install the windows by September, but the windows were not in by that point. Mr. Murray said that he was going to piggy back this order on another order, which would then make the product cheaper.

604He believed that the windows came in either October or November. When the windows come in the job gets put into a queue system and the jobs got scheduled. He said that the job would have been scheduled for the winter or early spring. He talked to Mr. Lachance to tell him. The winter was bad and then he lost his licence and was charged.

605He said he was installing in the fall, but he just could not get to Mr. Lachance’s job. The only thing he could have done differently to get the job done, was to forego the grants and just put any of his workers on the job. But the certification handcuffed him.

606There is not anything other than what has already been noted that is controversial about either Mr. Lachance’s evidence or Mr. Murray’s evidence. This was a GreenOn contract that EcoLife simply could not reach.

Anne Lamega – April 6, 2018

607This was a GreenOn contract. Ms. Lamega said that she had seen signs from EcoLife on some homes in the neighbourhood and she wanted to have some work done. She contacted them. She said when Mr. Murray came to her home, he talked about the GreenOn grant coming to an end. The total for the invoice was $14,000. She planned to give him a deposit of $2,000 and then she got a loan for $10,000 through Snap Financial. She had not heard of Snap Financial before talking to Mr. Murray.

608The contract is dated April 2, 2018 and she said she met with him that same day. She said that Mr. Murray had the paperwork for Snap and he helped fill it in. She said Mr. Murray told her that he was too busy in the summer and that her job was scheduled to be done in the fall. She said she gave him a cheque for $2,000 the day that she signed the contract. He called her the next day and said he needed another $2,000, so she gave him the second cheque. She identified her cheques but said that she did not certify the cheques. Her first payment on the Snap Loan was on June 21, 2018, and she made monthly payments afterwards. She stopped paying to Snap in May of 2019 when someone from Snap contacted her. Her payments were $277.78 per month.

609She called Mr. Murray and the office many times. Sometimes she spoke to Mr. Murray, sometimes she spoke to office staff. She said that at some point in November someone from EcoLife’s office came to her house to measure her square footage. She said that she never got her windows and they were never installed. She said that the contract had a back page, with terms and conditions. She said that Mr. Murray did not point out the terms and conditions.

610She was contacted by someone from GreenOn on January 10, 2019. She believed that Mr. Murray was supposed to send in all the paperwork for GreenOn, and that she did not do it. Ms. Lamega said that she did not try to cancel the contract. She did ask that the windows be given to her.

611When asked about the reasons Mr. Murray gave her for not completing the contract, she said that he said he did not have enough staff, the weather was too cold, his truck broke down so could not do anything, he was sick, he said his mother died but she did not know if she believed that because everything he told her turned out to be lie.

612She said that she did not know his licence was suspended in April of 2019 and did not know that he was not supposed to talk to clients. She said that the Snap Loan was to be a zero percent loan.

613Mr. Murray recalled measuring the windows in April of 2018. He believed that his mother-in-law was with him at the time. They talked about the contract, and he went back to his office to write it up. He believed that Ms. Lamega went into the office to sign and brought the deposit. The windows were supposed to be installed in August or September. He said that when he offered a zero percent interest rate, which he did for seniors, the amount that would reflect the interest would be reduced from the loan proceeds paid to him. On a $10,000 loan, EcoLife would receive maybe $8,000 or $8,200.

614At the time he entered into the contract, Mr. Murray said that he was not aware of the manufacturer delays and shortages of glass. He said that the contract was not completed because the windows did not come in, in time. He said windows started coming in, in batches in late September, October and November. Some came in, in January. He kept losing installers and had to train new ones. The weather caused problems and winter came early. He said his workers were doing their best, they were always installing when they had the product. The cancellation of the GreenOn program caused delays. They just did not get to this job, but they were doing their best. They did install a lot of jobs. He did not know that the GreenOn rebates program was going to be cancelled when he signed the contract, but he was leery because “the government is always pulling the rug” out from under contractors and consumers and that risks happen.

615He said that all clients got the terms and conditions pages, because his forms were printed with them. If he used his printer, the printer printed out the page with terms and conditions. He followed that practice with every witness on every contract.

616He said that when he signed up as a dealer with Snap Financial, they did their due diligence. He said that Anna Lamega asked him about financing when she did not have enough to cover the entire contract. He said he did not refund Ms. Lamega’s money and did not finish the work. He intended to do the work, and he was in contact with P.C. Williams for over a year regarding the unfinished work. He identified the contract as a Regency contract, which meant Gentek.

617When asked in cross-examination if he backdated this contract from June, he said that he knew he went to quote the job in April but did not think he backdated the contract. He said that Ms. Lamega knew his mother-in-law and spoke to her rather than to him. He said that when the contract was signed he did not know about the shortages. If she called and he did not call back, he would have directed his staff to call her. He instructed his staff to give a consistent message to all of his clients to keep them informed.

618When asked if he told her in August that everything was fine, he said he told his clients the reality, that it was chaos and the cancellation of the program was causing a collapse. It was confusion and the whole industry was pushing for extension of the program. He said that as late as October he still did not have the windows, they were installing another 50 jobs, and they were hopeful that there would be an extension so that they could finish all of the jobs. He said that he helped Ms. Lamega get a Snap loan for the remaining balance of half down and the rest of the contract. Snap would not just finance the down payment, they would only give a loan for the balance. He said that the contract clearly shows to him that he quoted the job as a Euroseal job, but that when Ms. Lamega came with another $2,000 for the downpayment, he told her that he had to change manufacturers to Gentek and he told her that and wrote it on the contract.

619He could not remember when her windows came in because he had over 300 windows come in over time.

620There is nothing controversial in the evidence between Mrs. Lamega and Mr. Murray. This was a job that EcoLife just could not get to.

Tony Nash – April 4, 2018

621Mr. Nash said that one of his neighbours was having work done and talking about the GreenOn program. Mr. Murray showed up around 5 p.m. and they started talking. He said that they were talking in the backyard about the rebate program, and how it might end soon. Mr. Murray measured the windows and gave him a good price. They had replaced windows before but not the big picture window or four basement windows. The receipt of the GreenOn grant was the main factor in agreeing. He said that he met with Mr. Murray on June 6, 2018, despite the contract being dated April 4, 2018. He believed that it was June because it was late in the summer. He had to give a deposit and could only do it in $3,000 increments, so they gave him a cheque. The cheque for $5,500 is dated May 6, 2018 and there is an etransfer of $3,000 dated June 6, 2018. The total cost on the contract dated April 4, 2018 is $11,700. It shows deposits paid of $5,500, with a balance owing of $6,200. There is a notation on the side which notes deposits of $850 and a balance owing of $3,200. These notations are not dated, and the amounts owing and calculations appear to be struck through.

622He decided to give a bigger deposit, because he would get a better price. He said that they discussed start and finish dates, and the contract shows estimated start and finish dates of August/September 2018. Mr. Nash clearly met with Mr. Murray before June, given the date of the cheque.

623He said that he wanted the job done before winter and it was a main factor. Mr. Nash said that he waited about three months and then started making inquiries. He got a bunch of excuses, like illnesses and problems in the family. He said he confronted Mr. Murray in his office and said that he did not believe that the windows had actually been ordered. He was given a document that showed that the windows had been ordered on April 5, 2018 but he did not believe it because he only contracted with Mr. Murray in June. The first three letters of his name are noted on the contract under “customer PO#”.

624He said that he went right to the police station after this because Mr. Murray did not want him to leave the office with the document and then he pushed Mr. Nash. Mr. Nash ended up talking to the fraud department. He said he did not know why the cheque was dated May, and that there was an error on the cheque that the bank caught, and his wife had to initial. There are initials next to the figures on the cheque dated May 5, 2018, and the cheque is certified. Clearly, when the change was made the cheque was certified. The date on the cheque is not changed. Clearly Mr. Nash is wrong about the date that he met with Mr. Murray, and he cannot be correct about meeting with Mr. Murray in June.

625He kept trying to communicate with Mr. Murray and asked for the windows. Mr. Murray’s company did some window installations on his neighbours, and he expected that his house would be next. That did not happen and he was upset.

626He eventually was contacted by someone from Gentek, and he purchased his windows from Gentek at about $2,500. They first said that they would give them to him “at cost” for about $8,000 or $8,200, but he refused. He said that he “cancelled” with GreenOn by telling them that the work had not been done.

627He agreed that there had been no changes to the contract from the time that he had signed it. First he said that it was backdated to ensure that he would get the GreenOn grant, and then he said that he was never told about the date not being accurate. He then said that Mr. Murray told him that the contract was being backdated so that he would qualify for GreenOn. His evidence was inconsistent on this point.

628He then said that he did not even know if he was going to get the GreenOn grants. He said that if his windows had been installed, he would have paid the difference, even if he did not get the grant. He then said that he did not know why the contract was backdated, and then that he thought the contract was backdated by about a month from the date that his wife gave him the cheque. He then said that he thought GreenOn was only for insulation and not windows. He said Mr. Murray did not offer another grant program.

629He insisted that the sales order was dated two months before he even knew about EcoLife, and the order form cannot be correct. He acknowledged that Mr. Murray told him about employee problems. He agreed that he knew that workers had to be trained. He believed that there was some kind of labour dispute.

630He said that he knew he was signing a “false” document at the time that he signed the contract, specifically regarding the date, and then he said that Mr. Murray told him that it was just to get the rebate and it was nothing to worry about. He agreed that Mr. Murray never told him that he was not going to perform he contract.

631Mr. Nash’s evidence was replete with internal inconsistencies regarding the date of the contract and when he knew about the GreenOn program. He reported Mr. Murray to police about an assault and talked to the fraud department. I find that Mr. Nash’s evidence is imprecise and completely unreliable.

632Mr. Murray said that the contract was signed on June 6, 2018, and that Mr. Nash knew that it was backdated to make it easier to get the GreenOn grant. In any event, he was eligible at the time of the forming of the contract. Mr. Murray remembered standing in Mr. Nash’s driveway and talking because they discussed that one of Mr. Murray’s workers quit EcoLife to work at Mr. Nash’s company.

633He said that he took Mr. Nash to Gentek to show him the windows that had been ordered. Mr. Murray said that Mr. Nash was one of the last ones to jump on board with the program. When the windows did not come in as expected and he lost out on the GreenOn grant, he offered other grant programs and installation in 2019. He said that they talked about the delays related to GreenOn jobs before Mr. Nash signed the contract. He said that Mr. Nash tried to cancel a couple of times, the last time was in 2019.

634Mr. Murray insisted that Mr. Nash’s contract started out at as a Euroseal contract and noted that only Euroseal was offering the referenced vinyl casing that was noted. The contract had to be switched from Euroseal to Gentek. Mr. Murray did not know why the order form is dated April of 2018 when he did not sell the windows until June of 2018, but he said that the order form proves he was ordering product.

635Mr. Murray said that Mr. Frattini’s evidence supports that the windows were coming in up to six months after they were ordered. Mr. Nash believed that they had lied about whether or not the windows had been ordered. Mr. Murray believed that he was the reason that SAWDAC put out a press release, because there was an incident between Mr. Nash’s neighbour and Mr. Nash. He said that Mr. Nash was upset that his windows were not done right after his neighbours, but the neighbour signed up in 2017.

636Mr. Murray talked about his order system and the board that showed scheduling. Some colours identified particular installers. Mr. Murray said that his staff made mistakes and things slipped through the cracks. Ultimately, he is the owner and he takes full responsibility. He said they were overwhelmed and made mistakes. Mr. Murray said that he was not aware of all of the problems ordering and receiving product until Mid-June. He said that annually, there was a slowdown when ordering product late in the spring and summer, which was not a surprise but that delays were longer and longer and Euroseal was not giving him firm delivery dates. Mr. Murray said he switched suppliers around the end of June, when Darren was able to give him more firm deadlines for receipt.

