COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-461205
DATE: May 28, 2014
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Neritan Xhebraj
D. Krysik for the plaintiff
Fax: 416-225-7112
Plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim)
- and -
Anita Bassi
G. Dinning for the defendant
Fax: 416-781-3628
HEARD: May 21 and 22, 2014
Master C. Albert
[1] Neritan Xhebraj, a contractor, seeks payment of $22,867.94[^1] as the balance owing for the supply of services and materials to renovate Dr. Bassi’s property at 12 Criscoe Street, Toronto. He registered a construction lien claim against the property on July 9, 2012 as instrument AT3068827. Dr. Bassi claims that Mr. Xhebraj overcharged her, abandoned the job prior to completion and performed some of the work deficiently. She counterclaims for $21,658.80[^2].
I. Background
[2] Dr.Bassi purchased 12 Criscoe Street in early 2012 and immediately contacted Mr. Xhebraj regarding renovations. After discussing the project with Dr. Bassi Mr. Xhebraj provided his first quote on February 12, 2012 (Quote 1) and a revised quote on February 28, 2012 (Quote 2). Both quotes provide line by line details regarding the proposed scope of work and pricing. Dr. Bassi wanted to remove some items and add other items to Quote 2. She asked for a revised quote but concerned about timing, she instructed Mr. Xhebraj to begin the work. She gave him with a key to the property and he commenced construction on March 1, 2012.
[3] The house was built in or about 1944. As is typical in older homes, some of the items that needed repair or replacement could not be ascertained until after the work had started. In the case of 12 Criscoe, more extensive work than initially anticipated was required.
II. Issues
[4] The issues are:
a) Was there a contract? If so, what are its terms as to scope of work and price?
b) Who breached the contract?
c) What amount, if any, does Dr. Bassi owe to Mr. Xhebraj for work completed?
d) What amount, if any, is Dr. Bassi entitled to set off for deficiencies and incomplete work?
e) What amount, if any, is Mr. Xhebraj entitled to receive for the electrician and for garbage bins and disposal?
III. Position of the Parties
[5] Mr. Xhebraj’s position is that (a) the parties entered into a contract based on the unit prices set out in Quote 2, but for a scope of work that expanded as the project progressed, as reflected in Quote 3; (b) Dr. Bassi breached the contract by threatening not to pay for all of the work; (c) Dr. Bassi owes $18,526.46 on the contract; (d) no set-off for deficiencies and incomplete work is appropriate because he reduced the contract price by the amount of work listed in Quote 3 that he did not complete, and Dr. Bassi never identified any deficient or unsatisfactory work prior to the litigation; and (e) he is entitled to be reimbursed $2,260.00 for the electrician and $2,081.48 for garbage bins and disposal. In the result Mr. Xhebraj claims that he is entitled to receive an additional $22,867.94 from Dr. Bassi.
[6] Dr. Bassi’s position is that (a) the parties did not have a contract or, alternatively, a new contract was formed for each item of work separately, for a reasonable but unspecified price agreed to by the parties on an item by item basis, capped at her budget of $50,000.00; (b) Mr. Xhebraj breached the contract by walking off the job on June 13, 2012 prior to completion; (c) the amount owing to Mr. Xhebraj on the contract based on the value of work completed is $12,023.26[^3]; (d) the value of deficient and incomplete work that Dr. Bassi is entitled to set off against the amount owing to Mr. Xherbaj is $24,000.00; (e ) Mr. Xhebraj has been reimbursed for the electrician’s payment and is not entitled to be reimbursed for garbage bins and disposal. These amounts, if accepted by the court, would result in $11,976.74 owing to Dr. Bassi.
IV. Analysis
a. The contract
[7] Quote 2 is 15 pages long and lists 188 line items. For each room and closet in the house Mr. Xhebraj listed the item of work to be done, the quantity in a measurement suitable to the item (square feet, linear feet or per item), the cost per unit of measurement and the total cost calculated by multiplying the measurement per unit by the number of units. For each room and closet in the house he provided a total and then he provided a total for the entire project, which adds up to $51,371.04 in Quote 2.
[8] Mr. Xhebraj admits that Quote 2 is not the contract but he states that the unit prices were not disputed. For the most part the only difference between the scope of work in Quote 2 and the work actually supplied is that the scope increased due to several factors: Dr. Bassi changed her mind, building conditions required more extensive work than initially anticipated, and Dr. Bassi added new items of work.
