ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
CITATION: Robert Denham v. Jason Solmon, 2015 ONSC 3084
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-488999
DATE: May 14, 2015
BETWEEN:
Robert Denham
V. Luchko for plaintiff,
Fax: 416-222-6874
plaintiff
- and -
Jason Solmon and Laurie Elizabeth Sheff
C. Stanek for defendant
Fax: 416-862-7661
defendants
HEARD: May 5 and 7, 2015
Master C. Albert
[1] Robert Denham (“Robert”) claims payment of $23,583.19 as the amount owing for services and materials supplied to renovate the property owned by Jason Solmon (“Jason”) and Laurie Elizabeth Sheff at 59 Bude Street, Toronto. He registered a construction lien on August 6, 2013 for $23,583.19 as instrument AT33699924 for services and materials supplied from May 8, 2013 to June 27, 2013 and described as “labour and materials related to the demolition, forming and framing at 59 Bude Street, Toronto.” Robert issued a statement of claim on September 18, 2013. Jason claims set-off for deficiencies and completion costs. Robert is the sole lien claimant in the claim for lien and the sole plaintiff in the action.
[2] Taking into account the modest amount of the claim and the parties’ combined lists of 22 proposed witnesses, and applying principles of proportionality, I directed that the trial be conducted as a modified summary trial. Evidence in chief was adduced by affidavit with time limited cross-examinations.
I. Background
[3] The owners of 59 Bude Street embarked on a project to demolish most of the existing home and build a new home on top of the existing foundation, basement and ground floor.
[4] They sourced their framing contractor by first asking Jason’s client[^1] Nicholas Lansdowne (“Nick”), a contractor, to take on the job. Nick declined and arranged for Jason and his father, Fred Solmon (“Fred”), who is Nick’s accountant, to meet with Nick’s friend Robert. Robert, also a contractor, invited Christopher Evans (“Kit”) to participate in the meetings.
[5] After several meetings work commenced in May 2013. Jason’s position is that he contracted with Kit and that Robert is the wrong lien claimant and the wrong plaintiff. Robert’s position is that Kit acted as his foreman and agent throughout the project and that Robert is the contracting party.
[6] Robert and Kit have an undefined and unstructured business relationship. Each of them runs construction projects separately in their personal names and also through their separate businesses. Robert’s business is called “Sam J. Construction”. Kit’s business is called “Stetson Estates”. There is no evidence that at the time of the 59 Bude Street project these two businesses were incorporated entitles. I conclude that they were not.
[7] Robert and Kit collaborate by sharing labourers who they refer to as “subcontractors”, assigning them to worksites that are projects of either Robert or Kit. In the case of the two projects mentioned in any detail at trial several of the subcontractors were assigned to both work sites on different days. The subcontractors reported their hours regularly and were paid biweekly by Robert. When Robert and Kit provide labour personally they record ad charge for their time.
[8] Robert and Kit describe their association as “a partnership but not a partnership”. Their evidence on this point was astonishingly vague. No partnership or other agreement between Robert and Kit was tendered in evidence.
[9] According to Kit the 59 Bude Street project was Robert’s project and Kit was running the site as the foreman and as agent for Robert. Kit’s understood that Jason made the contractual arrangements with Robert. Kit also understood that based on his arrangement with Robert the two of them would share profits or split losses on the 59 Bude Street project. Their internal arrangement was never explained to Jason.
II. Issues
[10] The issues are:
a) Did Robert and Jason enter into a contract? If so, on what terms?
b) If a contract exists what amount, if any, remains owing?
c) If no contract exists is Robert entitled to payment on a quantum meruit basis?
d) Is Jason entitled to set off any amount for deficiencies and incomplete work?
III. Analysis
a. Is there a contract and if so what are its terms
[11] The Construction Lien Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.30 (the “Act”) is technical legislation. It confers rights that a contractor would not otherwise have by giving the contractor a priority and security for services and materials supplied to improve a property. But for the Act, the contractor would merely be a creditor standing in line behind any prior creditors waiting to get paid.
[12] No written contract was prepared or signed. I agree with Justice Mew who wrote in his decision in S & J Gareri Trucking Ltd. v Onyx Corp.[^2] at paragraph 50 that “the parties can be criticized for their failure to commit themselves to a written contract”. Perhaps it was Jason’s desire to carry out the work on an entirely cash basis that motivated the absence of any documents to corroborate the terms of the contract.