637He said he believed that Mr. Nash’s windows came in, in late October. Mr. Nash assumed that his windows would be installed right after his neighbours, and that was never promised to him.

638He said that Mr. Nash was wrong about the GreenOn application. The installer never signed off on the job, the photos were not submitted and there was nothing to tell GreenOn that the job was complete. He said that there were many steps to the process and it was not finished.

639Contrary to what Mr. Nash claimed, Mr. Murray said he never told Mr. Nash to falsify the GreenOn claim as being completed. He said that Mr. Nash was lying about that. He said that Mr. Nash had come to his office screaming at his staff about his GreenOn rebate, so his claim that he did not care about the rebate was false.

640Regarding Mr. Nash’s claim that Mr. Murray pushed him, Mr. Murray said that it was false. Mr. Nash came to his office, was screaming and swearing in front of Mr. Murray’s 14 year old son, so Mr. Murray escorted him out. Mr. Nash walked into him and not the other way around. He showed the police the video footage from the cameras inside the business to prove that he never pushed Mr. Nash. Mr. Murray was not charged with assaulting Mr. Nash.

641Mr. Murray said he did not look at the document that was given to Mr. Nash. He only handed to Mr. Nash the copy that the secretary gave to him. He did not know why things were blacked out, and he could not answer why the date was April 5, 2018. When I look at the order form, the date could either be April 5, 2018 or May 4, 2018. It is simply digits without demarcating which is month and which is day. At the bottom, there is a notation that says, “Branch delivery date 10/02/2018”. This would suggest an estimated delivery date of at least 5 months for the windows to be received at Gentek’s branch. I find that Mr. Murray is incorrect about the contract being signed in June, based on the order form. There is nothing in the order form that appears to have been altered. It verifies that Mr. Nash’s order was submitted to Gentek probably in May of 2018.

642Mr. Murray admitted that his communication with Mr. Nash in December of 2018 was limited. He said that he was ill and his mother was in the hospital. The weather was horrible and that continued into the new year. He then laid off staff because they could not work.

643I find that this is a job that EcoLife just could not get to, given the delivery of windows, the poor weather in November and the overwhelm of EcoLife workers.

Paul and Mary Anne Facendi – April 25, 2018

644This is a GreenOn contract. Mr. Facendi is Mr. Murray’s wife’ uncle. He saw work that Mr. Murray did on Mr. Facendi’s brother’s home and wanted to have some work done on his own.

645He remembered that he and Mr. Murray discussed some work to be done at his daughter’s wedding party, and Mr. Murray came over the next day. The party was in July and not in April. The contract that he signed was dated April 25, 2018, but the Snap Loan document is dated July 12, 2018 for a loan for $18,000. He believed that Mr. Murray came over on July 8 or July 9, 2018. He gave a deposit of $1,500. The work that was to be done was to extend eaves, roofing, siding and Enershield insulation among other work.

646He claimed that he did not notice that the date at the top of the contract was April 25, 2018 and not the July date until later that night. He then said that Mr. Murray told him to backdate the contract in order to qualify for the GreenOn rebate, which was going to end in July. This was an inconsistency. He then said that he thought that maybe backdating the contract would put his job ahead of others, but he was not sure about that. The $1,500 deposit was paid by cheque. The cheque is dated April 28, 2018 and it was certified on July 9, 2018. Mr. Facendi said that he dated the cheque the same day that it was processed on, which is clearly incorrect. There is a Snap Loan Equal Payment Agreement which references siding, and it is dated July 10, 2018. It bears Mr. Facendi’s initials and signature. He then said that the contract was backdated to allow for an application to GreenOn, and that he knew that. Based on all of this evidence, Mr. Facendi clearly knew that the contract was backdated when it was written. Mr. Murray agreed that the contract was backdated.

647Mr. Facendi knew about the GreenOn grants but thought that they were just for windows.

648He said that the only money that was paid by him was for the extra stone work. From this evidence, I infer that the “deposit” of $1,500 was for work not reflected on the contract that Mr. Facendi wanted to have done.

649Regarding the Snap Loan, Mr. Facendi said that he agreed to finance the job. He could not pull money from the bank so he had to finance it, and Mr. Murray suggested the Snap Loan. He did not apply for the Snap Loan on the same date as he signed the contract. He said that Mr. Murray processed the application. He said that Mr. Murray filled out the application. He said that he signed the acknowledgement page, which meant that the work was completed, in order for Mr. Murray to get paid so he could start work at his house. He first said that no one explained this document to him, and then he said that Mr. Murray explained it to him. The loan application clearly bears Mr. Facendi’s initials and signature. I find that he knowingly signed the loan application.

650There are three contracts, each reflecting the same work. Mr. Facendi signed each contract. Mr. Murray signed each contract. Mr. Facendi said that the first one was just for a quote. He did not know about the others but believed that another was for ordering materials and one was for the grant. He did say that he attended EcoLife offices to sign them.

651He said that no work was done on the house. Not the roof, not the siding, not the insulation. He started contacting Mr. Murray in August of 2018 to inquire about the work. He said that Mr. Murray told him that he had manpower issues and that the weather was a problem. Mr. Facendi volunteered that the winter was brutal.

652Mr. Facendi said that the only communication that he received from GreenOn was a letter and a cheque. He took that money and got the work done himself.

653At one point Mr. Facendi said that he was aware that Mr. Murray said that he did not want to do the work, and that he would refund the money.

654Mr. Facendi talked about a patio door that he had installed by Mr. Murray’s company. He said that it was installed around Thanksgiving, but it was the wrong door. He insisted that the door was never fixed to open the correct way.

655He remembered that there was a back page to the contract, entitled Terms and Conditions.

656Mr. Facendi agreed that the handwriting on the first contract in Tab 1 of Exhibit 37 appears to be different than the second contract. He said that he saw Mr. Murray fill out the first contract, then he said he believed that David Murray filled it out as far as he knew but did not see it.

657He agreed that no contract had a start and finish date, and that he was told that Mr. Murray was very busy, but he thought that two months was a reasonable delay.

658He agreed that until Mr. Murray said on April 15, 2019 that he was not willing to do the work, that he was saying that the weather was causing the delay. He said that Mr. Murray never mentioned the death of his mother. Mr. Facendi said that the weather was brutal and that there was snow until March of 2019. He was not aware that Mr. Murray lost his licence in April, 2019.

659Mr .Facendi agreed that his contract did not require Mr. Murray to obtain permits, but the work required a permit. He said that there was a verbal agreement that Mr. Murray would get the permit, and he agreed that he himself ultimately went and got a permit in the summer of 2019.

660Mrs. Mary Anne Facendi testified that she took over communications with Mr. Murray due to health issues with her husband, in March of 2019. She referenced that there was still a lot of snow, called the snow crazy and said that it seems like it is never going to stop. Mr. Murray communicated with her that he had laid off his “guys”, and that it was an E.I. issue. On April 15, 2019, Mr. Murray sent a text to Mrs. Facendi that she should stop at the office to talk about installation. On the same day, after further exchange, Mr. Murray said that he did not want to do the work and he would refund the money.

661Mr. Murray said that his signature appears on the first contract in Tab 1, but that it was a stamp. He claimed that he did not sign the document.

662Mr. Murray said that he was giving Mr. Facendi a “steal of a deal”, and that there was no start or finish date. He would get to the job when he got to it. If it did not get into GreenOn, he would find another grant program. Mr. Facendi said that Mr. Murray’s quote was much lower than the verbal quotes he had gotten. Mr. Murray said that he lost an important worker for about four months. He was arrested and had to live with his parents out of town. The worker did not return until January. The rest of the crew was put on GreenOn window jobs. He had another guy who was GreenOn certified to do the job, but he quit. He said that he talked to Mr. Facendi about the problems with workers and with the weather.

663He said that he was not comfortable doing this job after April of 2019, because he was on the phone with Mary Anne and he could hear Mr. Facendi in the background making threats. He lost his licence in April of 2019, and it was not clear at first what he could and could not do. He met with Brendan Adair, and Mr. Adair explained to him that he could not speak to clients, could not schedule jobs and could not even do administrative work.

664Mr. Murray said that he found out in January that his mother-in-law had processed the Green On application for Mr. Facendi by using false photographs. He had nothing to do with that. He later said that he fired her for this. He sent the text inquiring about the GreenOn cheque to see what they would say. The Crown then asked Mr. Murray if he was suggesting that Mr. Facendi was participating in the fraud on GreenOn and knew that his sister-in-law submitted a false application, Mr. Murray said that he did not know if Mr. Facendi participated.

665Mr. Facendi said that his sister-in-law only worked for Mr. Murray for a short period of time.

666Mr. Murray said that he asked if Mr. Facendi had the permit for the patio door and later found out after he installed the patio door that no permit had been issued. I infer from this evidence that Mr. Murray did not believe that he was responsible for the building permits.

667Overall, I find that Mr. Facendi’s evidence was internally inconsistent regarding the date of the contract and his knowledge of it. It was also internally inconsistent regarding the terms of the Snap Loan. I am also concerned about Mr. Facendi keeping the GreenOn grant money when he testified that he knew he was not entitled to it. I cannot accept his evidence where it conflicts with Mr. Murray’s.

Cheryl Crossman – April 17, 2018

668This was a GreenOn contract. Ms. Crossman contacted EcoLife to have work done on her home. She said she met with him on July 10, 2018. She wanted some siding, stone and maybe a garage done. She identified tab 1 as the second contract and tab 2 as the first contract. She said that Mr. Murray told her that the contract had to be backdated because of the GreenOn rebate. She wanted to change a few windows and a door because she had previously replaced some but not the ones on the lower floor. She said that Mr. Murray had some windows and a door in his shop that he could use. She said that the rebate was important to her. Mr. Murray was at her house until 11 p.m. and said that it was the last day to file for GreenOn, and she was afraid of missing out. She said that she remembered that the date was July 10, 2018 because it was just before her son’s birthday, and it was a sore spot for her so it was easy to remember. The first contract only has one window that may qualify for the GreenOn program, As well as Enerair insulation that may make it a GreenOn contract. Mr. Murray agreed that he backdated the April contract. Then later, when confronted about backdating GreenOn contracts he said he did not backdate this contract. This was a relatively minor inconsistency.

669She said that she wanted the work that was outlined on the contract, and that they spent hours looking at before and after photos of other jobs to decide what they wanted. The contract specified that EcoLife would get the required permits. The total price was $43,900. She made a $3,000 downpayment by etransfer that same night. She said that it was not supposed to start until around the end of September. The next day she drove into the driveway, and workers were already at her home and all the siding was already pulled off. She said there were workers at her house daily, including Mr. Murray’s son who was about 15 or 16 at the time.

670Mrs. Crossman was impressed with the speed at which her work was done, so they entered into a second contract. She wanted a garage or a mudroom.

671The second contract is dated July 24, 2018. There is nothing in this contract that is GreenOn eligible.

672For the first contract she said that the workers removed all the siding, removed the stucco, they started to insulate, and put the strapping on the house to do the siding and the Versetta stone was started. She said the siding was started, and there were two vent holes left open to her attic that she asked Mr. Murray to cover because she was afraid that animals might get in. She said the soffit and fascia was done. One window was replaced, but she believed there were three windows to be done.

673The first contract references one window, triple pane. The second contract references two stock windows.