[9] When Mr. Xhebraj finally delivered Quote 3 to Dr. Bassi, close to the end of the job, it reflected the services and materials actually supplied, or to be supplied had he finished the job. For the most part the unit prices remained the same as in Quote 2, except that in some instances where the quantity increased significantly the unit price was reduced (for example: in several areas the amount of drywall that was replaced increased significantly Mr. Xhebraj reduced the unit price from $3.83 per square foot in Quote 2 to $2.80 per square foot in Quote 3). Mr. Xhebraj seeks payment at the reduced rate in these circumstances. There are other instances where an item in Quote 3 was not listed in Quote 2 at all but Dr. Bassi instructed him to do the work. Implied in such instructions is an agreement to pay for the additional work. The issue is whether they agreed on prices for those additional items.
[10] Mr. Xhebraj’s asserts that the parties entered into an oral contract based on the unit prices set out in Quote 2 and a scope of work as described partially in Quote 2 but adjusted to reflect their discussions regarding deletions and additions to the scope of work. Mr Xhebraj maintains that the scope of work and prices that the parties ultimately agreed to are reflected in Quote 3, delivered to Dr. Bassi on June 2, 2012, some three months after he had commenced the work and close to its completion.
[11] Dr. Bassi’s position is that she did not accept the prices listed in Quote 2. Her position is not supported by the evidence. There are no documents to corroborate that she questioned or challenged the unit prices. Rather, her explanation for not accepting Quote 2 is that the scope of work listed in the 188 line items required some additions and some deletions. She claims that the parties never entered into a contract for the entire project. She asserts that the parties agreed to each item of work as it was undertaken, on an item by item basis. She contends that the parties never agreed to either a fixed price or a price based on time and materials.
[12] Formation of a contract requires an offer, an acceptance and consideration. The issue in this case turns largely on credibility. Reliability of evidence of both parties is questionable. Mr. Xhebraj undermined his credibility by including in his evidence invoices for garbage bins and disposal that pertain in one case to services that predate commencement of the project, with the address on the invoice whited out and changed, and in another case showing a different address altogether. He did not withdraw his claim to recover these payments until Dr. Bassi challenged it.
[13] Dr. Bassi’s credibility is also compromised. She asks the court to accept that the contract was a series of multiple contracts based on authorization for each item as it arose. Most damaging to her credibility is her position that she did not understand that Quotes 1 and 2 provided unit pricing. She stated that she did not accept that Mr. Xhebraj had provided unit pricing because she did not understand the quote and that it set out unit prices. Dr. Bassi is a well-educated, professional optician, articulate and prone to documenting matters via email or text message. I find it incredible that she did not ask Mr. Xhebraj to explain the quotes and how to read and understand them. She was engaged in ongoing discussions with him before and during the project. Her position on this issue undermines her credibility.
[14] It is clear that the parties never agreed to either Quote 1 or Quote 2 as the contract. The issue is whether Quote 3, delivered after most of the work had been completed, accurately reflects their oral agreement.
[15] The reason for the increase in price from Quote 2, which was for $51,371.04, and Quote 3, which was for $70,328.95, is the increase in the scope of work. In her email to Mr. Xhebraj dated February 29, 2012 Dr. Bassi questions only 16 of the 188 line items in Quote 2. Most of her comments are about line items for painting doors on the basis that she changed her mind and decided to replace existing doors and enlarge some doorway openings to fit standard doors. She questioned whether that would eliminate the line items for painting doors.
[16] I reject Dr. Bassi’s assertion that the parties did not reach an agreement. There is no evidence that any of the work Mr. Xhebraj performed was done without authority. There is no evidence that Dr. Bassi rejected the unit prices quoted by Mr. Xhebraj. To the contrary, knowing the unit prices (even though she feigned ignorance as to how to read the quotes and the unit prices clearly shown therein), Dr. Bassi instructed Mr. Xhebraj to proceed with the renovations notwithstanding that the parties had not yet agreed completely as to the scope of work.
[17] Dr. Bassi submitted in evidence numerous emails and text messages of her communications to Mr. Xhebraj. There is no documentary trail to support her contention that the work was performed without permission. As to her contention that there was no agreement as to price, but rather that the parties agreed on each item of work as it needed to be done, again there is no evidence to support such an impractical and unworkable arrangement as having formed the contract. There are no documents to support agreements as to price for each item as it was about to be performed. Nor is there any documentation contemporaneous with payments made regarding pricing. The parties’ conduct is consistent with a contract for a fixed price for each item of work based on the unit prices quoted.
