COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-531407
DATE: May 21, 2019
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.30
BETWEEN:
JOHNVALE CONTRACTING LTD.
Plaintiff
Christopher Staples for the plaintiff,
Tel.: 416-218-1147,
Fax: 416-218-1847.
- and -
ZONTE INVESTMENTS INC.
John R. Carruthers for the defendant,
Tel.: 905-294-0666,
Fax: 905-294-5688.
Defendant
HEARD: May 14, 2019.
Master C. Wiebe
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
[1] On October 4, 2017 Johnvale Contractors Ltd. (“Johnvale”) purported to preserve a lien by registering a claim for lien in the amount of $24,327.43 on the title to a condominium unit owned by the defendant, Zonte Investments Inc. (“Zonte”), with a municipal address of Unit 910, 110 Bloor Street West, Toronto. On November 10, 2017 Johnvale purported to perfect its lien by commencing this action and registering a Certificate of Action. Zonte delivered a Statement of Defence on December 8, 2017.
[2] By judgment of Justice C.J. Brown dated April 17, 2018, this action was referred to me under the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30. The first trial management conference took place before me on January 21, 2019, and I made certain interlocutory orders and ordered a one day, summary trial to take place before me on May 14, 2019.
II. BACKGROUND AND WITNESSES
[3] I begin with a summary of the facts of this case that are undisputed.
[4] The property in question is a 1,500 square foot luxury condominium in Yorkville, Toronto that Zonte purchased on September 16, 2016 for $935,000 in order to rent. The condominium was built in 1980.
[5] Zonte set out to renovate the unit. It hired EsQape Design Inc. (“EDI”) to prepare drawings and specifications. Cassandra Richardson was the designer from EDI who worked on the project in preparing the drawings and specifications, reviewing construction and preparing deficiency lists. The drawings were revised on January 31, 2017, February 6, 2017, February 27, 2017 and April 4, 2017.
[6] On December 15, 2016 Zonte obtained a quote from Johnvale to do most of the renovation work in accordance with the original drawings and specifications. The work was described in 16 items. The quoted price was $97,648 plus 15% profit and 13% HST. On January 20, 2017 Johnvale and Zonte entered into a written contract whereby Johnvale would do the work as quoted. This will be called “the Contract.” The Contract expressly contemplated changes to the work (either additions or deletions) to be based on a “reasonable valuation.”
[7] Five days later on January 25, 2017 Zonte entered into a further agreement with Johnvale to have Johnvale do further itemized work described as “extras to Contract” in the amount of $20,100 plus 15% profit, supervision, overhead and insurance and 13% HST. This will be called the “Extras Contract.”
[8] Johnvale proceeded with the work and rendered invoices for its work. On February 20, 2017, Johnvale rendered its first invoice for contract work in the amount of $29,303.73. Zonte paid this invoice on March 6, 2017 in full. On April 24, 2017, Johnvale rendered its second invoice in the amount of $56,500. This invoice included contract items and extras as itemized in the Extras Contract and otherwise. Some extras were identified with the amount “TBD.” Zonte paid this invoice on May 5, 2017. On June 7, 2017, Johnvale rendered its third invoice in the amount of $18,018.07. Again, this invoice included contract items, extras and some extras with the amount “TBD.” Zonte paid this invoice on June 26, 2017. On June 27, 2017 Johnvale rendered its fourth invoice in the amount of $16,716 for contract and extra items. Zonte paid this invoice on July 11, 2017.
[9] On August 11, 2017 Richardson generated a punch list of items to be corrected by Johnvale. Johnvale proceeded to work on these items.
[10] On September 9, 2017 the principal of Johnvale, Teddy Lovisotto, met the principal of Zonte, Mario Cimmino. Mr. Lovisotto rendered Johnvale’s final invoice in the amount of $60,756.82. Mr. Cimmino raised concerns with that account and paid $35,000. Johnvale made certain concessions, reducing its outstanding account to $24,327.43.
[11] On September 29, 2017 Mario Cimmino, principal of Zonte, emailed Johnvale with a list of complaints justifying its refusal to pay the $24,327.43. Johnvale registered its claim for lien on October 4, 2017.