674She said that she decided not to do the garage, but to do the mudroom instead. She said that she went away during the month of July and returned in August. Some work was done while she was gone, but the workers left while she was away and never returned. She said that Mr. Murray told her he was waiting on supplies and he appeared to be trying to complete the work. She made payments in addition to the $3,000 initial deposit. She paid $21,000, $15,000 and $17,250 for a total of $56,250 in payments for both contracts which totaled $84,107. She understood that the money she paid was to pay for materials.

675She said that Mr. Murray asked her if she could pay half up front on July 10, 2018, so she went and got a draft for $21,000. Because of the dates, I infer that this conversation was about the contract dated April 17, 2018, for which the work was substantially started but not finished. Accordingly, this would not have been half up front but rather a payment for work in progress. She testified that no other work was done, other than the initial work on the first contract.

676She said that she met with Mr. Murray and his wife at the office on Notre Dame in April of 2019, and he said that when he got his licence back he would finish the job. She said she hoped that he would get his licence back or put it under his wife’s name, and that her job would be finished. She remembered that she saw a notice posted on his door when she later attended and the office was locked. She took a picture of it and sent it to him. She said he was told by his lawyer that he could not talk to his clients and then the communication was less and less.

677She was first texting him, and his phone number was not “listing”, so she started messaging him on Facebook in June of 2019. Mr. Murray responded with a phone number. There is a long gap to October of 2019, where Ms. Crossman tried to communicate with Mr. Murray. He responded in October of 2019, saying that the Superior Court had said that what Doug Ford did was illegal but it did not reinstate the rebate program. That was the last time she heard from Mr. Murray.

678Mrs. Crossman said that she never looked at the back of the contract and she did not remember anything being on the back of the contract. She agreed that there was no start and finish date noted on the contracts. The first contract shows half payment upfront, then a quarter payment and then the final quarter payment. Mrs. Crossman could not say whether or not there were problems in taking off the stucco from the home, because she was away when it was done. She did recall getting a text from Mr. Murray telling her that the stucco was in bad shape and it had to come off.

679She agreed that she qualified for GreenOn and got the rebate cheque. She went to the office and gave the staff the information to apply. She said that the plywood was installed over the completed insulation.

680She did not remember the weather being bad in late 2018 or early 2019. She agreed that siding was prone to cracking in the cold and Versetta stone required warmer weather to be installed. She remembered a meeting at Mr. Murray’s office where he was looking to work under his wife’s company, and that he was fighting to get his licence back. He said he had trouble with employees stealing from him, the weather was bad and his mother died. She was very empathetic because she was a nurse.

681She agreed that Mr. Murray never asked her for more money.

682She agreed that she talked to Jason Vachon about a change to the stairs, and to have them go against the house instead of having them go straight down. She called him later in the year and he sounded annoyed about why she would be asking him about David Murray.

683Mr. Murray said that he thought the first contract was signed the same day as the date. He then said that it was backdated to qualify for GreenOn. He said that he had a cancellation, which created a week and-a-half opening, so he sent a crew. He connected the opening to the Hannon and Cooley jobs, and the fact that they opted out. He said it was a GreenOn job, staff notified him that there was an opening, and he had a GreenOn certified worker to do it.

684He said that when they negotiated the second contract, they had to go back and forth about how the stairs were going to be done. He told her that he was really busy and not able to start until 2019. He said that he met with them in his boardroom in 2019 before his wife’s licence was granted, and he should not have talked to them. He said that they were very reasonable people.

685He agreed that he messaged her on Facebook about the Superior Court ruling, because he felt that what Doug Ford did was illegal and wrong. He agreed that he spoke with her and others after he was directed to not.

686He then said that regarding GreenOn he was only doing what he was directed to do. There was no firm termination date, and that applications that were taken late were still being processed and accepted by GreenOn. As an example, Mrs. Crossman got her money.

687When pressed with why the workers started and stopped the job, Mr. Murray said that he ordered product, and then Jason Vachon was to finish the work but he quit, he did extra work he was not supposed to be doing, removing stucco and rot, when he removed the siding he found another problem, the project was delayed and then the workers finally completed two side walls, and the back, they just had to finish the veranda. Jason Vachon was certified on GreenOn, and then he quit around the time he was going to send another guy to do board and batten, and had to wait for it to come in.

688He said that they did not do the second contract, because she only wanted Rob Seguin, and he was not available. Mrs. Crossman said that she did not know a worker by the name of Rob, but she was not asked about wanting a particular worker to do her job.

689When pressed about Jason quitting in 2018 was not her problem, Mr. Murray said it was not her problem but it was his reality. He said he had to become surgical when Jason Vachon left to ensure that as much of the GreenOn work was completed. He said if Jason had not left, the contract would have been finished.

690He said in the fall they were likely waiting for the permits to come back, meaning be approved. He admitted that he promised to send work crews, but that the weather turned bad. He said that everything was good with this customer until his licence was pulled. He said that he could not build the deck in the winter because the helical piles could not be done in cold weather. He was not as responsive to her in the winter because he was ill, his mother had died and his office was closed. He had to wait until he could access his equipment which was frozen to the ground. Then his licence was pulled in April. He thought that the issue would be resolved quickly, and it was not.

691Overall, this was a GreenOn job that became a problem. The stucco on the home caused a delay in completion. When a key worker quit, Mr. Murray was already in crisis mode, and that event caused even more pressure. Even if Ms. Crossman had not insisted on Rob Seguin doing the work, there were other pressures in ensuring that the appropriate workers would be able to do the work. Mr. Murray did the work that was required to complete the work for GreenOn and then had to put this job on the back burner while he concentrated on the GreenOn work. His workers could not get back to finish this job due to GreenOn pressures, bad weather, his office shutting down for the seasonal shutdown, and then the bad winter and spring weather. The final event was the loss of Mr. Murray’s licence, which then meant that he could not do any further work.

Daniel Rainville – April 15, 2018

692Mr. Rainville called Mr. Murray to come and meet with him, and he believed that it was in May of 2018. Initially he only wanted two doors replaced, which corresponds with the first contract. He did not want the doors to be installed between May 26 and June 16, 2018 because he would be away. He said that they had a conversation in which the installation would be done by late August. He said that the first contract was a rough draft and he knew that it was going to be rewritten.

693The four contracts are all dated April 15, 2018. The first two contracts are duplicates of each other. The next is for the doors and the total was $3,234.51 plus tax and it is found at tabs 3 of Exhibit 21. The installation date says 30 to 45 days weather and scheduled dates. Tab 4 is the measurements for all of the windows referenced in Tab 1.

694After Mr. Murray wrote up the first contract, he started saying what other work would make the house look like a showpiece. He would remove and replace the shingles and the siding on the garage, and he was going to replace 9 windows, which was later changed to 8. He was also going to replace a slab door on the garage. He was going to install eavestrough with soffit and fascia around the home and to install insulation around the home. He was also going to install Versetta stone on the front of the house. Some of the siding was to be board and batten. There were supposed to be special corners installed. Mr. Rainville suggested making a bedroom window smaller, and Mr. Murray was to finish the inside by putting up plywood and Mr. Rainville would do the rest.

695Mr. Rainville said that he had the same conversation with Mr. Murray about the completion of the second contract, that it would be done by the end of August.

696He testified that tab 2 is just a neater version of tab 1. Tab 4 is the window measurements.

697Mr. Rainville said that originally he had no intentions of doing anything but doors, but the deal was so good, he ended up agreeing to it.

698Mr. Rainville testified that the contract was backdated to qualify for the GreenOn program. He had not heard of it until Mr. Murray suggested it. Mr. Murray told him that the rebate program was for windows and insulation. When asked if he expected to be paying almost $30,000 for the work, he said that he was first interested in doors, but the deal for the other work was so good, he and his wife decided that they could afford to have the work done, so they went for it

699He produced the original contract for the doors, and he confirmed that there was a back page. He had not seen it before. On the day that the contract was signed Mr. Rainville paid Mr. Murray $5,000 in cash. He said that Mr. Murray did not ask for it. He acknowledged that the agreement required him to pay an additional $15,000 for Mr. Murray to start the work. He then gave Mr. Murray a $15,000 bank draft two days later.

700About two weeks later, some workers showed up to do work on the shingles for the garage and it was finished in one day. He said that they did an awesome job, but that they left a trailer filled with old shingles in the driveway for about a week. Sometime later, a crew showed up to strip the siding off the house and garage. Around October, a worker showed up to do some Styrofoam around the house. Mr. Rainville produced photos of the house before the siding was stripped and after it was stripped. He said that the workers never removed the old siding, and he had to do it.

701None of the windows were replaced and the insulation was started but not finished. The doors were not replaced. He said that Mr. Murray did not shrink the window opening and another contractor had to do it. He agreed that the photograph showing the insulation work was taken before EcoLife workers finished the insulation. He then said that the workers finished about 75 percent of the insulation work. His letter to Mr. Murray says about 80 percent of the insulation work was done. He agreed that very shortly after the insulation work stopped, winter came.

702He remembered that Mr. Murray told him that GreenOn had caused delays. He believed that Mr. Murray maybe had said that he had taken on too many jobs and he could not finish. He agreed that the windows had to be special ordered. When he was challenged by a claim that Mr. Murray asked to store the windows in Mr. Rainville’s garage. Mr. Rainville said that his garage was small, and there was no reason to store the windows there. I took from this answer that he had had the conversation with Mr. Murray.

703He ended up firing Mr. Murray in March of 2019. He was not willing to have Mr. Murray finish the work. He agreed that Mr. Murray came to his house in the early spring of 2019 and saw a big ice dam. He said that he could fix it. Mr. Rainville said no, that his sons were going to fix it and that he did not want Mr. Murray on his roof in the winter when he showed up with two guys with a truck and no ladder. He agreed that Mr. Murray was not going to charge anything for this work. He said that he had an argument with Mr. Murray over the phone earlier in the day, but that they did not discuss the ice. He was aware that Mr. Murray called his wife, and then he just showed up with two guys. Mr. Rainville did not know why Mr. Murray was there.

704When asked if he filed any paperwork for GreenOn, he said yes. When asked if it was for windows, he said no. He got money from GreenOn. Mr. Rainville said that Mr. Murray was supposed to get a permit for the work, but no permit was taken out. He came home from work one day, and there was a stop work order from the City of Sudbury. He was able to confirm that Mr. Murray had applied for a permit but that it was not issued.

705Mr. Murray thought that the contract was signed around April of 2018 and said that Mr. Rainville gave him a cheque in the same timeframe. He later said that Mr. Rainville gave him cash first and a cheque about a month later. He recalled two meetings, and he said that Mr. Rainville had to get his financing in place and get the draft. He denied that he told Mr. Rainville that he was backdating the contract in order to ensure that he qualified for GreenOn. He admitted having conversations with Mr. Rainville about the fact that the trailer was left and that the site was not cleared of garbage. He said he was scrambling to try and get as much of the grant work as he could get done. He admitted that the material was left, and that he was going to send someone to clean the site up.

706Mr. Murray named the workers who worked on the house. He said he was trying to be surgical at this time. He had lost workers and was waiting on windows. Mr. Murray said that the whole house was foamed. A GreenOn grant was approved so it was probably true.

707Mr. Murray said that Mr. Rainville’s windows were originally ordered through Euroseal and had to be switched to Gentek, which caused delays.

708Overall, most of the evidence of Mr. Murray aligns with the evidence of Mr. Rainville. They differ in the amount of work done on the foam insulation. Mr. Rainville got his grant money. GreenOn had to be satisfied that the insulation was finished for that to happen. Mr. Murray said that his workers finished the insulation on the house and the GreenOn grant supports that. I accept that the insulation work was finished.