[13] The subjective intention of a contracting party is irrelevant. The actions of the party, viewed objectively, determine whether or not a contract exists. (See: Mark Fishing Co. Ltd. and Viggo Mark v Northern Princess Seafood Ltd. and the Ship Vancouver Fireboat No. 2[^3] where Justice Joyal cites Lord Denning from Storer v Manchester City Council[^4] and Justice Brandon from “The Swan”[^5]).
[14] A contract is formed when consideration passes between parties who agree on three essential elements: (i) identity of the parties, (ii) price, and (iii) scope of work. Jason did not execute a written contract. Nor did Robert present one to him. There are no written quotes, notes taken at the time of negotiation, emails or text messages confirming the arrangements. Robert did not issue invoices while the work was in progress in May and June 2013.
[15] Robert’s position is that he and Jason agreed to a time and materials contract at the blended rate of $33.00 per hour for all labourers, plus HST and WSIB remittance amounts. Robert claims that he agreed to take on the contract with Kit on site as foreman because Robert had a commitment to remain at his job site at Victoria Park and Ellesmere (the “Vic Park site”) most days.
[16] Jason’s position is that he contracted with Kit to hire Kit and Kit’s labourers at their actual hourly rates of $35.00 for Kit, Robert, Nick and Robert Fournier and $17.00 “or a few dollars more” per hour for Kit’s labourers. Jason expected the cost would not exceed $18,900.00 plus HST based on cost estimates that Nick told Jason that Robert had calculated.
[17] Robert and Jason both accept that the original scope of work did not include completing the demolition that the demolition contractor, Josh Koffman, failed to complete when he left the site in May 2013. Nor did it include assisting bricklayers. Jason acknowledges that these items are extras.
(i) Who are the parties to the contract?
[18] The issue is whether the contracting party who entered into an agreement with Jason was Robert or Kit. The facts surrounding the formation of the contract must be examined objectively.
[19] Jason asked his client Nick to take on the framing contract. Nick declined and referred Jason to Robert. Nick arranged for Jason and Robert to meet at Robert’s job site at Vic Park. In late 2012 Nick, Jason, Fred and Robert met at the Vic Park site. Kit was working at the Vic Park site at the time of the meeting and Robert called Kit over to join the meeting. The group looked at the plans for 59 Bude Street and discussed various aspects of the work to be done. No agreement was reached at that meeting.
[20] In April 2013 a meeting took place at 59 Bude Street attended by Jason, Fred, Nick, Robert and Kit. After the meeting Robert performed some costing calculations for the job.
[21] Jason did not like Robert and did not want him to do the job. Jason never communicated to Robert or Kit that he did not like Robert and did not want him to do the job. Jason had no difficulty with Robert performing some of the concrete work personally where Robert had the construction expertise to do so.
[22] Jason’s evidence is that at the meeting on site in April 2013 he and Kit discussed the contract price but Robert, although on site, was not present for that part of the discussion. Jason asserts that Nick told him that Kit told Nick that the price would come in under $18,900.00 but that it would be cheaper to run the job on a time and materials basis.
[23] Jason acknowledges that Robert performed costing calculations for the project after the April 2013 meeting. He also acknowledges that he never expressed directly to either Robert or Kit that he did not like Robert and would not contract with Robert.
[24] Jason admitted in cross-examination that he never told Kit directly that the contract was with him and not with Robert because he assumed that Kit knew that. Jason testified that everyone, including Jason and Robert, shook everyone else’s hand at the conclusion of the April 2013 meeting.
[25] According to Robert the contract was finalized by May 8, 2013 when work commenced. At that time Robert had 20 subcontracting labourers that he assigned to 10 to 15 job sites a week.
[26] From May 8, 2013 to late June 2013 Kit was on site most days performing the function of a site foreman. In total he docketed 263.5 hours to the project. The subcontractors reported their hours to Kit who logged their work hours daily. Robert was on site to cover for Kit on a couple of occasions and to perform concrete work on one or two occasions. Otherwise Robert was not on site.
[27] There is an exchange of text messages between Jason and Robert in May 2013 regarding the concrete work and Jason agreed to send a set of plans to Robert. Jason also asked Robert for contact information to arrange for garbage bins.
[28] Text messages between Jason and Kit show that Jason tried to contact Robert first about a couple of issues relating to the project and when he could not reach Robert he contacted Kit. The issues discussed in the texts were footings, anchor bolts and keys.
