Court File and Parties

CITATION: Chung v. Idan, 2007 ONCA 544

DATE: 20070726

DOCKET: C44974

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

LASKIN, MACFARLAND JJ.A. and BENOTTO J. (ad hoc)

BETWEEN:

MAUREEN CHUNG and GEOFFREY JACKSON

Plaintiffs (Appellants)

and

ARIK IDAN and OLGA IDAN

Defendants (Respondents)

Counsel:

Margaret Waddell for the appellants

David J. McGhee for the respondent

Heard: July 20, 2007

On appeal from the judgment of Justice Paul M. Perell of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 27, 2006.

APPEAL BOOK ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appeal involves a claim by a home renovator against home owners, which was dismissed and a counter-claim by the home owners, which was allowed.

[2] The appellant frames the appeal as follows: who bears the burden of not getting building permits and licences – the home owner or the contractor.

[3] It is argued that the trial judge erred in placing the burden on the contractor and determining, as a result, that portions of the work and the extras were illegal.

[4] After an eight-day trial, the judge made detailed findings of fact as to the nature of the contract, the scope of the work, the quality of the work, the amount sought for extras and the cost of the remedial work. In doing so, he also determined that the home owners were incorrectly told that a permit was not necessary.

[5] There was evidence before the trial judge which supported his factual findings on the claim and the counter-claim. We see no error in the judge’s order as to costs.

[6] The appeal is dismissed with costs fixed at $19,000, all inclusive.