Anne Marie Singh – June 3, 2018

709Ms. Singh remained present in the courtroom during the evidence of the first couple of witnesses, despite being present for the order excluding witnesses. I intend to treat her evidence cautiously because of this.

710Ms. Singh called Mr. Murray to get a quote, and she ultimately signed a Roofing and Siding Agreement. She said that Mr. Murray tore up the original. She said that Mr. Murray called her to his office and said that he needed some money. She claimed that she had already paid him and had no money to give him. She then said that the contract in evidence was a second agreement. She said that the only reason she signed it was because of her windows because he tore up the first agreement. I do not believe her on this point. Her evidence does not make sense and Mr. Murray denied it.

711The date of the agreement is June 3, 2018 and she said that this was the date that she signed it. She said that the original agreement was signed in November of 2017 and he tore that up. That agreement was to replace all of the windows in her house. She said that the agreement was for $8,000.

712She said that Mr. Murray told her that he wanted to do the whole house, and she just wanted windows. She said he had measured for windows in November of 2017 and she paid him $8,000. When asked why she went to the store in June of 2018, she said to get the windows.

713She claimed he said that they did not need the original document anymore, we are drawing up a new one and he put it aside. She said the agreement said siding and roofing, but she did not sign up for siding and roofing originally. She said that Mr. Murray mentioned GreenOn in November of 2017. She said she wanted windows and two doors. She said that she paid the entire invoice and Mr. Murray told her that he would install in March of 2018. She said he came in the winter and asked if she wanted snow taken off her roof. Then he came with workers and ripped off all of her siding, and she did not pay for siding. This was the winter of 2018, before June.

714She said that she took notes at a meeting in November of 2017, where they discussed that the total cost of the windows was going to be $13,800, after the grants. She said but upon doing one window, that wall was very soft, like the drywall was rotted. She said that it had to be removed and she changed the window to a door.

715She said Mr. Murray told her that he would give her the windows for $8,000 and there was a grant coming in that would give her $6,000 back. She said that Mr. Murray mentioned Gentek, and she googled that name. She then identified another note where she said Mr. Murray told her that she could get the whole house done with siding and windows for $17,300 but she did not agree to it.

716She said she repeatedly texted Mr. Murray between November 2017 and June of 2018, but that she got no response. She was able to provide text messages, but they are all from 2019. None are dated any earlier. I find that this evidence is not reliable, given that she then attended the EcoLife offices in 2018 and signed a contract.

717She said that she arranged to meet with Mr. Murray at his office, and he asked if she was going to be bringing him money. She said he took the invoice out of her daughter’s hand and tore it up right in front of her. He told her that she did not need it. He took out the invoice that was entered as evidence, and it said roofing and siding. Mrs. Singh said she did not agree to that, that she only agreed to windows. When asked if she got her windows, she said no not yet. She said that siding was removed from her home. Nobody put new siding up and it stayed like that for the winter. She believed that she paid someone else $8,000 for the windows and installation.

718One of the messages in 2019 is from Mr. Murray asking if Mrs. Singh is coming to sign off on the door colour today. In the same message, Mr. Murray talked about going to “their” office and a person by the name of Darren. She agreed that meant going to Gentek. She agreed that she was told that the windows were special windows that would take more time to come in.

719When confronted with the contract that lists siding that she signed, she insisted that she never contracted for siding. She said that Mr. Murray pressured her into contracting for more, and she refused. She insisted that the only reason she signed the contract was for the windows and not for the rest of the work listed. She agreed that workers found a mould problem when they removed the siding, but they accidently removed the siding when they came to chip the ice from her roof. She did not want it done, but she did not simply ask them to go away. She said she had no money to pay for removing ice and snow from her roof. She agreed that she went to the EcoLife office almost weekly.

720Mr. Murray said that he first met with Mrs. Singh in June of 2018. He thinks she is confused. They entered into an agreement and she made constant changes. She did not seem to understand that the contract was for custom products. She wanted to change the colour of the siding for a colour that his mother-in-law showed her. He told her that he could not do that. He said they discussed GreenOn and how it was causing delays. He would have told her that the work was going to be done later in the year.

721He said they started the siding later in the year and ran into a lot of mould issues. He said that the mould was seeping through the walls. She came back to the office around that time and wanted more changes. The windows were not in yet, and they would probably do the work in the spring of 2019. He identified his boardroom in a photo that was not entered into evidence. He said that siding sample colours were visible, showing that she was trying to change what she had chosen.

722He said that the deposit was supposed to be $13,000, but she could only get $8,000 and she was struggling to do that. He said that Gentek was getting frustrated with this order because she kept changing what she wanted.

723Mr. Murray said that he did not remember ripping anything up. He said he may have ripped up a paper but he did not rip up the contract.

724Overall, I find that I cannot rely on Mrs. Singh’s evidence. It is internally inconsistent and inconsistent with the contract. Mr. Murray disputes it as well. I find that this contract was evolving and Mrs. Singh wanted changes, which Mr. Murray tried to accommodate. Ultimately, this was a contract that could not be fulfilled because of the poor spring weather in 2019, Mr. Murray’s loss of his licence and the lockout of his office.

Robert Bouffard – June 20, 2018

725This was not a GreenOn contract, but it was affected by GreenOn. Mr. Bouffard said that he reached out to EcoLife to do some work. He wanted the beam on his carport to be worked on. He said that the end was rotting where it was supported and it had started to sag. He wanted the whole beam replaced. He had no construction expertise but believed that the existing beam was not up to code.

726Mr Murray told him that the beam was not protected from the weather which he could fix. He said that the house could use new shingles, so he agreed to that. He suggested that the gable ends be extended by 16 inches on both sides. He also suggested to finish the carport with soffit, and soffit and fascia all around the house, new eavestrough and two vents on the roof and storm doors. Mr. Murray quoted $20,216 for the whole job.

727Mr. Bouffard said that Mr. Murray told him that if he paid more upfront that Mr. Murray would start the work sooner. He did not give a start date for the contract, but he gave him a completion date as the end of August. He wrote a cheque dated August 16, 2018. He did not read the back page of the contract. The claim regarding the date does not make any sense, given that the contract was backdated, but he dated the cheque for August of 2018.

728He said that Mr. Murray came the day after the contract was signed with some guys. He started calling EcoLife’s offices after the end of August because the work was not done. He said on October 16 or 17, workers came and put up a retaining wall to hold up so that they could remove the beam. The next day they showed up and replaced the beam with a beam that was inferior to the one he already had. He knew it was inferior because the beam that was replaced was 2 x 12 and they replaced it with a 2 x 10 beam. The guy putting it up said it was way stronger because it was laminated veneer lumber, and he believed him. He spoke to an engineer and now believes that the beam was not strong enough. A photo from December of 2018 was put into evidence. Mr. Bouffard said that he was shoveling snow off the roof weekly. He had not had to do it in the past for 12 inches of snow. He claimed that the photo shows that the beam is sagging. Mr. Murray first disagreed that the beam was sagging and said that the photo shows that the house was sagging because of the line of the siding. He later said that the beam could sag a little as it was bearing the load.

729In the photo Mr. Bouffard identified a gap in the roof that he said the workers left open and he was worried because rodents could get in. He said that he did not communicate his concern to Mr. Murray because by that time the office was closed and the phone was off the line. He ended up hiring another contractor to do the work.

730His attention was drawn to the back page, where there is a clear term that the purchaser was to obtain all permits. He said that he did not see that and did not look. He did not know that it was his obligation. He said that it was a few days later that he saw the back of the contract, but he did not follow up.

731He did not remember a conversation with Mr. Murray that he would get his shingles at a cheaper price if the contract was backdated.

732Mr. Bouffard said that the contract was backdated because of GreenOn, and to ensure that he would qualify. He said that the rebate program was ending at the end of August, so to ensure that Mr. Bouffard qualified, it should be backdated a month. There is nothing on this contract that is eligible for GreenOn grants.

733Mr. Bouffard said that his roof was flatter and not steeply pitched. He said that the home was built in 1960. He only had to clear snow when it was deep, like three to four feet. He said that he had to clear snow at least six or seven times that winter, and he had to put a four by four beam in the centre of the beam to hold it so it would not come down.

734He agreed that the winter of 2018 to 2019 was snowier, but a little above average but no records broken. He said that it might have been wet, but that there was a subdivision being built close to his house, and they kept working through the winter, so he did not see a problem putting shingles up in winter. He denied that the replaced beam was only to be a temporary solution. He said that the beam now sagged about four inches, when the original beam only sagged about 2 inches. He agreed that his house sagged before the work was done but then said it sagged very little and only the carport. He said that Mr. Murray never did any of the other work on the contract.

735Mr. Murray said that he met with Mr. Bouffard, and he noticed that the house was sagging. Mr. Murray said that generally they would get an engineer to do the drawings but Mr. Bouffard did not want to spend the money to do that. He did not want permits, he just wanted a price, so they sat down and drew up the contract. He said that what they came up with was more than code compliant, and that they would install posts at either end and laminate the beam with three 2 x 6 beams. He also said that the beam was attached to the house for load bearing. He said that homeowners often want to do work without permits, and if the home was inspected then there would be a work order.

736He said that the contract was not backdated and it was not eligible for GreenOn. He insisted that the contract was not backdated and pointed to the completion date which was August.

737He said that the beam was done in October, and he had to pull his only red seal guy to do it. The beam took one day. He did not have skilled workers available to do the gable ends which required framing, because they were certified for GreenOn jobs. He talked to Mr. Bouffard, Mr. Bouffard agreed to wait. The winter came and delayed the job until the spring. Then he lost his licence and could not do the work.

738Mr. Murray said that he did not agree with the claim about an engineer and insisted that the beam that was installed met code. He said that he kept Mr. Bouffard informed about the delays.

739When challenged about selling contracts after he knew that GreenOn cancellations overwhelmed him, he said that he did not need specialized workers to do this job, and he only sold a couple of jobs after July of 2018. He said he could have sold a lot more but he did not.

740Mr. Bouffard testified that he did not want to pay the extra money for an engineering report. This supports Mr. Murray’s evidence. I cannot accept Mr. Bouffard’s evidence that the replacement beam was insufficient. He specifically said that he had no expertise. I have carefully reviewed the photo as suggested by Mr. Murray and I agree that it appears that the house itself was sagging.

741The photos support that the winter was very early and very snowy. This photograph was from December of 2018 and it clearly shows over a foot of snow.

742I do not accept that this contract was backdated. There is no work on this contract that would be approved by GreenOn for a rebate, and I accept that Mr. Murray did not tell him that it was better to backdate the contract. I accept that Mr. Bouffard was told that the cancelled GreenOn program was causing delays in completing all of Mr. Murray’s work. I accept that Mr. Murray was telling Mr. Bouffard the cause of the delays.

743I do accept that this job was unfinished. The photos clearly establish that. Mr. Murray admits that the work was unfinished.

Mark Lowes – April 18, 2018

744This is was a GreenOn contract.

745Mr. Lowes said that he believed he met with Mr. Murray on July 18, 2018. He came out to measure and to give a quote. He said that he did not know that the contract was backdated to April 18, 2018. He did not remember if Mr. Murray told him that it was backdated. He wanted to replace all his windows and doors on his property. The total was $11,600 with a deposit of $9,000, leaving a balance of $2,600 to be paid upon completion. He said that they discussed a completion date of September of 2018 and that is noted on the contract. He knew about the GreenOn grant program because he was having insulation done by another contractor, and that job was a GreenOn job.

746He said he paid on July 18, 2018 by draft, and that Mr. Murray followed him to the bank in Spanish to get the draft. He did not get any windows or doors from Mr. Murray and he had to pay someone else to do them.