[29] Kit’s evidence is that Robert co-ordinated all of the subcontractors from the Vic Park site and decided which subcontractors would attend at 59 Bude Street each day. Jason’s evidence is consistent with Kit’s in that Jason acknowledged that Kit looked to Rob to supply the subcontractors and Kit had no knowledge of Robert’s arrangements with the subcontractors.
[30] While construction was ongoing Jason made cash payments upon request. Kit signed receipts for the cash payments. This fact is consistent with Kit as contractor and is also consistent with Kit as agent for Robert.
[31] Kit reported the subcontractors’ hours to Robert, who calculated and paid the subcontractors biweekly. Robert also assigned the subcontractors to the various job sites. Kit supervised only the 59 Bude job site.
[32] A dispute over payment arose on June 26, 2013 and none of Kit or any subcontractors returned to the site after that date. On July 16, 2013 Kit met with Jason and Fred at a coffee shop in an effort to resolve the impasse. Kid recorded the meeting, and the transcript of the negotiation was filed in evidence. Robert did not attend the meeting.
[33] Robert sent Jason an invoice for the job on July 25, 2013. The invoice charges Jason $44,110.19 and credits him with payments made of $20,527.00, leaving a balance owing of $23,583.19. The invoice, on the letterhead of Robert’s unincorporated business name “Sam J. Construction”, does not show Robert Denham as carrying on business in the style name of Sam J. Construction. Jason admitted on cross-examination that he knew that Robert and Kit each had their own businesses. He further stated that he knew that Robert and Kit shared subcontractors so that the labourers could report their expenses as tax deductions.
[34] Robert, Kit and Jason all rely on their own subjective intentions to support their respective positions on who contracted with whom. Jason claims that he did not like Robert and would not contract with him. Fred states the same thing. They did not communicate that dislike to either Robert or Kit but Jason had a subjective intention to contract with Kit, not Robert.
[35] Robert could not work on the 59 Bude Street job on a “hands on” basis because he was committed to spending his days on site at his Vic Park project. Robert’s intention was to take on the 59 Bude Street job with Kit running the site on a day-to-day basis, with Robert and Kit ultimately sharing the profits or losses. Robert did not communicate his subjective intention to Jason.
[36] Kit’s subjective intention was to take on the job as Robert’s foreman, leaving Robert to run the job from a distance by supplying the labour and arranging to pay the workers. Kit never communicated this intention to Jason.
[37] Justice Mew, in S & J Gareri Trucking Ltd., supra, cites Eli Lilly & Co. v Novopharm Ltd.[^6] at paragraph 54 for the proposition that the parties’ subjective intention is not a relevant factor in determining the terms of a contract. The test of what the parties agreed to is objective. He refers to Anson on Contracts, 21st ed., p.28 as quoted by Richie, J. in St. John Tug Boat Co. Ltd. v Irving Refinery Co. Ltd. 1964 CanLII 88 (SCC), [1964] S.C.R. 614, which provides the following example:
So if A allows B to work for him under such circumstances that no reasonable man would suppose that B meant to work for nothing, A will be liable to pay for it. The doing of the work is the offer; the permission to do it, or the acquiescence in its being done, constitutes the acceptance.
[38] In the present case Jason allowed Robert and Kit and their labourers to supply services and materials to improve his property at 59 Bude Street. No reasonable person would assume that they them meant to do the work for free. In this example Jason would be liable to pay for the work. The issue is whether Jason is liable to pay Robert or liable to pay Kit.
[39] Should I find that the contracting party is Robert and Kit ran the job as Robert’s foreman, then the liability to pay flows from Jason to Robert with Kit as Robert’s foreman, agent and labourer. Should I find that Kit ran the job as the party who contracted with Jason then Jason’s liability would be to Kit. Since Kit is not the plaintiff or the lien claimant in this proceeding, this lawsuit would not allow Robert to recover a liability owed to Kit.
[40] The facts viewed objectively that are consistent with Robert as the contracting party include that Nick arranged for Jason to meet Robert to take on the job, that the meeting took place at Robert’s Vic Park site, that Robert called Kit over to the group meeting with Jason, that Robert prepared the costing calculations, that Robert co-ordinated the workers and assigned them to the 59 Bude Street site, that Robert paid the workers biweekly, that Kit reported the workers’ hours to Robert daily, that Kit collected and delivered to Robert cash payments received from Jason and that Jason contacted Robert directly about several items concerning the project.