[18] As to price, Quotes 1 and 2 set out unit prices for items, as discussed. The unit prices that form the basis for calculating the contract price are consistent between Quotes 1 and 2 and are mostly carried forward and reflected in Quote 3, with some reductions for unit prices where the quantity supplied increased significantly. For new items listed for the first time in Quote 3 I accept and prefer the evidence of Mr. Xhebraj over that of Dr. Bassi as more credible regarding the price agreed to by the parties. These prices were not challenged by Dr. Bassi’s expert.
[19] Dr. Bassi authorized Mr. Xhebraj to commence work on March 1, 2012 and gave him the key to her house. She made progress payments that total $48,025.00. There is no corroborating evidence that she questioned or challenged the unit prices in Quote 2. The unit prices did not increase. Only the scope of work increased.
[20] I find that the parties entered into an oral contract for Mr. Xhebraj to supply service and materials for a fixed price, calculated for each line item as a fixed price based on the unit prices as shown in Quote 2 but for the scope of work agreed to by the parties as the work progressed, as reflected in Quote 3. To the extent that Mr. Xhebraj left the job prior to completing all of the items listed in Quote 3 an adjustment is required to reflect the extent of the work he completed.
b. Who breached the contract?
[21] The parties agree that Dr. Bassi made progress payments of $48,025.00 to Mr. Xhebraj. The last payment was made on June 6, 2012. By then Dr. Bassi had received Quote 3, which clearly showed that the cost of the expanded scope of work would total $70,328.95.
[22] It is understandable that a homeowner in Dr. Bassi’s situation would be concerned about price. She was quite concerned that the total cost of the renovation, including Mr. Xhebraj’s work and her direct contracts with other suppliers, was going to exceed her budget. After receiving Quote 3 she told Mr. Xhebraj that she was not prepared to pay $70,328.95 for all of the work listed in Quote 3. It was too late to reduce the scope of work because most of it had been completed. She wanted Mr. Xhebraj to complete the remaining items for a total of $55,000.00. In other words, she wanted to pay a reduced price for an increased scope of work, which would require Mr. Xhebraj to reduce his price by $15,000.00 or roughly 20 per cent. Mr. Xhebraj was not prepared to do so. Nor was he prepared to supply any more services or materials knowing he was not going to be paid for it. He left the job on June 13, 2012 and did not return.
[23] The issue is whether Mr. Xhebraj breached the contract by abandoning it for non-payment when Dr. Bassi threatened not to pay him or whether Dr. Bassi breached the contract by refusing to pay the last $15,000.00 of the contract price.
[24] Is a contractor required to complete a job knowing he will not be paid for it? Was he entitled to stop work to mitigate his losses when the owner threatened not to pay for the work?
[25] Alternatively, was Dr. Bassi entitled to have Mr. Xhebraj complete the job, since a reasonable period in which to pay had not yet lapsed from the date of her last payment to him on June 6, 2012? In other words, was she in breach of her obligation to pay by simple stating her intention that she would pay no more than an additional $7,000.00 for the remaining $22,000.00 of work? Or does a breach by non-payment not occur until a reasonable time to pay has passed and the contractor remains unpaid?
[26] In my view Mr. Xhebraj was entitled to treat Dr. Bassi’s statement that she would pay no more than $55,000.00 for the balance of the work as an anticipatory breach of the contract. On that basis he was entitled to treat the contract as at an end and sue for the balance owing for the services and materials supplied up to the date he left the job.
c. Value of Mr. Xhebraj’s work
[27] The parties submitted detailed evidence of their calculations of many of the 255 items listed in Quote 3. In many cases the parties were apart by a few dollars or even a few pennies but they continued to quibble over picayune differences over many minor items of work. There is a principle of de minimus non curat lex[^4] that neither party applied. It is clear to me that much of the time and money spent by the parties nit picking over nickels, dimes and a few dollars would have been better spent if applied towards resolving their dispute.
[28] Mr. Xhebraj’s approach to value is to deduct from the total amount quoted for all items in Quote 3 the items he claims that he did not complete. He calculates that he completed $66,551.46[^5] worth of the work but he did not provide independent corroborating evidence to support that calculation. It is merely his opinion as an interested party.
[29] If the court accepts that the calculation is based on deducting line items that he did not complete then Mr. Xhebraj’s approach is reasonable. However his evidence of quantification is questionable because it includes unit prices for items that were not listed in Quote 2 (for example: installing IKEA cabinets and a range hood). Whether Dr. Bassi agreed to the unit prices for these new items has not been firmly established.