747He expected that six weeks to get his windows and doors was reasonable, and when that did not happen, he contacted Mr. Murray several times. He was told that the windows were not in, but that Mr. Murray would finish the job, into the following year. One time the phone was out of service.

748He was referred to Mr. Murray by the insulation company because they only did blown in insulation and he needed a GreenOn window installer. He only met Mr. Murray once and that was on the date of the exchange of the bank draft. All other contacts were by phone. Mr. Lowes could not remember if the cancellation of GreenOn was discussed.

749He was asked if he was familiar with a program called Eco Energy, and he identified it as a government program. He said that he was aware of only one grant program, and that Mr. Murray was going to file the paperwork. He did not remember a program that involved a paid energy audit. He did not get any communication from GreenOn and he did not recognize the name Euroseal. He said that he contacted all the window manufacturers in Sudbury and could not find one that had his size windows on order. Based on that, he believed that Mr. Murray did not order his windows. He said that Mr. Murray may have given the excuse of manufacturing delays, but he believed that the GreenOn cancellation did not have any impact on that because they were two different things. He could not remember what Mr. Murray told him about the cause for the delay.

750Mr. Murray remembered attending Mr. Lowes’ house and he believed it was July 18, 2018. Mr. Lowes had two big dogs which intimidated Mr. Murray and the dogs had to be moved around so that Mr. Murray could measure the windows. He said that they had just gotten the extension to install GreenOn jobs and they talked about maybe not qualifying for it. He said that he sent the information to Liette and asked her to process it and the response was that it looked like GreenOn accepted the application. Mr. Murray said that they specifically talked about backdating the contract to make it more likely he would qualify in the end. He said that his office was a day or two behind submitting applications.

751He recalled a conversation in October with Mr. Lowes and Mr. Lowes was told that they were still waiting on product. Mr. Murray was still hoping that there would be an extension of the GreenOn program. He talked to Mr. Lowes later in December, when Mr. Murray was ill, and his mother was dying. He said that they would talk in the New Year. Mr. Murray said that his office was closed into January and then he switched phone lines in February of 2019. He posted a message on Facebook for his customers. Mr. Murray said that he saw a post on Facebook about Mr. Murray scamming, and Mr. Murray connected it to Mr. Lowes and confronted him.

752Mr. Murray lost his licence shortly afterward and then was charged. The job was not done. He said he only took two GreenOn contracts after the program was cancelled in June, and that was for Lowes and Cameron.

753He agreed that the contract was for 13 Regency triple pane windows from Gentek. He said that it was unclear at the time whether he could sell until the end of August 2018 or if he could not sell after June 19, 2018. He was essentially testing whether or not he could continue to sell by submitting the application online. He said that the industry was saying that there was a grace period, it was unclear and there were still no rules regarding the cancellation, so he relied on anything he could find out. The insulation installer referred Mr. Lowes to Mr. Murray specifically because of the GreenOn program, he said that Mr. Lowes’ job was the last GreenOn application sent in. Mr. Murray said that he still believed he would get the windows in time for the cut off, because of his conversation with Darren Frattini.

754There are really no issues in dispute regarding the evidence for Mr. Lowes. He paid $9,000 deposit for windows that he did not get. I accept that Mr. Murray instructed his staff to file the initial GreenOn application. Mr. Lowes did not remember this discussion but did remember talking about GreenOn. The whole reason for the referral was because Mr. Lowes wanted the GreenOn rebate. Clearly, he believed that he was eligible for the rebate. There was little guidance from the program regarding what was permitted and not permitted, and there was clearly some uproar in the entire industry because of the way the program was cancelled. Mr. Frattini and Mr. Murray spoke regarding Mr. Murray directing his business to Gentek, and Mr. Frattini testified that due to shortages of window components and the pressure from GreenOn, windows were taking up to six months to be delivered. This job was delayed due to delay in receiving the windows and then the weather, the seasonal closure of Mr. Murray’s offices then the loss of his licence.

Christopher Crawford – June 2, 2018 and May 21, 2018

755This was a GreenOn contract for insulation.

756Mr. Crawford said that he was driving around looking for someone to replace the shingles on his roof. He said that this was in May of 2018. He said that other stuff needed to be done but he was only looking for shingles at that time. His budget was $20,000 because that is what he could get from his line of credit. He said that Mr. Murray came to his home and they talked about GreenOn grants for insulation if Mr. Crawford upgraded his insulation. He could also do his siding. He then said that he made an error on the date, that the estimates show May but it was really in August when he was looking to get his shingles done.

757He identified the contract or quote dated June 2, 2018 as really being an August agreement. The quote is for roofing work to be done and it is for a total of $36,894. He made a $3,000 etransfer, and a $17,000 bank draft. He did not remember sending a $10,000 payment. He said that left $6,894 to be paid, for a total of $36,894. He identified his own initials on the contract. He then said that he paid $20,000 within a day or two of their first meeting. He said he was not aware that the date on the contract was the wrong date.

758He identified a second contract dated May 21, 2018 which was a second contract that was signed after the first contract. He did not know why that date appeared on the contract and he did not remember questioning it at the time. He said that this contract had free work on it because when the roofing job was done, it turned out to be more work than was anticipated. The entire roof and sheeting had to be replaced, which increased the cost. He identified that this contract was signed in August and the work on the other contract had already started. He said that the siding and shingles were removed, and the shingles were replaced. That was all that was done. He then said that the one and-a‑half inch foam was not done on the entire home, but it was started. He said that the soffit and fascia was done.

759He identified that the total on the second contract was $51,300 was the revised price which incorporated the work on the first contract dated June 2, 2018. The deposit showed of $20,000. He identified a third contract dated August 17, 2018 and believed that this contract was dated for the day it was signed. He said that this contract came about when the workers had pulled off the siding and discovered that there were issues that had to be repaired, such as around the doorframe and the basement door, the sill plate had to be replaced and waterproofing membrane was to be installed. The total cost on this contract was $11,500.

760Mr. Crawford got a Snap Loan to finance the contract with a balance owing of $31,900. He applied on August 10, 2018. He applied for a Home Trust loan on August 20, 2018 for $11,500 for basement waterproofing, 2 doors, wall repairs and water proofing.

761When his attention was directed to the authorization form, and asked what it meant, Mr. Crawford said that it acknowledged that the work was finished and directed payment to Mr. Murray. He was clearly aware that Mr. Murray’s company was going to be paid directly. He said that Mr. Murray just told him that was how things were done. It caused him some concern but he did not raise it. He made approximately 11 or 12 payments on the Snap Loan before Snap cancelled the loan. He paid the entire loan for Home Trust because he just could not bring himself to contact them.

762He said that after working on his house for a couple of weeks, the workers stopped showing up and no further work was done. There were many conversations between Mr. Crawford and Mr. Murray, but no further work was done. He could not remember the content of the conversations with Mr. Murray. He said that he remembered a worker came in December and put up three sheets of insulation. There is a reference in the text messages that Mr. Murray said, “I got u grants” and Mr. Crawford believed that meant GreenOn grants.

763On December 2, 2018, Mr. Murray sent a text message asking Mr. Crawford if he got an email for GreenOn grants. Mr. Crawford asked for his deposit back in a text message from December 6, 2018 and Mr. Murray responded with a message stating “work with me… I got u in grants”. Mr. Crawford then sent to Mr. Murray information needed for the GreenOn application and says that he does not have any pictures of the house. On December 17, 2018, Mr. Murray said he was working on the GreenOn application.

764Mr. Crawford went to the EcoLife office at least once to pick up a copy of a misplaced contract. He was getting fed up by this point. There was a six foot hole in front of his house and the siding was removed. He was embarrassed by the state of his house. There was a lot of material left lying around, but he did not tell Mr. Murray about it. He also said that he never communicated to Mr. Murray that there was a hole in the front of his home.

765He agreed that issues came up when the work on the first contract started. Rot was visible when the shingles were removed. The sheeting and gable ends had to be replaced and rebuilt. He did not remember that insulation was also involved with mould and had to be removed. He also agreed that rot was found in the walls when they were opened up and agreed that the sill plate had to be replaced. He agreed that the plywood on the home was replaced with chipboard. He agreed that the foundation had a crack in it and it was leaking into the basement. He denied that he was told because of the major issues the job was going to take a lot longer to do. He said that he did not recall any discussions about the duration of the project.

766He said that the foundation was repaired, but that contract also included the carport. When asked, he agreed that there were issues with the carport leaning, which was not known at the time that the contract was signed. He said that Mr. Murray agreed to return the $20,000 deposit sometime in January or February of 2019 in a text message. I have reviewed the text messages and there is no message of this kind at all.

767He did not remember being told that the trusses on the roof had been replaced.

768Mr. Murray said that Mr. Crawford stopped by the office sometime in the summer but could not remember if the contract dated June 2, 2018 was signed on that date. He later said that August was when they had time to start the work. He said that the work was done by Dave Bissel, who he hired in May or June of 2018. He said that this work was the second or third job that Dave Bissel did.

769He said that the contracts might have been backdated for either GreenOn or Eco Grant, and he thought that windows were part of the contract. He later said that the contracts were not backdated. This was an inconsistency, but it was not something that caused me to reject Mr. Murray’s evidence.

770He said that the third contract was for work that was unforeseen until the work started. When shown the photographs of the home, he said that he saw that the work was not finished yet. The preparation work was all done, and they just had to go back and finish. He believed that the entire roof had been replaced, some of the sides of the home had been done, the porch roof was done and he believed that two doors were replaced. He identified where some of the fascia board had been replaced. He identified where some of the insulation was replaced. He identified the material in the yard as belonging to Mr. Crawford. The job was 70 percent completed. He said that the remaining doors would take one day to install. He said that the strapping had started but it was not finished. Then the siding would go up. He said that the upper level did not need insulation because there were no bedrooms upstairs. Once the strapping was done, his workers would have installed another foam sheet.

771He said that they had to replace almost the whole sill plate, but they were able to salvage some. When they started this job, they found rot everywhere.

772He said that they had prepped the wall for the blue skin, and it would have not taken much to finish the foundation waterproofing.

773For the carport, he identified where EcoLife workers had replaced the wood. They still need to install the J channel and then cap the posts.

774He said he went to the house twice to see what work was yet to be done. He said that as soon as the weather broke in 2019, he would have finished this job. He explained to Mr. Lowes what the problems were, with the snow and the cold, the lack of workers and the delays from GreenOn. He said that if Mr. Lowes did not get the GreenOn grant, he could get the Eco Grant.

775He agreed that he told Mr. Crawford that his workers work year round. He said yes as long as the weather was decent. He agreed that the weather was always a risk, and that he did not have control over the weather. He said that he could rebuild a roof truss on a garage in bad weather, but working on a home’s roof was a different story. He said when it was too cold his workers could not be forced to work.

776Overall, the only thing that was contentious in the evidence of Mr. Crawford and Mr. Murray was whether or not the first two contracts were backdated from August. Based on the evidence of Mr. Crawford, and the date when Mr. Crawford gave Mr. Murray the money, and the fact that at first Mr. Murray could not remember if the contracts were backdated, and then said they were and then said that they were not, I find that the first two contracts were backdated. However, I also find that Mr. Crawford was aware that the contracts were backdated. His signature appears directly below June 2, 2014 on the first contract, and directly below the date May 21, 2018 on the second. He testified that the contracts both look exactly the same as when he signed them, so the date is the same as when he signed them. In addition, Mr. Crawford applied for and was granted a loan from Snap to pay the invoice in full. That was required by GreenOn. He was aware that Mr. Murray was going to receive the full loan proceeds. The anticipated GreenOn grant was not for windows, it was for insulation, and the work was not finished. The final date that work was done for Mr. Crawford was in December of 2018, and it demonstrates that Mr. Murray’s company was still trying to get work done in order for Mr. Crawford to be given the grant.