[41] The facts viewed objectively that are consistent with Kit as the contracting party include that Kit was on site daily and co-ordinated the workers on site, that Kit ordered materials in the name of his separate company Stetson, that Kit paid for materials personally or through Stetson Estates and was reimbursed by Robert, that Kit carried out most of the communications with Jason about the job, that Kit recorded the workers’ hours and that Kit asked Jason for payment, which he received in cash and for which he signed the receipts. I find that this evidence is also consistent with Kit as foreman on the job under Robert as contracting party.
[42] There are credibility issues on both sides of the case. Jason admitted to having been dishonest with Robert and Kit when he told them that the bank had frozen his money to pay for the work until Jason produced a budget and time sheets to the bank. The bank had not frozen his account and Jason only told the lie to extract documentary backup to support the interim payments requested. There is no documentary evidence to show that Jason had previously asked f9or backup. There is evidence that when Jason texted a request for backup to Robert he erceived an immediate reply and the documentation was produced.
[43] Kit compromised his credibility by contradicting himself. He testified in one breath that he was only the foreman on the job, and in another breath that he would share with Robert the profits and losses on the project. However, I attribute this conflicting evidence to a failure to articulate and understand his business relationship with Robert.
[44] Where evidence conflicts I accept that of Robert over Kit and that of Robert and Kit over that of Jason, who admitted to dishonesty when it served his purpose. Considering the totality of the evidence and taking into account issues of credibility and plausibility, I find that Robert was the contracting party. Robert was the party with whom the initial meeting was arranged and he participated in the follow up meetings. Robert conducted himself as the contracting party by assigning the subcontractors and controlling their pay, by supervising Kit and collecting the subcontractor’s daily logs from him and by taking responsibility for the project. Jason communicated with Robert regarding the project’s costing and as it progressed Jason communicated with Robert by text about various issues. That Robert was not regularly present on site, but attended through Kit as his foreman, is not inconsistent with Robert as the contracting party. I find that Robert contracted with Jason to supply services and materials to renovate 59 Bude Street.
(ii) Did the parties agree on price?
[45] Both parties acknowledge that pricing was on a time and materials basis. Robert’s position is that they agreed to a blended hourly rate of $33.00 for all workers plus HST of 13 percent plus WSIB remittances of 9.1 percent. Robert explained that a blended rate is easier than calculating actual labour costs. According to Robert the $33.00 rate was an average of the rates of all subcontractors and labourers. Fred, an accountant, disagreed. According to his calculations $33.00 per hour is not an average, but rather it is higher than the average of the subcontractors’ actual hourly rates.
[46] Jason’s position is that he agreed to pay on a time and materials basis at the subcontractors’ actual hourly rates of $35.00 for skilled workers Kit, Robert, Nick and Robert Fournier and $17.00 “or a few dollars more” for the other labourers. Jason understood that the $33.00 hourly rate was merely a guideline used as a reference point for the contractor’s internal costing purposes. Having reviewed the hours worked by all of the workers my rough calculation shows that the hours for Kit, Robert, Nick and Robert Fournier, at $35.00 per hour, add up to 384 hours and the hours for all other labourers, at hourly rates from $16.00 to $27.00, total 570 hours.
[47] When Kit asked Jason to make payment on June 24, 2013 and June 27, 2013 he referred in his text messages to the amount charged as averaging out to $29.00 per hour, a “savings” from the amount anticipated in the budget. Robert had calculated his budget using the hourly rate of $33.00. This evidence is consistent with an agreement to charge actual rates rather than a blended hourly rate of $33.00.
[48] Jason claims that for the demolition extra he agreed to pay $15.00 to $20.00 per hour, which was less than he had paid the contractor who left the job without completing it. Robert’s position is that he stepped in to provide the labour to complete the demolition to help Jason out when his demolition contractor left the job suddenly, and the contract rates apply.
[49] According to Kit the parties agreed to calculate interim billings at the hourly rates actually charged by the subcontractors, without markup, until the end of the job at which point if all went well with the job they would recalculate the job at the blended rate of $33.00 per hour for all workers and charge Jason the difference. Robert and Kit calculated the amounts charged while the work was in progress based on subcontractors’ actual hourly rates.