[30] Dr. Bassi’s approach to quantification is to base the calculation on Quote 2 and allow some additional minor amounts. This approach is flawed because it does not take into account many of the items that Dr. Bassi added to the scope of work after Quote 2. One example is the addition of many new doors and the widening of openings to allow standard size doors to fit.
[31] Dr. Bassi’s alternative approach to value is based on the evidence of her expert, Mr. Cordina, a professional engineer. His experience includes building audits and budgeting. This is his first experience as an expert witness at trial providing evidence of value in a home renovation. His report provides evidence of quantification from a neutral witness who is not a party to the proceedings. Although some of his assumptions are questionable, I find his approach to quantification reasonable. Mr. Cordina’s report is the best evidence of value tendered.
[32] Mr. Cordina describes the purpose of his report as follows: “To provide a cost estimate for interior renovation work performed by NX Building and Maintenance Services[^6]”. In preparing his report Mr. Cordina relied on his discussions with Dr. Bassi as well as copies of Quotes 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. Xhebraj’s statement of claim.
[33] In his summary of findings Mr. Cordina describes Dr. Bassi’s responses to Quotes 1 and 2 as notifications to Mr. Xhebraj of “errors”. Upon review, the emails that Dr. Bassi sent in response to Quotes 1 and 2 discuss changes to the scope of work outlined in the quotes and not errors. For example, her email of February 29, 2012 responding to Quote 2 states:
“So I went through the quote and I was wondering if you can look into the following items. The hardwood floor install is also getting too expensive. I was wondering if you can just price the labour only and I will try and find cheaper materials. Is there a difference in labour if I do laminate? For all the upstairs doors ,there is a price at the end for labour, does that include painting of the doors? For the kitchen how much do you charge to install the cabinets? Also, please don’t forget to add the permits.”
[34] Nowhere in her February 29, 2012 email does Dr. Bassi assert that Mr. Xhebraj made errors in Quote 2. My concern is that Mr. Cordina’s choice of words is akin to that of an advocate rather than that of an impartial witness providing an expert opinion. Mr. Cordina concluded, based on what Dr. Bassi told him rather than on independent evidence, that Quote 3 addressed the majority of “errors” but there were items not approved by Dr. Bassi amounting to $730.41.
[35] Mr. Cordina also accepted at face value that some of the unit rates quoted were in dispute and he refers to them throughout his report as “Disputed Unit Rates”. There is no documentary evidence to corroborate Dr. Bassi’s assertion that she disputed the unit rates and had not agreed to pay on the basis of the unit rates quoted.
[36] Mr. Cordina did not provide his own opinion as to appropriate unit rates for the items listed in Quotes 2 and 3. Rather, he based his findings on Mr. Xhebraj’s unit rates. As an expert witness tendered for the purpose of providing a valuation of the work performed, Mr. Cordina has the expertise to provide an opinion of fair market unit rates. It is significant that he did not identify any of the unit rates as excessive. Nor did he express an opinion that any of them were unreasonable. On that basis I find that the unit rates in Quote 3 are an appropriate basis for Mr. Cordina to calculate the value of the work performed by Mr. Xhebraj.
[37] Mr. Cordina conducted a site inspection and formed an opinion as to the percentage of work completed by Mr. Xhebraj. His findings on percentage completion take into account items that he found to be incomplete or deficient, so that for example where he found an item to be incomplete or deficient his findings as to the value of that item takes into account the cost to complete or repair it. Mr. Cordina attached as Appendix B to his report his findings on the value of work completed for each of the 255 line items listed in Quote 3. For for some items he records that the unit rate is disputed. However that is not an opinion. Rather, it is based solely on what he was told by Dr. Bassi. He did not provide any opinion as to what other amounts would be appropriate unit rates for the items recorded as disputed.
[38] Based on Mr. Cordina’s findings as to percentage completion for each of these 255 items listed in Quote 3and applying the unit prices set out in Quote 3, he arrived at a value of the work carried out by Mr. Xhebraj. Mr. Cordina, in his expert opinion, concludes that the value of the services and materials supplied by Mr. Xhebraj is $60,048.26, including HST, taking into account deductions for deficiencies and completion costs.