777It calls into question whether or not Mr. Murray was continuing to sell GreenOn jobs after the cancellation date, since he said that he only sold two GreenOn jobs, for Lowes and Cameron, and this one was clearly sold after the cancellation date.

778Substantially, both Mr. Murray and Mr. Crawford agreed regarding what Mr. Murray was paid and when, and the work that was done. They both agree that major issues came up when the work started, which caused the third contract to be created, and the work done to remediate those issues. It was the extra work referenced and paid by the Home Trust loan.

Doucette – April 30, 2018

779This was a GreenOn contract. Mr. Doucette contracted with Mr. Murray in August of 2017 to do a patio door which was done. Mr. Doucette was satisfied with the work. He then talked to Mr. Murray about doing 6 stock windows for him. In the spring of 2018, Mr. Murray contacted him about the GreenOn program and he ultimately ordered 10 windows. The contract dated April 30, 2018 is for 10 windows for a total of $7,915. There is a $2,000 deposit noted on it. Mr. Doucette produced a receipt in the amount of $5,915 dated December 7, 2018, which was for the final payment.

780He also produced a letter from EcoLife dated December 7, 2018 advising him that the windows will be at his residence on December 10 or 11, 2018.

781Mr. Doucette said that he signed the contract on April 30, 2018. About two weeks later, some workers came and measured the windows. He expected that the windows would be installed in August of 2018. He said that he delivered the cheque to Mr. Murray, and Mr. Murray contacted Gentek and assured payment. Mr. Doucette was present for the phone call. Mr. Doucette said that it was kind of like a group thing. Mr. Murray said that Gentek agreed to release the windows, and that the windows would be installed on either December 10 or 11, 2018.

782Mr. Doucette cleaned off the space needed for the workers to work, but they did not show up. When he contacted Mr. Murray, Mr. Murray said he was sick all weekend. When Mr. Doucette went to the storefront, Mr. Murray was not there. Mr. Doucette said that the conversation got belligerent and Mr. Murray said that it was not his fault, and that Mr. Doucette was ungrateful. Mr. Doucette said that he knew that he was not going to get his windows. He tried calling in January but there was no answer and he could not leave a message. The last time he called was in March of 2019.

783Mr. Murray said that this contract was not backdated. It was signed on the day it was drafted and that date is noted on the contract. He said that his workers were supposed to install the windows in December but he could not force them to work. The weather was crappy and Mr. Murray was ill. He had a heart attack and diabetes, as a result of the stress and did not know what was wrong with his health at the time. He thought he just had the flu.

784He said that Mr. Doucette’s house is on a grade, and with the weather the installers did not feel safe. To install the windows, the staging had to be set up in freezing rain, and the installers were not willing to do it. When he was told that Mr. Doucette said that the weather was good that day, Mr. Murray said that the installer told him that there was freezing rain, and that he himself was home sick.

785Ultimately, the weather interfered with the installation, as well as Mr. Murray’s loss of his licence in April of 2019.

Nadine Williams – September 17, 2018

786This was not a GreenOn contract. Mrs. Williams contacted EcoLife for some soffit and fascia and reshingling and resheeting the roof. She contracted with EcoLife on September 17, 2018 for a total of $3,800 and paid $3,000 by interac to Pamala Facendi. The note on the contract says, “reduced price for offered payment upfront”. There is a second contract dated September 11, 2018 for $13,500 to put enershield insulation where there was not any insulation, to remove fascia and replace on the complete home, to put in vents, vinyl siding, corners and Versetta stone. There is also a notation on this contract that says, “early payment reduce discount” and a reduction of $700. It also includes a building permit. She wrote a cheque in the amount of $13,500 payable to Mariella Facendi dated September 11, 2018. On November 21, 2018 she also made an etransfer of $500 to Pamala Facendi.

787She said that when she contracted for the work, she definitely wanted it to be done by Christmas but there is nothing noted on either of the contracts. She later said that Mr. Murray promised her that her house would look pretty by Christmastime. She said that both contracts were done on the same date, which is supported by the date on the cheque and the date of the etransfer for $3,000.

788After the contracts were signed, she went to Mr. Murray’s showroom and saw a window that she wanted for her front hall. She believed that it was a $1,000 window, and she gave a deposit of $500. She believed that the second invoice incorporates the first, and she cannot remember why she sent $3,000 by etransfer to Pamala Facendi. She didn’t know either Pamala Facendi or Mariella Facendi before this date. She said that Mr. Murray instructed her to write the cheque payable to his mother-in-law because she did the banking.

789She said a couple of weeks after signing the contracts workers came and stripped all the siding. She said foam was put up on two sides of the house. The roof was not done and the eaves were not done. She said that material was left all over the jobsite, which concerned her because she had two dogs. Mr. Murray came at one point when she called him, and he cleaned some of it up. She had gathered up some of the debris and put it on the driveway. She started calling and stopping by the office. She said one time she went, the office was closed and another time there was a note posted on the door that the office had been closed by the landlord and another time a note said that he had lost his licence.

790She identified a ladder and other equipment that was left at her home by workers. The photos that she identified show her home with the siding stripped off, no capping on the windows and doors, construction debris and equipment left by workers. She said that her front porch was a hazard area, and that they could not use it.

791She said that she was picking up the garbage in the yard after the ice melted, and that it had been frozen to the ground. She could not remember the weather in 2018. She agreed that the ladders were frozen to the ground but said that they should not have been left there in the first place. She then said that the ladders were not frozen to the ground, but that they were covered.

792She denied getting a back page to the contract and said Mr. Murray commented that he was running out of contracts and had to write on a photocopied contract.

793She said that she was given lots of excuses, such as his workers were in jail, his mother died, she said that she texted his workers who were working down the street and she was told that the GreenOn jobs had to be finished, which she was not aware of when she signed the contract.

794She agreed that he never said he was not going to finish the job, but when the winter passed and it turned to summer, no one came.

795Mr. Murray said that Mrs. Williams offered to pay in full because she had received an inheritance from her mother and he was shocked. He agreed that he told Mrs. Williams that he had one guy who could do all the work, and it could probably be done before Christmas. He also told Mrs. Williams that his workers were going crazy doing the GreenOn jobs and it made scheduling difficult

796He said Dave Bissel started the job but got arrested. Mr. Murray did not know at first that he was arrested. When he was released on bail, he had to relocate to Southern Ontario and was no longer available to do the job.

797Mr. Murray paid a guy to come and remove something that was left hanging, and he later said that he paid David Bissel $100, who did it right away because he wanted the money.

798He could not remember if the first and second contracts were done on the same date, but it was within a week. He said that Mrs. Williams wanted more work done, such as Versetta stone.

799He said that Jean Marc had to take over when David Bissel was arrested, and he believed that it was in November. Jean Marc was working on it between other jobs. Mr. Murray said all the preparation was done and it was the hardest part. He pointed out in the photographs that Mrs. Williams house was located very close to her neighbours, which made working on it very difficult. He said that the weather caught them, when winter came really early and shut the job down. Jean Marc was the worker who stole the company truck and Mr. Murray had to leave his mother’s sick bed in hospital in December to deal with it.

800He said that it was too cold to do the siding and the Versetta stone, so it had to wait. They could have done the siding earlier in the spring than the Versetta stone, but they were not able to get to any of it. He lost his licence and then was charged.

801Mr. Murray said that he removed the debris in March of 2019. He actually went to her home twice, once with his son and once when he picked up his tools. He said that she then fired him. He said that sometimes customers do not understand tight working quarters and the safety issues, and he was not blaming her. He cleaned up what he could get loose and he went back to get his tools when the ice thawed enough to permit him to do that. He said that the photos of his equipment demonstrate that his workers intended to return to do the work and that they got caught in bad weather. He identified his ladders, a bender and a staging system that was left behind. He retrieved his equipment in April of 2019.

802Overall, there is little controversy between Mrs. Williams’ evidence and Mr. Murray’s. Mrs. Williams’ photographs and her evidence supports that Mr. Murray’s equipment was frozen to the ground, and inaccessible to him until the spring thaw. This job simply could not be finished due to staffing issues and the poor weather in the late fall and winter.

Brad Pearson and Cheryl Sharp – September 10, 2018

803This is not a GreenOn contract. Mrs. Pearson said that her home desperately needed some work so when someone came to the door from EcoLife, she and her husband agreed to contact Mr. Murray’s company. Mr. Murray came and gave her a quote for replacement of some windows and doors. The quote was for $20,000.

804She expressed some concern about being able to afford the work. Mr. Murray suggested a loan and she told him that they had to get a loan for their upcoming wedding for $4,000. She said that Mr. Murray suggested that he would discount her job by $4,000 if she signed. She and her husband signed a contract with Mr. Murray in October of 2018, and that Mr. Murray said that if the contract was backdated, they would get the work done faster and because of GreenOn. She said that Mr. Murray set them up with Home Trust for the loan. He etransferred two payments of $2,000 each, for the signing bonus of $4,000, which they needed to pay for their wedding. She found this attractive because it sounded like free and clear money.

805She said that Mr. Murray told her that he was backlogged, and that he was still trying to work through the GreenOn stuff.

806She said that she never saw the two pages of terms and conditions of the contract that were put into evidence when she signed. Mr. Murray did not point them out. She also said that she did not believe that she had seen them before giving evidence at Trial. She understood that the proceeds of the Home Trust loan would be paid to Mr. Murray, he would then install the work and they would pay loan payments after 12 months. Mr. Murray went over the terms of the loan with her and her husband.

807She said that she never made payments to Home Trust because Mr. Murray’s company did not do the work. She said that she called and texted Mr. Murray in an attempt to get him to do the work, but she was not successful. At one point, someone named Bonnie came to her home to tell her that she was a current customer of Mr. Murray’s and that she was satisfied with his work. Mrs. Pearson still was not successful in having the work done and she and her husband moved.

808She agreed that the contract had no completion date noted on it. She said that she was advised to get a special kind of window, and that is what was ordered. She said that it was a fair statement that the weather was worse than usual over the winter, with lots of ice and snow. She said that she and her husband were concerned about doing the windows in the winter, but Mr. Murray told her that it was doable.

809She denied that she asked Mr. Murray to get the additional funds, and I found this to be contrary to her earlier evidence.

810Mr .Murray said that the contract that was put into evidence was not the original contract. The original was for $15,000, but that was not put to Mrs. Pearson.

811He said in his previous trial both contracts went into evidence. She was denied a loan by Snap, and then they contacted him again in October. He said he would try Home Trust. She asked him to try to get the extra funds, and so he did. He was surprised when the loan was approved. He said that he was aware that they were having a destination wedding at the same place as he and his wife had been married so he remembered the conversation.

812Mr. Murray identified the windows on the contract as not being GreenOn qualifying windows. He said that they were ordered from a different manufacturer that was not backlogged. He said he told them that he was too busy with GreenOn to do their job until the spring of 2019. And insisted that he did not sell this contract as a GreenOn rebate contract. He knew that even if his other work did not qualify for GreenOn rebates, he still had to finish the work and he was too busy to do this work until the spring.

813He said that the winter was horrible, and he spoke to Mrs. Pearson a couple of times.

814In light of the evidence that Mrs. Pearson supported, I find that there were two contracts. Mrs. Pearson asked Mr. Murray to help her in applying for a loan, that would enable her to help pay for her wedding, which Mr. Murray did. This was a job that was not sold to be completed until the spring of 2019. The poor weather delayed the start of the season, and then Mr. Murray lost his licence and could not complete the contract.

