Paul Hosack

The plaintiff, Keen Landscaping Inc., sued the self-represented defendant, Ann Marie Stewart, under the Construction Lien Act for unpaid work related to the installation of a fiberglass pool and associated landscaping.

The defendant disputed the corporate entity, contract terms, and quality of work.

The court found that the defendant knew she was contracting with a corporate entity and that a contract existed, evolving through various proposals.

The total contract price was determined to be $87,014.52, with an outstanding balance of $46,580.97.

The court found the plaintiff substantially completed the project, but noted two deficiencies: oozing glue from patio stones and non-compliant patio steps, requiring a further hearing to determine rectification costs.

The plaintiff, Keen Landscaping Inc., sued the defendant, Ann Marie Stewart, for unpaid pool installation costs.

The court previously ruled in favour of the plaintiff but identified two deficiencies requiring rectification: non-compliant patio steps and oozing glue from patio stones.

This ruling determined the costs of these rectifications.

The court found that the property's grading was altered by the pool installation, requiring a grading certification that the plaintiff failed to obtain.

The defendant's proposed rectification plan, including a complete rebuild of the patio steps and a grading certification, was largely accepted, with an adjusted cost of $21,413.50 (including HST).

This amount was credited to the defendant, reducing the balance owing to the plaintiff from $43,580.97 to $22,167.47.

The plaintiff, a 68-year-old captive sales agent, brought an action for constructive dismissal after his employer proposed changes to his commission structure and requested he sign an updated employment agreement.

The plaintiff resigned, claiming a toxic work environment and a fundamental change to his employment terms, despite the employer offering 18 months of working notice on his existing terms.

The court dismissed the action, finding no constructive dismissal as the employer's conduct did not amount to a repudiation of the contract.

Furthermore, the court held that even if constructive dismissal had occurred, the plaintiff failed to mitigate his damages by refusing the reasonable opportunity to work out the notice period.