[39] Dr. Bassi also tendered the evidence of Peter Jang, the contractor she hired to complete and rectify items that she claims Mr. Xhebraj failed to complete properly or at all. She claims completion and rectification costs based on two of his invoices: the first is for $8,429.00 and is for items that were within Mr. Xhebraj’s scope of work. The second is for $5,537.00 for repairing the exterior column, an item clearly outside of Mr. Xhebraj’s scope of work. Dr. Bassi discredits the veracity of her claim by overreaching with her claim for compensation for exterior work that was beyond the scope of her contract with Mr. Xhebraj.
[40] As another approach to quantification Dr. Bassi delivered a Scott Schedule particularizing her claims for deficiencies and incomplete items. The original Scott Schedule lists 43 items and a revised one, not properly served, lists an additional two items. For reasons given orally at trial I rejected the revised version as not having been served properly in advance of trial. Of the 43 items listed in the Scott Schedule Dr. Bassi withdrew or provided no quantification for 17 items. Of the remaining items, at least 4 items for which she claims compensation were not included in the contract. These items are Scott Schedule items #4 (kitchen countertops), #24 (foyer column), #31 (porch siding) and #42 (cold floors in foyer and laundry). Of the remaining items the evidence to support the quantification of some of the items listed in the Scott Schedule is based on Mr. Jang’s invoice but for many of the items there is no evidence to support the quantifications claimed by Dr. Bassi in the Scott Schedule. For this reason, on the issue of quantification of items claimed by her as deficient or incomplete, I prefer and accept the evidence of her expert Mr. Cordina as more reliable.
[41] For all of these reasons I find that the value of services and materials supplied by Mr. Xhebraj is $60,048.26, including HST. This amount takes into account a reduction in the contract price for deficient and incomplete items.
d. Deficiencies and incomplete items
[42] As stated, I accept Mr. Cordina’s quantification of $60,048.26, including HST as the value of services and materials supplied by Mr. Xhebraj, taking into account appropriate deductions for deficiencies and incomplete items.
e. Electrician and Garbage Bins
Electrician
[43] The electrician, Astrid Shabani, contracted directly with Dr. Bassi. In dispute is whether Dr. Bassi reimbursed Mr. Xhebraj $2,000.00 of the $2,260.00 he paid to Mr. Shabani on her behalf.
[44] Dr. Bassi was planning to ay the electrician in cash to avoid paying HST. Mr. Xhebraj’s evidence is that Dr. Bassi asked him to pay the electrician $2,000.00 in cash on her behalf because she was not going to be on site when the electrician was there. Mr. Xhebraj agrees that he met with Dr. Bassi one evening in April 2012 and she placed $2,000.00 in the glove compartment of his car. He further claims that when Dr. Bassi discovered that she would not be able to get a proper receipt if she did not pay HST she took back her cash and asked Mr. Xhebraj to pay the electrician by cheque, including HST, and she would reimburse Mr. Xhebraj later. He states that she never reimbursed him and he claims $2,260.00 in this action for the payment he made on her behalf by cheque to Mr. Shabani on April 12, 2012 for providing electrical services. The difference between the $2,000.00 and the $2,260.00 amounts reflects the 13 percent payable for HST.
[45] Dr. Bassi admits that the electrical contract was a direct contract between herself and the electrician. She states that she withdrew $2,000.00 in cash from her bank account to give to Mr. Xherbaj to pay Mr. Shabani, that she met with Mr. Xhebraj to give him the money, that they went out that evening in his car, that she placed the money in the glove compartment of his car and that she did not take back the cash. She provided a bank receipt to corroborate a cash withdrawal of $2,000.00 on April 12, 2012 that is consistent as to date with the April 12, 2012 cheque from Mr. Xhebraj to Mr. Shabani for $2,260.00. She had no receipt for the cash payment to Mr. Xhebraj.
[46] Mr. Shabani acknowledges that he has been paid in full. The issue is whether Mr. Xhebraj was reimbursed $2,000.00 of the $2,260.00 that he paid to Mr. Shabani.
[47] The onus of proving that cash transferred hands is on the party asserting that the payment was made, in this case Dr. Bassi. Paying cash to avoid HST carries with it inherent risks. One risk is that the recipient will deny receiving it and without a receipt the payor will be unable to prove that it was paid. However, in this case I had the opportunity to observe the demeanour of the two witnesses testifying on this factual issue. Dr. Bassi testified about the events surrounding the cash payment with candour and clear recollection of the evening. I am satisfied that she withdrew $2,000.00 from her bank account on April 12, 2012. On this issue I believe that she is recollecting the events of the evening of April 12, 2012 accurately. Mr. Xhebraj, on the other hand, when questioned about the events of that evening, was hesitant and appeared to me to be somewhat evasive. While the credibility of both witnesses is compromised for reasons already expressed, on this issue I prefer and accept the evidence of Dr. Bassi over that of Mr. Xhebraj.