[12] At the trial hearing on May 14, 2019, there were two witnesses, Mr. Lovisotto and Mr. Cimmino. As ordered, both submitted affidavits for their evidence in chief, and were cross-examined on same. Mr. Lovisotto had two affidavits; Mr. Cimmino had one.
[13] Of the two, I found Mr. Lovisotto the more credible one. His affidavits contain more detail and more corroboration. He came across as measured and reasonable, willing to make discounts where required. He admitted not having retained all the receipts as they had not been requested.
[14] Most importantly, he produced contemporaneously made note logs, expense logs and time logs. These are business records made by Mr. Lovisotto at the time documenting the day-to-day activity on site, the time that was spent by each worker, and the material expenses that were incurred. In his affidavit Mr. Cimmino attacked these logs as having been fabricated as they did not appear in the Johnvale affidavit of documents. It came out, however, that these logs were in fact included in the Johnvale Supplementary Affidavit of Documents that was delivered on February 15, 2019, namely before Mr. Cimmino swore his affidavit, a fact that Mr. Cimmino did not refer to.
[15] Messrs Cimmino and Carruthers attacked the logs as having been fabricated. They pointed to the chronological inconsistencies in the logs and the apparent conflicting information within them. In clear violation of the rule in Brown v. Dunn, Mr. Carruthers did not put this position to Mr. Lovisotto in order to give him a chance to explain these log issues. Therefore, I do not accept this allegation. Furthermore, and in any event, I view these features of the logs as in fact enhancing their credibility. If the logs had been fabricated, as charged by Zonte, it is unlikely that the fabricator would have made such glaring “mistakes.” The documents would have been neat and logically ordered. There could be many valid explanations for their present condition, such as time or memory lapses in inputting the information.
[16] Mr. Cimmino, on the other hand, was less credible. He did not have as much corroboration in his affidavit. Yet, and despite admitting that he spent very limited time in this country and on the project site, he seemed very assured (overly assured in my view) in his position, particularly as to how much time Johnvale spent on the project.
[17] Mr. Cimmino made accusations without foundation. As stated above, he alleged wrongdoing (indeed criminal wrongdoing) by Mr. Lovisotto concerning his logs without insuring that these allegations had a proper foundation. He alleged that Mr. Lovisotto made discounts in September, 2017 only because he “got caught.” Yet, Mr. Cimmino himself admitted to meeting Mr. Lovisotto on September 9, 2017 to obtain and review the final Johnvale invoice for a final accounting. Indeed, Mr. Cimmino admitted paying invoices he actually disputed and silently deferring the dispute to the end of the project in order to avoid conflicts with Johnvale that would have interrupted the completion of the work (and no doubt his ability to rent the unit). This showed him up as the more duplicitous one. He asserted that he “trusted” Johnvale, which conflicted with his admission that he silently disputed invoices. He added vital evidence in the witness stand that did not appear in his affidavit or in cross-examination, such as his story that he had instructed Mr. Lovisotto not to charge for parking after the second invoice without Mr. Cimmino’s prior approval. This all detracted from Mr. Cimmino’s credibility.
[18] As a result of this credibility assessment, I preferred the evidence of Mr. Lovisotto over that of Mr. Cimmino where the two conflicted.
III. ISSUES
[19] At trial, the parties confirmed that there were no issues of deficiencies. During Mr. Lovisotto’s cross-examination, Mr. Carruthers referred to Johnvale’s use of other names on its invoicing and contract documents, but in argument this was not made an issue.
[20] Based on the evidence, the Scott Schedule and the submissions, I believe that the following issues are the ones to be determined:
Is Zonte entitled to a $1,400 discount for the electrical work?
Is Zonte entitled to a $1,200 discount for base, trim and doors?
Is Zonte entitled to a $1,200 discount for tempered glass unit doors?
Is Zonte entitled to a $4,000 discount for sills, jambs and shelves?
Is Zonte entitled to a $2,000 discount for labour for wood backup?
Is Zonte entitled to a $560 discount for disposal of refuse tile?
Is Zonte entitled to a $2,500 discount for floor leveling?
Is Zonte entitled to a $2,500 discount for extra drywall and carpentry?
Is Zonte entitled to a $300 discount for reconstruction of the kitchen bulkhead?