Mrs. Kinkaide – October 17, 2018

815This was not a GreenOn contract. Mrs. Kinkaide was looking to have some work done, so she contacted EcoLife. She wanted a main door and storm door and a bathroom window. The contract is dated the correct date, October 17, 2018. Mr. Murray and Ms. Kinkaide negotiated a price and agreed on $3,600. She was to pay a 50 percent deposit and got a receipt from Liette Langevin for $1,800 on October 19, 2018.

816The work was never done. She tried to contact Mr. Murray several times, but she did not think he responded and she did not get the work done. She was aware that Mr. Murray’s licence was revoked. She said she tried to contact the city a couple of times to help Mr. Murray to get his licence reinstated. She believed that this was in the fall.

817Mr. Murray said that he told Mrs. Kinkaide that he was busy with GreenOn jobs. He insisted that he told her that her job would not be done until spring. He said that when he lost his licence, she even when to the city to try to get them to fix the problem.

818He identified the window as a stock window, and it was from Euroseal. He said that this proved that he ordered product for other customers and then switched the manufacturer.

819Overall, it makes little sense for Ms. Kinkaide to not have spoken to Mr. Murray if she contacted the City of Sudbury to try to reinstate his licence. Her memory was poor and her evidence had little detail. Mr. Murray remembered her contract and said that he told her that her job would not be done until the spring. I accept that evidence. Her job was not a GreenOn job, and so Mr. Murray sold it as a job for 2019 and not 2018. I accept that the weather was poor starting in late November or early December, which then pushed all of his remaining contracts into the New Year. He simply did not get to her job before his licence was revoked.

Kevin Suchoplas – April 10, 2018

820This was a GreenOn contract. Mr. Suchoplas said that he went to the EcoLife office in May of 2018 but actually signed a contract to replace 9 windows on June 2, 2018. He said that Mr. Murray just decided to do it to ensure that Mr. Suchoplas qualified for GreenOn, and Mr. Suchoplas was not in agreement to change the date. He then said he did not care, and that Mr. Murray said that it did not matter. He was aware of the requirements for the GreenOn program before he visited EcoLife. Mr. Murray told him that the timeframe to order was 8 to 10 weeks. The approximate anticipated date for installation was August or September. There is a second contract with updated measurements for the same windows, and there is no completion date noted.

821He acknowledged that there was a back page to the contract with terms and conditions. He paid $100 as a deposit and then paid half of the value of the contract. He then charged the other half of the value of the contract to his credit card on November 24, 2018 by etransfer. He paid a total of $6,880. When work did not start as anticipated, Mr. Suchoplas said that he started contacting Mr. Murray by text and phone.

822Mr. Suchoplas said that by December, when he did not have windows installed, GreenOn was asking for more information, which included photos of the completed work. He said that Mr. Murray told him he would send pictures of a completed job, that did not show Mr. Suchoplas’ house in order for Mr. Suchoplas to get his rebate. He said he wanted to go along with this plan in order to get his rebate.

823He said he never got his windows. He began to believe that Mr. Murray never ordered them. He contacted Gentek, and he said he verified that the order was not made.

824He agreed that he read the back of the contract with the terms and conditions. He verified that when he signed the contract, Doug Ford had not been elected. He vaguely remembered a press release from SAWDAC. Mr. Suchoplas said that he was aware that his windows were ordered from one manufacturer and his order was switched to Gentek.

825He agreed he was told that the windows could not be installed in cold and snowy weather.

826He agreed that Mr. Murray told him that he was ill in November of 2018, and that his illness was affecting the pace of the work being done.

827When asked if the first snowfall had come by November 16, 2018, Mr. Suchoplas could not be certain but believed that was correct.

828Mr. Suchoplas remembered discussing Eco Energy rebates as an alternative rebate program for his windows. He said that he expected an auditor to come for that program, but the auditor did not come.

829He agreed that he was aware that an application had been started for him, and that there were errors on it that had to be fixed. He never got any rebate funds.

830Mr. Murray said that he never offered to send in photographs of other homes for Mr. Suchoplas.

831Mr. Murray believed that Mr. Suchoplas’ home was the subject of an Eco Energy audit, but that the home had the wrong kind of furnace.

832The contract references Regency windows, which are Gentek windows. Mr. Murray had a specific recollection that the windows were originally Euroseal windows, and that the contract was switched to Gentek. His explanation was that the contract was rewritten, the windows were changed to Gentek windows.

833Mr. Murray said that he did not believe he backdated the contract, but that the April date was a date that Mr. Suchoplas came to get the quote, and he later came back in June to sign the contract. He said that happened a lot. He said if the client committed to the quote and the contract was formed, he did not change the date on the quote to reflect the new date. Earlier, he had agreed that he backdated the contract, along with others, in order to protect the client’s eligibility for GreenOn. He later said that he did not think it was backdated but could not recall. Mr. Murray clarified that the text message exchange in December of 2018 with Mr. Suchoplas regarding photos was that he had to supply before and after photos to GreenOn, and he said that he had the photos taken before the work was to be done.

834This was a contract that Mr. Murray’s company just could not get to. It is reasonable to expect that the windows were delayed in coming in after being ordered, and then the weather and the loss of licence ensured that the work was not going to be finished.

Frank Valiquette – September 14, 2018

835This was not a GreenOn contract. Mr. Valiquette sought out Mr. Murray’s company and arranged for Mr. Murray to come to his home. He contracted with EcoLife to do siding, insulation and Versetta stone. Mr. Valiquette said that there were no details on the invoice, and there was only a total at the bottom for $25,398. It never dawned on him that there was little detail. There is a note of a $17,000 deposit, but Mr. Valiquette said that he did not have that kind of cash and did not give it to Mr. Murray. The contract is dated September 14, 2018 and Mr. Valiquette said that he accepted that date. There is a second agreement three weeks later for $18,700. Mr. Valiquette said he had no idea why there was a second agreement.

836He said that he paid Mr. Murray three cheques. He identified a cheque dated October 19, 2018 n the amount of $7,000, a cheque dated October 22, 2018 for $1,200 and a cheque dated October 26, 2018 in the amount of $10,000. All of the cheques are payable to EcoLife and they total $18,200. He said that Mr. Murray asked for the money, and he assumed that he asked for the $1,200 because why would he send that money. He then took out a Snap Loan in the amount of $8,398 and signed an equal monthly payment agreement.

837He kept a diary of the dates and times that workers showed up, and he said that they would leave at 10 a.m. and not come back until the afternoon, or not at all. The notes are difficult to read and the writing is very small. The notes reveal that workers showed up between October 22, 2018 and November 26, 2018. He did not report to Mr. Murray the workers’ activity because he felt that it was Mr. Murray’s job to supervise his workers.

838He said he could have entered into the Snap Loan, and that the signature looked like his. He said that Mr. Murray told him that he was getting more money for Mr. Valiquette, but that the money went to Mr. Murray. Mr Valiquette said that he was running out of money. Based on his lawyer’s advice he did not make any payments to Snap.

839He said that the workers removed the vinyl siding and put up insulation. They did not do anything else. Mr. Valiquette identified the photograph at Crown, page 10, in tab 6 of his Exhibit Book as being the old siding overtop of the insulation. There is no siding in that picture.

840He said that he did not know who took the photos.

841He said that most of the work done by Mr. Murray’s company was removed and redone by another contractor.

842Mr. Valiquette said that Mr. Murray blamed it on GreenOn and that he never got a cent from Mr. Murray. He said he was not sure who did the work in the windows.

843The impression that I was left with regarding Mr. Valiquette is that he had little memory of anything.

844Mr Murray said that Mr. Valiquette wanted some work done. He asked Furoys to come and look at the soffit job and the blown in insulation that Mr. Valiquette wanted, and Mr. Valiquette was pleased by that. He ultimately entered into two contracts after he wanted to add work to the first contract. He was not part of the discussion about the second contract and he remained in the truck. He said it seemed like a contract that would be done in the spring. The second contract involved Rob, who was the red seal. It involved the block construction and the crack. He said that Mr. Valiquette came to the office to sign the contract.

845He said Mr. Valiquette was a nice man who seemed to forget things and had to be told a couple of times.

846Mr. Murray said 60 percent of the siding was done and 100 percent of the insulation was done. He said that the weather starting getting bad in November and they were waiting for it to break, but it got way worse.

847Mr. Murray denied pushing the Snap Loan. He said that Mr. Valiquette told him that he did not have any money and wanted financing. He said he would go to the bank. Mr. Murray said that he could see about financing a zero percent loan, and Mr. Valiquette was happy with that.

848Mr. Murray said that this was not a GreenOn job, and that if anything it was Eco Grant. When challenged that there was no such program, Mr. Murray named a person who would go to the home from Barrie and do the audit. He later said that his team made errors and submitted an GreenOn application for Mr. Valiquette and it was accepted. However, Mr. Valiquette said that he did not get any money.

849He said nothing was clear with GreenOn and they were accepting applications that they should not have accepted, such as Valiquette’s. He said that it was not a completed application. It would have required the certification from the installer, which was never supplied. It was just the first step of the application and done in error.

850Overall, I cannot rely on Mr. Valiquette’s evidence as it is unreliable. Mr. Valiquette did not have a reliable memory and contradicted himself.

851Mr. Murray’s evidence was that his employees submitted the GreenOn application in error and he corrected that error as soon as he discovered it. His workers started the job, but the weather got bad and they had to stop. They waited for better weather, but it never came. By the time he was ready to restart booking jobs in 2019, he had lost his licence and could not work. I accept all of that.

Paula Marshall – November 29, 2018

852This was not a GreenOn job. Mrs. Marshall needed work done on her home for a roof, soffit and fascia. Someone came to her door from Mr. Murray’s company, and she or her husband contacted him. She knew Mr. Murray already. They met on November 29, 2018 to contract for the that work and two windows and a patio door.

853The total contract was for $13,300 and she said she paid a deposit of $10,000. In return for the larger deposit, she received a discount of $700. She said that Mr. Murray told her that they would be one of the first jobs in April of the next year.

854Workers did not show up in April of 2019, so she started calling. She told Mr. Murray that she had been hearing rumours about Mr. Murray having financial problems and he told her that he was having problems with ex-employees and that he had gotten behind with the GreenOn program, but that he still intended to do her job. She and her husband sent three options to Mr. Murray, one of which was to refund their money. Mr. Murray did not take the options. She continued hearing about Mr. Murray’s problems and heard about a protest.

855She said that she assumed that the windows would be done around the same time as the other work, which was late April or early May. She did not know about Mr. Murray losing his licence in April until she heard about it in May. Mr. Murray never told her he was not willing to complete the work.

856She said that Mr. Murray did not tell her that his mother died, but he did tell her that he had labour problems, and he linked it to the GreenOn program. She agreed that the winter was harsh and that the roof could not be done in the snow.

857Mr. Murray said that his sales guy was asking him to see this customer, because he had not been selling jobs or making money, so Mr. Murray agreed. He said he knew Mrs. Marshall but he met with her husband.

858He said he discounted the job when they agreed to take stock items, which would help him free up cashflow. They talked about possibly doing the job in December if the weather was good, if not it would be done in the spring. He said that when he gave Mrs. Marshall his new number in February of 2019, he got one digit wrong. That made her husband suspicious, but it was an error. He never got the work done because his licence was pulled and then he was charged.

859He identified the windows as low E and said they were Euroseal windows. He said he went back to Euroseal because they were better windows for his customers.

860There is nothing controversial about the evidence of either Mr. Murray or Ms. Marshall. This job was not done because it was not to be started until after Mr. Murray’s office reopened. He lost his licence and could not do the work.

