ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-459244
DATE: 20150903
BETWEEN:
DCM ERECTORS INC.
Plaintiff
– and –
CITY OF OTTAWA and HORSESHOE HILL CONSTRUCTION INC.
Defendants
Douglas Loucks, for the Plaintiff
Matthieu Charron, for the City of Ottawa
Howard Wise and Kellie Hodges, for the Horseshoe Hill Construction Inc.
SUPPLEMENTARY ENDORSEMENT
DIAMOND J.:
[1] On August 21, 2015, I released my Reasons for Decision granting the plaintiff DCM Erectors Inc. (“DCM”) summary judgment against both defendants for damages for conversion in the amount of $135,600.00.
[2] On September 2, 2015, I received a letter from counsel for DCM which (a) stated that DCM’s claims “as pleaded and argued” also included claims for damages for unjust enrichment and punitive damages, and (b) requested that I clarify my disposition of those claims as my Reasons for Decision did not “specifically adjudicate on those claims”.
[3] I note that counsel for both defendants were of the shared opinion that no further clarification was needed.
[4] Dealing first with DCM’s claim for unjust enrichment, since I found that the defendants were liable for the tort of conversion, there was, and remains, no need to address DCM’s claim for unjust enrichment.
[5] In its factum and in oral submissions, DCM sought summary judgment on its claim for damages for conversion (a strict liability tort) or in the alternative the right to waive that tort and seek judgment based upon the equitable remedy of unjust enrichment. These two claims were not “in addition” to each other, they were clearly two alternative claims based upon the identical set of facts. In other words, had DCM not succeeded in proving the necessary elements of the tort of conversion, it asked to “move on” and seek damages for unjust enrichment instead.
[6] I granted DCM’s claim for damages for conversion. DCM could not then seek damages for unjust enrichment on top of its damages awarded for conversion. There is nothing more to clarify.
[7] However, counsel for DCM is correct in stating that my Reasons for Decision regrettably failed to address his client’s claim for punitive damages. All parties made submissions on this issue at the hearing of the motion.
[8] DCM submits that when the defendants barred DCM from the job site for the purpose of appropriating the Jigs and power container to complete the construction of the bridge, such conduct was sufficiently high-handed and arrogant so as to attract an award of punitive damages.
[9] In my view, an award of punitive damages requires the presence of exceptional circumstances. As detailed in paragraphs 31-39 of my Reasons for Decision, Horsehoe’s efforts to negotiate a purchase of the disputed equipment do not amount to an admission that the defendants accepted that DCM owned the Jigs and power container. Horsehoe’s efforts could very well have been motivated by a simple business decision to extricate itself from the situation in which the parties found themselves.
[10] I do not find the presence of the type of bad faith or reprehensible conduct which would warrant an award of punitive damages. As such, DCM’s claim for punitive damages is dismissed.
Diamond J.
Released: September 3, 2015
COURT FILE NO.: CV-12-459244
DATE: 20150903
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
DCM ERECTORS INC.
Plaintiff
– and –
CITY OF OTTAWA AND HORSESHOE HILL CONSTRUCTION INC.
Defendants
SUPPLEMENTARY ENDORSEMENT
Diamond J.
Released: September 3, 2015