Is Zonte entitled to a $950 discount for meeting and organizing delivery of others?
Is Zonte entitled to $1,661 discount for parking charges?
Is Zonte entitled to a $100 discount for installation of thermostat?
Is Zonte entitled to a $2,500 discount for the ceramic backsplash?
Is Zonte entitled to a $1,000 discount for the installation of bathroom accessories?
Is Zonte entitled to a $600 discount for the transition strip?
Is Zonte entitled to a $300 discount for the delivery of hardwood?
Is Zonte entitled to a $500 discount for the wood threshold under glass door?
Was Johnvale entitled to charge overhead and profit on extras for materials?
Is Zonte entitled to a $966.55 discount for not meeting electrical code?
IV. ANALYSIS
1. Electrical work
[21] It is undisputed that the Johnvale did electrical work and did not provide an ESA certificate. Mr. Lovisotto stated that he did not do so on account of the failure by Zonte to obtain an ESA permit. The Contract clearly requires that Zonte obtain all permits. On March 22, 2017 Mr. Lovisotto emailed Mr. Cimmino confirming that Johnvale had not applied for the ESA permit and inspection “as instructed.” On September 17, 2017, Mr. Lovisotto emailed Mr. Cimmino quoting the cost of getting the certificate. Mr. Cimmino did not respond. I, therefore, conclude that the owner was indeed responsible for getting the permit that led to the ESA inspection and certificate. The requested $300 discount is denied.
[22] The second issue raised was the valuation of the dimmers and timers that Johnvale did not install. In the end, it did not appear that the parties disagreed as to the discount, namely $200.
[23] The parties disagreed about the discount required for the change in the exhaust fans for the two bathrooms. In the Contract Johnvale quoted on “all electrical as per plan.” Johnvale was to replace the two fans in the two washrooms. It was undisputed that the tender plans, however, did not specify that the base building provided only one extractor fan for both washrooms. The two fans could not be provided as a result. Zonte wants a $900 discount here, namely $450 for each of the two fans that were not installed alleging that this was what Johnvale indicated was the per unit cost. Johnvale denies the credit alleging it provided the electrical work as per the final plan. In any event, Mr. Lovisotto offered a $250 credit being the cost per unit plus the installation cost.
[24] I conclude that this change justified a credit under the Contract as this was a deletion to the Contract scope. However, as I accept Mr. Lovisotto’s credibility over that of Mr. Cimmino, I find that the Johnvale credit is a reasonable valuation of the credit. There will be a discount of $250 on this item.
2. Base, trim and doors
[25] There are two issues here. The Contract specified that Johnvale would install “base, trim and doors” for a price of $8,570. As to doors, the item specified that Johnvale would provide doors “as noted.” The first issue is a change in door size. The eight doors had to be reduced in size by 4 inches because the drawings provided by Zonte failed to account for the proper size of the bulkheads. Zonte now wants a reduction of $400 in this item as a result of the reduction in door size. Johnvale disputes the alleged credit. I accept that the door size change justified a credit under the Contract. The issue is the quantum of the deduction. Zonte provided no basis for the calculation of its number. Mr. Lovisotto offered a credit of $90, and produced receipts showing that the difference in cost per door was only $10. As a result, I accept the Johnvale offered credit as a reasonable valuation of the deduction.
[26] The second issue is the replacement of the sliding door in the walk-in closet in the bedroom with a regular door. Mr. Lovisotto in his initial affidavit showed that the original drawings in fact showed a sliding door, but that this was changed in January, 2017 to a regular door. The regular door is what Johnvale provided. Zonte wants a credit of $800 for the change. Mr. Cimmino in his affidavit provided a quotation from Doorland he recently obtained for the cost of the sliding door. This quotation showed a cost that was over $1,000 more than the regular door. Johnvale offered a credit of $350. In his reply affidavit, Mr. Lovisotto showed that the Doorland quotation was for a door that was much more expensive than the one originally specified. I find that the Contract price included the price for a sliding door and that this justifies a deduction due to the change. However, I also accept the Johnvale offered credit of $350 as the more reasonable valuation of the credit.