Joseph Ntahortori – December 10, 2018

861This was not a GreenOn job. Mr. Ntahortori wanted to have his roof done and some windows and a door repaired. He and Mr. Murray met on January 27, 2019 and signed a contract for the roof, the door and one window. They sent a $2,000 deposit through etransfer.

862Mr. Ntahortori said that they spoke in English the day that they met. He did not speak much English but his wife did. He also said that he did not notice the date on the contract being December 10, 2018 when they signed but tried to get Mr. Murray to come back and fix it. He promised but he did not return and fix it. The contract was for $7,900 and he etransfered $2,000 for the deposit on January 27, 2019.

863He said that Mr. Murray told him that the work would start as soon as there was no snow on the roof. Mr. Murray did not show up to fix the contract or to do the work.

864Mr. Ntahortori went to the office a couple of times, but Mr. Murray was not there. On one occasion he was there, and Mr. Murray seemed nervous. Mr. Murray was with someone whose child went to St. Benedict School. Mr. Ntahortori was teaching this person’s daughter and they talked.

865He believed that Mr. Murray spoke French to him and he remembered very well that Mr. Murray spoke French very well.

866He agreed that there was still snow on his roof in March and then said that he did not remember but that there was no snow in April and May.

867Mr. Murray did not ask for any more money. Mr. Ntahortori spoke with Mrs. Murray and she told him that the work would be done.

868The word “drive” appears on the signature line on the contract, and Mr. Ntahortori believed that meant that Mr. Murray did not sign the agreement. His attention was drawn to the line above, and the word “drive” appears to be a continuation of the address. He did not accept that.

869Mr. Murray agreed that they contracted for the work and said that his licence got pulled before he could do the work.

870There is nothing controversial about the evidence of either Mr. Ntahortori or Mr. Murray.

Dawn MacKelvie – December 19, 2018

871This was not a GreenOn job. Mrs. MacKelvie said that Mr. Murray and a crew showed up in the fall of 2018 to fix wind damage. After that damage was repaired, she and her husband realized that the entire roof needed new shingles so she called Mr. Murray. The total amount quoted to them was $12,543, which they expected. The contract was for December 19, 2018. She said they paid $6,000 which Mr. Murray’s mother-in-law came to pick up on December 20 or 21, 2018. She said someone came out in a day or two and removed some shingles. When he left for the day he said he would be back Monday. Nobody showed up again. She insisted that the job was to be done before Christmas.

872She said she started making phone calls to find out when someone was going to return. She said she knew that Mr. Murray’s mother passed away on December 22, 2018, but in her view that should not have affected the workers. I note that December 24, 2018 was a Monday and Christmas was the next day.

873She said that there were multiple texts exchanged, but that no further work was done. She sent a registered letter to Mr. Murray and he did not finish the work. The letter cancelled the contract.

874She said that when the wind caused damage to the roof in the fall, Mr. Murray showed up within hours to address it. He never returned for the money to pay for the patch.

875She said that she never heard that it was not safe to do the roof in the snow, and that it was snowing when the worker showed up to remove the shingles. She said that she could see that the weather would have an impact on the work.

876Her husband’s signature appears on the contract, but not hers.

877She knew that Mr. Murray was having a lot problems on the window side, with delays.

878She acknowledged that Mr. Murray was communicating with her husband and not her. She saw the employees when they attended her home to strip the shingles.

879Mr. Murray said that he considered Mrs. McKelvie and her husband to be good friends when the contract was signed.

880He said that he did a band aid repair to their roof after a windstorm in October and recommended that they look at doing their entire roof. He said he charged them $250 but he was never paid for the work. After fixing the roof he said he did not expect to be replacing their roof, because he told them to go through their insurance company. He said that Mr. Antonioni kept bugging him to do the roof but never made arrangements to have it done. When they finally wanted to do the roof, it was in late December. Mr. Murray said he was really ill at that time. Mr. Murray said that he only dealt with her husband and not Ms. MacKelvie.

881Mr. Murray said that it was getting too late in the season, but he would ask if some workers wanted to do the job. He said that the weather got warm and that they had a short window to do the roof so he sent some workers.

882Mr. Murray’s mother had fallen and she was in the hospital. Mr. Murray was staying around the clock at the hospital with his mother, and he awoke one morning to his phone buzzing from text messages. He discovered that the crew that he had sent the day before was reporting that one of the crew did not show up with the truck and all the equipment. Mr. Murray said that he had to leave the hospital and contact the police. He met the police at the worker’s home, where he got help from the police to recover his truck and tools. While he was dealing with this, his mother passed away. He said he lost his mother and an installer in one day.

883Mr. Murray said Mr. Antonioni was sympathetic about the loss of his mother, but Mrs. McKelvie was not.

884Overall, there is nothing controversial about this evidence. Mr. Murray sent workers on very short notice, within a short window of good weather during the Christmas season on a weekend. One worker did not return the next day with all of the required equipment. That also happened to be the day that Mr. Murray’s mother tragically passed away. Mr. Murray was visibly emotional about his failure to be at her bedside when she died, because he had to deal with this worker. His office was then closed for the season, and understandably due to the loss of his mother. The weather was unseasonably cold and snowy and icy for the rest of the season. He lost his licence in April, and could not finish the job.

Lynn and Richard Myher – February 28, 2019 and March 2019

885This was not a GreenOn contract. Mrs. Myher testified that she and her husband contacted Mr. Murray’s company because they definitely had work that needed to be done. Originally they needed cedar shingles to be removed from around their entryway, but stuff was added later. The first contract was February 28, 2019. That contract involved work on their entryway and garage. She said that everything on the first contract was completed except for a door. She said that she was practically sure that everything was done and they were satisfied.

886In court she was shown the backside of the contract but never paid attention to it.

887As Mr. Murray’s workers were working on the home, they pointed out more things that needed some attention. The roof was discussed as well as the window sills, which needed some work. She said that the discussions were mostly between Mr. Murray and her husband Richard. The second contract was for the work pointed out by Mr. Murray, and it was dated March of 2019. It was for a total of $15,714. The work started on April 2, 2019. They paid a $6,000 deposit on March 31, 2019 and the balance of $9,714 by bank draft on April 4, 2019.

888She and her husband cancelled their contract and then on April 12, 2019, Mr. Murray told her that he was going to lose his licence but that he was going to try to complete her work. He said that he was going to be transferring the contract to his wife’s company. She said at this point all his equipment was on their property, and they felt that this solution was better than nothing.

889The transfer of the work was officially done on April 29, 2019 when the Myhers signed an agreement to transfer their contract and their payment to Maple Ridge. Pamala Facendi went to their home alone, and she copied a new contract from the original contract with EcoLife.

890By this time some work had actually started on the second contract with EcoLIfe. She said that they had started on the soffit and fascia and some work was done around the windows. She said one person came to the worksite after they signed, and they only did a half-day worth of work and did not return.

891Mrs. Myher could not remember if she was present when the second contract was signed and agreed that her signature did not appear on it. She said that she met a couple of times with Mr. Murray and Ms. Facendi, but no one ever came to finish the work. She understood that Mr. Murray’s arrangements with his wife and her company taking over the work was his effort to finish the work. She said he was definitely making an effort to complete the contract. She confirmed that she and her husband were not asked to pay any more money, and that Mr. Murray recognized that the money paid on EcoLife contracts was transferred to Maple Ridge.

892Ms. Myher knew that Mr. Murray could not do any work under EcoLIfe because his licence had been revoked in April of 2019. She said when Ms. Facendi came to the house regarding the contract with Maple Ridge, she felt that she had no other choice but to enter into a contract with Maple Ridge to get the work done. She never explained why.

893Richard Myher testified that the first contract was completed to his satisfaction. He said that his home needed other work, so he agreed to have Mr. Murray’s company do additional work. He said that Mr. Murray pressed to do the roof and he and his wife agreed to have the work done. He then said that some of the work on the first contract was not finished and the photographs entered into evidence support that claim.

894The text messages also support that Mr. Murray and Mr. Myher were in communication after EcoLife’s licence was revoked, but that Mr. Murray’s company and Ms. Facendi’s company never finished the work on the contract.

895Contrary to what Mrs. Myher claimed, Mr. Myher said that all the work around the front door was done as part of the first contract. He agreed with his wife that the soffit and fascia was not finished, and the cladding around the windows was not done.

896He said that he did not read the terms and conditions on the reverse, and that Mr. Murray did not hide them.

897He agreed that he requested that Mr. Murray quote a job for Mr. Myher’s daughter, but Mr. Murray refused to do it. Mr. Myher said that he did not care what Mr. Murray’s excuses were to not give the quote.

898Mr. Myher confirmed that EcoLife’s equipment including a bender, ladders and saw horses were left on his property. He said that another contractor who had worked for Mr. Murray claimed the saw horses, and he said that the other equipment simply disappeared. He agreed that the letter sent by his wife said that they would not release the equipment because they were owed money.

899Mr. Murray said that he went to speak to them at the urging of his sales guy, Shawn Boucher. He said it was a long winter and Shawn was not making any money. He mentioned work on the deck which was a small job. Mr .Murray said he told them he was not officially open yet and sat and talked with them. He looked at the job, and it seemed very simple. He said he could do the job himself. He believed that they signed the agreement on February 28, 2019. He said that there is no start date on the contract because they were waiting for the weather to improve. During the discussion, Mr. Myher mentioned other work he wanted done and it was added to the contract.

900Mr. Murray said that everything was completed on the first contract, and that was why they paid in full, and even added more work that they wanted done.

901He said that the second contract was signed in March of 2019. This contract references the window capping, as well as roofing and flashing as well as the soffit and fascia. Mr. Murray believed that no work was started on this contract.

902He confirmed that he and Ms. Facendi decided to transfer the work to her company. He said that they took time to apply for a licence and arrange for WSIB coverage and other insurance coverage. They incorporated the new company under the name Maple Ridge. After the Myhers transferred the contract to Maple Ridge, Mr. Murray could talk to them as an employee of Maple Ridge, and he did so.

903As Maple Ridge, Mr. Murray said that they did work on the soffit and fascia on the house and garage, some siding work, some capping work, which not completed.

904He said Mr. Myher wanted Mr. Murray to do work on his daughter’s home, and Mr. Murray said he avoided the request. He then looked at the job with Rob, one of his workers. He said he could not take it, and then around that time he was charged and could not speak to clients.

905Mr. Murray identified some of his equipment in the photographs. He identified places where the work had started in the photographs, but the work was essentially partially completed.

906Very little is controversial about this evidence. Mr. Murray said that all the work was finished on the first contract, when there were minor parts that were not. However, that was not the central issue. Mr. Murray clearly sent workers to this job, while he had other jobs that were not yet finished. He was not asked about this directly. However, he did say that this was a simple job that he could do himself. Mr. Murray had repeatedly given evidence about having specialized “crews” who were qualified to do steeply pitched or high roofs, window installations and insulation work. None of the work on this contract required a specialty crew. As well, Mr. Myher confirmed that Mr. Murray’s equipment went missing and Mr. Murray said that it was not recovered.

Overall ruling

907Given my analysis of the objective evidence, the banking records, the business records, Mr. Murray’s evidence and the evidence of each of the Complainants, I am left with a reasonable doubt in relation to both the actus reus and the mens rea, and, accordingly, I will enter an acquittal on all remaining charges.

Released: November 28, 2025

Signed: Justice S. Murphy

Footnotes

Page 41, Crown submissions, para 196.
Page 42, Crown submissions, para 197.
Transcript of evidence June 3, 2025, page 114, lines 5 to 30.
Transcript of evidence June 4, 2025 page 14 line 30 to page 15 line 32
June 3, 2025 page 125 line 15