Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: 314/08
DATE: 20090609
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
MULTI-TECH CONTRACTING 2000 INC. Plaintiff (Respondent in Appeal)
- and -
WESTON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Defendant (Appellant in Appeal)
Counsel: Lawrence B. Goldapple, for the Plaintiff (Respondent in Appeal) Leroy A. Bleta, for the Defendant (Appellant in Appeal)
HEARD at Toronto: June 9, 2009
Oral Reasons for Judgment
PARDU J.: (Orally)
[1] The appellant seeks to set aside a judgment of a Deputy Small Claims Court Judge who awarded the sum of $2,922.00, plus costs in favour of the respondent in this appeal in relation to painting and plastering work said to have been performed by the respondent at apartment buildings owned by the appellant.
[2] The appellant says that it never authorized the respondent to do the work and knew nothing of the work when it was being done. The respondent says that he was asked to do the work by Mr. Allan McMullen who worked in some capacity for the appellant. The appellant says that McMullen was not authorized to permit repairs and that he was only engaged for a three month period to lease apartments. The appellant argues that there was no evidence before the trial judge which would have permitted a finding that the work was done.
[3] In a civil case the standard of proof is a modest one. The respondent had only to show on the balance of probabilities that the work was done and there is some evidence which could have permitted the trial judge to come to that conclusion. He says they were given keys to get into the apartments. It may well be that proper procedures were not maintained in relation to a key log supposed to be maintained by the appellant’s staff.
[4] Mr. Lopes, on behalf of the respondent did say under oath that the work was done. He says he inspected the units, observed that they required a lot of plaster work and that he arranged for trades to go in and perform the work.
[5] There was no palpable and overriding error on the part of the trial judge in coming to the conclusion that the work was actually done. It was a finding that was reasonably open to him on the evidence that was before him and on purely factual findings such as that, he is owed considerable deference. Once that factual finding was made, given the absence of a formal contract as specifying amounts, it was open to the trial judge to calculate appropriate compensation for the respondent on a quantum meruit basis. Indeed the appellant’s Statement of Defence invited the judge to do so if he found that there was entitlement to recover.
[6] It would inappropriate for the appellant to get the benefit of the work done without providing for some sort of compensation. The actual amount of compensation ordered was not unfair; it was roughly the same as would have been paid by the appellant to have someone else perform the services.
[7] There is no overriding error in the factual findings made by the trial judge. They were reasonably open to him on the evidence that he had before him. It seems to me that the appellant had control of the premises, could have easily arranged for an inspection of the premises to establish whether or not they had been painted and I see no basis to interfere with the decision of the trial judge.
[8] The appeal is dismissed.
[9] I endorse the Appeal Book and Compendium: “Appeal dismissed for reasons delivered orally. Costs to the respondent in appeal fixed at $1,750.00, amount being limited for reasons of proportionality related to amount in issue.”
PARDU J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 9, 2009
Date of Release: June 16, 2009
COURT FILE NO.: 314/08
DATE: 20090609
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
MULTI-TECH CONTRACTING 2000 INC. Plaintiff (Respondent in Appeal)
- and -
WESTON PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Defendant (Appellant in Appeal)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
PARDU J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: June 9, 2009
Date of Release: June 16, 2009