3. Tempered glass unit doors
[27] The Contract specified that Johnvale could charge $5,400 for tempered glass door. Mr. Lovisotto showed in his evidence that Johnvale quoted for only one such door for the bathrooms. Mr. Cimmino insists that the Contract referred to two such doors and wants a $1,200 deduction. The Johnvale position was supported by an email from Ms. Richardon dated September 18, 2017 which stated that “one door was quoted and provided.” I deny this claimed discount.
4. Sills, jambs and shelves
[28] The Extras Contract specified that Johnvale was to supply and install sills, jambs and stone shelves for an extra charge of $8,500. It is undisputed that the scope was changed and six bathroom and kitchen shelves were not provided. Johnvale reduced its $6,000 charge for these items by $3,000, namely a reduction of half. Zonte wants a further reduction of $1,000 as Mr. Cimmino insisted that Zonte also ended up supplying and installing the specified jambs and sills. Mr. Lovisotto denied this allegation. I accept Mr. Lovisotto’s evidence as I view him to be more credible and as there was no corroboration for Mr. Cimmino’s evidence. I deny this discount.
5. Labour for wood backup
[29] The Extras Contract specifies that Johnvale could charge as an extra $2,500 for the labour and material for the provision of the stone shelving in the kitchen and bathrooms. Zonte changed six shelves to wood and now wants this charge totally eliminated claiming it was all a part of the base Contract price.
[30] It is undisputed that Johnvale had to provide the wood backing for the wood shelving. It reduced the labour charge by $500 as a result of the change, which was factored into the final amount. I do not understand or accept Zonte’s position, as this was an agreed upon extra to the Contract and the work was done. The claimed discount is denied.
6. Disposal of refuse tile
[31] Johnvale charged $560 for the removal of the tile refuse: $245.21 in tipping fees; $325 for 3.5 hours of work by a labourer. Clearly, such removal, if done, would be an extra. It was charged in full on the Johnvale third invoice of June 7, 2017 and was paid. Now Zonte wants the money back claiming that there is no evidence the work was done and that the charge is too high. Mr. Lovisotto substantiated the work through the Johnvale logs, and the fact that Zonte initially paid for this item is sufficient evidence that it authorized the extra. I deny this discount.
7. Floor leveling
[32] The floor of the unit was not level. Drawing ID-03 note 2 provided that there would be an “allowance” made for this item, no doubt because of the uncertainty as to what would be needed to address the issue. In the Contract, Johnvale provided an allowance of $2,300 for the provision of 1 layer of ¼ inch flow coat. Zonte paid the $2,300.
[33] In the end, it is undisputed that Johnvale incurred additional cost in this regard. It charged Zonte $3,594 more. Mr. Cimmino asserted that the $2,300 allowance should be read as a cap, particularly as the floor in the end remained slopped. There is no claim for deficiency. This was clearly an allowance, not a cap. The discount is denied.
8. Extra drywall and carpentry
[34] Johnvale charged $5,000 for the cost of extra drywall and carpentry work (ie. constructing new bulkheads, relocating walls, and building new walls) caused by conflicts between the drawings and site conditions. This item was charged in Johnvale’s second invoice and was paid by Zonte without objection.
[35] Zonte accepts that there should be an extra here, but now wants half the money back, namely $2,500, alleging that Johnvale should have detected the drawing deficiencies and accounted for them. If the extra is justified, as Zonte accepts, the issue is simply one of quantum, not entitlement. As to quantum, I find no basis for Zonte’s position. The work was done as indicated in the Johnvale logs. This claimed discount is denied.
9. Reconstruction of kitchen bulkhead
[36] For many of the same reasons, Zonte disputes a $300 Johnvale extra charge for having reconstructed the kitchen bulkhead. The kitchen was ordered by the owner. When it arrived, the bulkhead that Johnvale had constructed did not fit, and had to be redone. This item was in the Johnvale fourth invoice that Zonte paid.
[37] Zonte now wants the money back alleging that Johnvale should have anticipated the conflict. The fact that Zonte paid this charge is proof to me that it approved this item as an extra. I do not accept Zonte’s position, and deny the claimed discount.