[50] I find that the parties agreed to a price based on time and materials, with the contractor charging the actual hourly rates of the workers plus HST of 13% plus WSIB remittances. I further find that the parties agreed that if the job went well then Robert could charge an additional amount calculated based on a blended rate of $33.00 for all labourers. Since the job did not go well the formula for recalculating the contract price at the blended hourly rate of $33.00 was never triggered.
(iii) What is the agreed upon scope of work?
[51] According to Jason, the initial scope of work was to frame the house, frame the footings in the rear and front porches, build the front stairs, pour concrete for the footings and the stairs, build the stairs to the basement and the basement landing, build a door sill, install windows and exterior doors and install a new sub-floor. Subsequently Jason added a few items to the scope of work, including completing the demolition and assisting the bricklayers.
[52] Robert and Kit’s evidence corroborates the scope of work. Since the contract was priced as a time and materials contract the relevant scope of work for the purpose of an accounting is the scope of work actually carried out.
(iv) Conclusion on whether there is a contract
[53] Having found that Robert and Jason were the contracting parties, that the agreed upon price was based on time and materials with time charged out at the actual hourly rates of the subcontractors with an additional amount based on a blended rate if the job went well (which it did not), and an agreed scope of work as described above, I conclude Robert and Jason entered into a binding contract.
b. What amount remains owing on the contract?
[54] Having concluded that the price is to be calculated based on actual rates charged and hours worked, I turn to the evidence of hours worked and hourly rates. The subcontractors deposed affidavits. Many of them were cross-examined at trial or by video conference before trial[^7]. Having read the transcripts and having observed the demeanor of the subcontractor witnesses who testified, namely Carlos Benitez, Devin Yuke, Mahmood Hassan Fahid Dandary, Robert Fournier and Nick, I am satisfied that the work hours claimed as worked by the subcontractors for labour at 59 Bude Street for this project are bona fides. The owners’ attempt to challenge the hours claimed based on labourers taking breaks was ineffective.
[55] I am also satisfied that the subcontractors received payment for their labour in the amounts and at the rates deposed in their affidavit evidence in chief, summarized as follows:
Subcontractor
Hourly rate net of HST and WSIB
Hours claimed
Amount paid
Carlos Benitez
$24.00
6.5
$156.00
Devin Yuke
$18.00
47.0
846.00
Mahmood Hassan Fahid Dandary
$20.00
58.5
1170.00
Robert Fournier
$27.00
78.0
2,106.00
Nick Lansdowne
$35.00
36.0
1,260.00
Carlos Fuentes
$20.00 $22.00
10.0 188.5
200.00 4,147.00
Christopher Dicks
No evidence
5.0
0.00
Louis Ramos Fernandez
$16.00 $18.00
93.0 107.5
1,488.00 1,935.00
Luki O’Brien
No evidence
46.0
0.00
Peter Malcolm
$18.00
59.5
1,071.00
Robert Denham
$35.00
6.0
210.00
Kit Evans
$35.00
263.5
9,222.50
Subtotal:
$23,811.50
Add 13% HST
3,095.50
Total labour cost:
$26,907.00
[56] Robert admitted that he has no proof that he or any of the subcontractors remitted any amount for WSIB contributions for the subcontractors on the 59 Bude Street project. On that basis no amount is allowed for WSIB contributions.
[57] In his evidence Kit quantified and provided receipts[^8] for materials purchased, which I accept as proof of payment for materials supplied to the 59 Bude Street project. The amounts paid include HST and total $2,633.71, made up of cement purchased on May 14 and 15, 2013 for $697.78 and a number of miscellaneous small items that add up to $1935.93. The claim for supplying a garbage bin is denied as no receipt was provided.
[58] No evidence was lead regarding an appropriate rate for profit and overhead and there is no evidence of any agreement to charge a percentage for profit and overhead. Accordingly, no additional amount is allowed for profit and overhead.
[59] I find that the total amount proven as the amount that Robert was entitled to charge for services and materials supplied is $29,540.71 including HST. Robert acknowledges that Jason made payments on account of $20,527.00, leaving unpaid the balance of $9,013.71.
c. Is Mr. Denham entitled to recover on a quantum meruit basis?
[60] If I am wrong in finding that Robert and Jason entered into a binding contract then I would allow recovery on a quantum meruit basis. A contractor’s claim in quantum meruit is a claim for reasonable compensation for work actually done.