[48] On that basis I find that Dr. Bassi has already paid $2,000.00 of the $2,260.00 paid to the electrician. I find that she owes only $260.00 to Mr. Xhebraj on account of this payment.
Garbage Bins
[49] The parties agree that disposal charges for garbage bins and waste removal were an extra and not included in the contract price. Mr. Xhebraj admits that Dr. Bassi has reimbursed him for $862.12 of the disposal charges and claims that $2,081.48 remains owing. He relies on invoices from GTA Waste and Four Seasons Disposal Inc. Included in his evidence are an invoice that predates this project and has the address “whited out” and replaced with “12 Criscoe”, and an invoice that pertains to a different address. The amounts shown on these two invoices are not included in the quantum of Mr. Xhebraj’s amended claim for reimbursement. The remaining invoices and statements filed from GTA Waste and Four Seasons Disposal clearly identify that the services provided were in respect of 12 Criscoe and have been paid.
[50] Mr. Xhebraj claims $2,081.47 for the following payments he made on Dr. Bassi’s behalf for garbage bins and disposal:
| Date | Invoice # | Amount | Supplier | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| March 3, 2012 | 11591 | $398.38 | Four Seasons | Paid |
| March 5, 2012 | 11601 | $369.57 | Four Seasons | Paid |
| March 8, 2012 | 11605 | $359.00 | Four Seasons | Paid |
| March 15, 2012 | 40227 | $623.78 | GTA Waste Services | Paid |
| March 29, 2012 | 40259 | $ 482.54 | GTA Waste Services | Paid |
| May 2, 2012 | 11663 | $357.08 | Four Seasons | Paid |
| May 25, 2012 | 11707 | $353.24 | Four Seasons | Paid |
| Total: | $2,943.59 | |||
| Less: payment received: | ( $862.12) | |||
| Balance owing: | $2,081.47 |
[51] I find that Mr. Xhebraj is entitled to be reimbursed $2,081.47 for payments he made on Dr. Bassi’s behalf for garbage bins and disposal.
V. Conclusion
[52] I find that the value of services and materials supplied by Mr. Xhebraj to Dr. Bassi to renovate 12 Criscoe Street is $60,048.26, including HST. This value takes into account appropriate deductions for contract items that were either incomplete or deficient. After crediting the payments made by Dr. Bassi to Mr. Xhebraj of $48,025.00 the amount owing to Mr. Xhebraj on the contract is $12,024.26, all amounts inclusive of HST. I further find that Dr. Bassi must reimburse Mr. Xhebraj $260.00 for the payment to the electrician and $2,081.47 for payments for garbage bins and disposal. In total, the amount that Dr. Bassi must pay to Mr. Xhebraj is $14,365.73.
[53] Upon payment of the amount adjudged to be owing the construction lien claim registered as instrument AT3068827 on July 9, 2012 may be discharged and the certificate of action may be vacated from title.
VI. Costs
[54] Both parties filed costs outlines /bills of costs. Mr. Xhebraj’s bill of costs shows costs on a partial indemnity scale of $18,050.32 including disbursements and HST. Dr. Bassi’s costs outline shows costs on a partial indemnity scale of $14,398.32 including disbursements and HST.
[55] For reasons delivered orally at trial, costs of the action are fixed at $11,215.94 ($8,500.00 for fees plus $1105.00 HST plus $1,610.94 for disbursements) payable by Dr. Bassi to Mr. Xhebraj.
___________________
Master C. Albert .
Released: May 28, 2014
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-461205
DATE: May 28, 2014
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Neritan Xhebraj
Plaintiff (defendant by counterclaim)
- and -
Anita Bassi
Defendant (Plaintiff by counterclaim)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Master C. Albert
Released: May 28, 2014
[^1]: Reduced from his original claim of $23,730.00 [^2]: Reduced from her original counterclaim of $35,000.00 [^3]: Based on Dr. Bassi’s expert’s opinion that the value of work completed is $60,048.26 and she has already paid Mr. Xhebraj $48,025.00. [^4]: the law does not concern itself with trifles [^5]: Including HST [^6]: NX Building is the style name used by Mr. Xhebraj