10. Meeting and organizing the delivery of others
[38] The Contract clearly excluded from Johnvale’s scope “clean-up and supervision of sub-trades hired by the owner” with the extra for such work to be billed on a time and material basis. It is undisputed that Johnvale coordinated deliveries by trades hired by Zonte (ie. the tile installer, the kitchen provider, the hardwood trade and the plumber), that Johnvale charged $950 in this regard in its fourth invoice, and that Zonte paid that charge.
[39] Zonte now wants the money back alleging that Johnvale was responsible for overall project coordination. This is not consistent with the Contract. Furthermore, the fact that Zonte paid this charge is proof to me that it approved this extra. The claimed discount is denied.
11. Parking charges
[40] The Contract specifies that the owner could park its vehicles and disposal bins “on site for the duration of the project.” Mr. Lovisotto made it clear that this did not happen. In his supplementary affidavit, he attached all the parking charges Johnvale incurred during the project. The charge for this item is $1,661. A charge of $620 for this item was included in the Johnvale second invoice (April 24, 2017) and was paid.
[41] Now Zonte wants this whole item discounted, which means a return of the paid $620. In his affidavit, Mr. Cimmino claimed that he was not aware of this charge and did not approve it. That is certainly not the case as he paid for the item in the April 24, 2017 invoice on May 5, 2017.
[42] In the witness stand and only in re-examination, Mr. Cimmino added a new wrinkle that did not appear in his affidavit or cross-examination. He alleged that after the payment of the second invoice, he told Mr. Lovisotto that he would not accept this charge without further approval, and that this was the reason the charge did not appear in subsequent invoices. Mr. Lovisotto denied this new assertion. I accept Mr. Lovisott’s evidence. It simply is not credible that Johnville would have accepted this cost when it was promised in the Contract parking access to the site.
[43] Mr. Carruthers criticized this item for the lack of quantum substantiation. Parking expenses regularly appear in the Johnvale expense log. I, therefore, deny this claimed discount.
12. Installation of thermostat
[44] In the Scott Schedule, Zonte contested a $100 Johnvale charge for the installation of a thermostat. At trial this objection was removed.
13. Ceramic backsplash
[45] Johnvale charged Zonte $4,800 as an extra for the installation of ceramic tile in the kitchen. Zonte does not dispute that there should be an extra here, but again disputes the quantum. Relying on his own expertise as a tile salesperson, Mr. Cimmino stated that, while he agreed that “the job takes time,” the amount of time charged by Johnvale was excessive. He stated that “as a compromise” he was prepared to concede that the job, the installation of 80 square feet of tile, might take 46 hours. Zonte is prepared to pay an extra of $2,300 and wants $2,500 deducted. Mr. Lovisotto responded by breaking down the 100 hours that was in fact spent on this job. He advised that there were complications with the installation, such as tile defects and issues with surrounding fixtures.
[46] While I concede that Mr. Cimmico is more of an expert in tile installation than Mr Lovisotto, I am mindful that Mr. Cimmino is a party to this action, that I did not find him generally as credible as Mr. Lovisotto, and that Johnvale may not have been as efficient at this job as an expert tile installer, such as Mr. Cimmino, would have been. Nevertheless, Zonte hired Johnvale to do this extra work. On balance, therefore, I accept Johnvale’s position here and deny the claimed discount.
14. Installation of bathroom accessories
[47] Johnvale charged Zonte an extra of $1,890 for the installation of bathroom accessories, such as 2 coat hooks, 2 toilet paper holders, 2 towel hangers, 2 rings, all of which required drilling with a diamond drill into porcelain. The work also included the installation of a backflow preventer, as demanded by the building management. It also included raising a niche, which included removing substrate, beads and drywall, and cutting and installing new materials and substrate. The time and expenses were tracked in the Johnvale logs.
[48] Zonte did not dispute the fact of an extra, just the quantum. Again, Mr. Cimmino complained about the labour hour quantum, alleging that Zonte should have to pay only $890, thereby producing a $1,000 discount. On account of my assessment of credibility of the witnesses as discussed earlier, I accept Johnvale’s position here. This discount claim is denied.