[61] Robert supplied services and materials at the request of Jason. Jason accepted and received the benefit of the supply of services and materials. It would be unjust for Jason to retain the benefit of these services and materials without paying reasonable compensation for them.
[62] In quantifying reasonable compensation the court may consider the costs that Jason ought reasonably to have expected to incur for the supply of services and materials. Allowing Jason the benefit of the doubt he ought reasonably to have expected to pay on a time and materials basis at the subcontractors’ actual hourly rates plus HST.
[63] In a claim based on quantum meruit the onus is on the party claiming payment to prove value. For reasons already expressed I accept the evidence of the subcontractors regarding the hours worked, the hourly rates charged and the amounts paid to them. I also accept the receipts for materials purchased for the project as a cost of the project.
[64] No evidence was lead regarding an appropriate rate for profit and overhead on a quantum meruit basis. I have therefore not included any amount for profit and overhead in the calculation of the value of services and materials supplied.
[65] I find that on a quantum meruit basis Robert is entitled to $26,907.00, including HST, for labour plus $2,633.71 for materials for a total of $29,540.71, less payments received of $20,257.00 leaving a balance owing by Jason to Robert of $9,013.71.
d. Is the owner entitled to any set-off for deficiencies or incomplete work?
[66] The owners’ complaints include several items of work that the contractor did not carry out or complete. The contract was not a fixed price contract with the contractor required to perform a specified scope of work for an agreed upon fixed price. Had that been the case then the owner would have been entitled to set-off from the contract price the value of items not completed, had the owner paid the full contract price.
[67] With a time and materials contract where the contractor has not charged for items not completed, there is no basis to deduct or set-off the amount paid to another contractor to complete the work unless there is evidence of an incremental difference between what it would have cost at the rate that the original contractor had agreed to charge and a higher amount paid to the completion contractor. The onus rests with the owner to prove that he had to pay another contractor a higher amount than he would have had to pay to the original contractor. Jason tendered no such evidence.
[68] Regarding deficiencies, Jason failed to prove that the work performed by Robert’s subcontractors was deficient. The evidence of Jason’s completion contractor, Jeff Peers, was that he did not have to redo any of the work of the previous contractor and he only carried out new work not yet done.
[69] For these reasons I find that Jason is not entitled to set off any amount for deficiencies or incomplete work.
IV. Conclusion
[70] Robert supplied services and materials for which he was entitled to charge $26,907.00 for services plus plus $2,633.71 for materials, both inclusive of HST, for a total of $29,540.71. No amount is allowed for WSIB given the lack of evidence that Robert paid WSIB remittances. Jason is credited with payments that total $20,257.00. Jason owes Robert $9,013.71. No amount is deducted for backcharges as the items claimed pertain to completion of work for which Jason was not charged by Robert and for which Jason has failed to prove he incurred incrementally higher costs.
[71] Accordingly, for the reasons explained, Jason Solmon and Laurie Elizabeth Sheff shall pay to Robert Denham the amount owing of $9,013.71 plus prejudgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate of one and three-tenths (1.3%) percent from August 6, 2013[^9] to the date of payment or issuance of the reference report, whichever occurs first, plus post-judgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate of two (2%) percent from the date the report is issued to the date of payment. In default of payment then upon motion returnable before me the appropriate orders will be made to enforce the applicable lien remedies against the property known as 59 Bude Street, Toronto.
V. Costs
[72] The parties should attempt to resolve the issue of costs themselves. If the parties are unable to do so, I will hear submissions on costs on May 15, 2015 at 10:00am at which time the parties are to attend to settle the final reference report.
Master C. Albert .
Released: May 14, 2015
CITATION: Robert Denham v. Jason Solmon, 2015 ONSC 3084
COURT FILE NO.: CV-13-488999
DATE: May 14, 2015
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Robert Denham
plaintiff
- and -
Jason Solmon and Laurie Elizabeth Sheff
Defendants
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Master C. Albert
Released: May 14, 2015
[^1]: Jason is a financial advisor.
[^2]: [2014] O.J. No.3838; 2014 ONSC 4765
[^3]: 1990 CarswellNat 206 at paras. 39-40
[^4]: [1974] 3 All E.R. 824
[^5]: [1968] 1 Lloyd’ Rep. 5
[^6]: 1998 CanLII 791 (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 129
[^7]: Two cross-examination transcripts were filed before trial.
[^8]: Exhibit Tab 2G
[^9]: The registration date of the construction lien