15. Transition strip
[49] Johnvale charged Zonte an extra of $1,240 for the installation of a transition strip between the kitchen and the dining room. Zonte’s position is not clear. At first, Mr. Cimmino appeared to deny the extra entirely, blaming Johnvale for having to install the larger transition strip due to its misalignment of the kitchen island with the transition edge. Mr. Lovisotto denied this claim asserting that the kitchen island was properly aligned with the walls and sink, and that it was Zonte’s tile installer that had misaligned the tiles. Johnvale’s position is supported by Ms. Richardson’s punch list of August 11, 2017. As a result of this evidence and my general assessment of credibility, I accept Johnvale’s position. This is a valid extra.
[50] Then Mr. Cimmino appeared in his affidavit to accept the fact of an extra charge, but complained about the quantum, asserting that “even $640 would be generous payment.” There was no basis provided for this position. I, therefore, deny this claimed discount.
16. Delivery of hardwood
[51] Johnvale charged Zonte an extra of $300 for facilitating the delivery of the hardwood, an item that Zonte was responsible for. Zonte denies the extra entirely alleging that it did not authorize the work. On this issue, I am satisfied that the work was done, as it was described in detail by Mr. Lovisotto in his affidavits and in the Johnvale logs. But Johnvale did not provide proof that Zonte approved of the extra, as Zonte had paid for the provision of the hardwood by others. I give the benefit of the doubt here to Zonte and accept this discount claim of $300.
17. Wood threshold under glass door
[52] Johnvale charged Zonte a $500 extra for the supply and installation of an oak threshold for a glass door in the bedroom. Zonte denies the extra entirely alleging that this issue was caused by the floor’s unevenness. Johnvale’s response is that the issue was caused by an error by Zonte’s door supplier, namely that the door was several inches too short. I fail to see how this could be anything other than a valid extra under either scenario. Zonte does not allege that the uneven floor is a Johnvale deficiency. Therefore, I deny the claimed discount.
18. Overhead and profit on extras for materials
[53] Zonte claims that Johnvale should not be entitled to charge the 15% profit, supervision and overhead (“PSO”) on extra material charges. There is a simple response to this. The Contract states clearly the 15% PSO will be chargeable on “all construction related costs.” I note that the Contract and the Extras Contract both put the 15% PSO charge on all of the stated charges.
[54] The Contract reference to extra work does state that the cost of the extra work “shall be added to or deducted from the contract price, as the case may be upon reasonable valuation, with an hourly rate of $50.00 per hr per man plus 15% PSO and HST.” While this clause was not drafted with exact clarity, I must interpret the Contract as a whole. As such, I conclude that the obvious intention of the parties was to have 15% PSO on all construction related costs regardless of whether they are extra material costs or not. That is what I find.
19. Electrical code
[55] In the Scott Schedule Zonte asserts a back-charge of $955 for the cost it incurred to an entity named Hotwire Power Group for correcting Johnvale’s alleged code violations. Johnvale denies this back-charge claiming that it pertained to the panel, which was Zonte’s responsibility. In his affidavit, Mr. Cimmino produced the Hotwire invoice. I am satisfied that the work did not pertain to the panel. Instead, it pertained to the electrical work within Johnvale’s scope. This is a proper back-charge, and is accepted as such.
20. Interest entitlement (contract claim)
[56] I note that the Statement of Claim raises a claim of 1.5% interest on any outstanding claim. This claim was not addressed in the evidence or argument. It will have to be addressed in the written costs submissions.
VI. CONCLUSION
[57] I, therefore, find the Johnvale claim for lien and breach of contract claim must be discounted by the following amounts: $200 + $250 + $90 + $350 + $300 + $955 = $2,145. It was not made clear as to whether these figures were tax included. As a result, I add the HST of 13%. This produces a final discount figure of $2,423.85. Reducing the Johnvale claim of $24,327.43 by this figure ($2,423.85) produces a total claim of $21,903.58. I find that Johnvale has a lien in this amount and an entitlement to be paid for breach of contract in this amount, namely $21,903.58. If I am wrong about the interest addition here, counsel should advise in their costs submissions.
[58] As to costs, as directed, counsel delivered costs outlines at the end of the argument. The Johnvale Costs Outline shows $22, 994.40 in partial indemnity costs and $33,550.01 in substantial indemnity costs. The Zonte Costs Outline shows a figure of $26,367.20.
[59] If the parties are unable to agree on costs and prejudgment interest, counsel may file written submissions in this regard. Submissions must not exceed two pages. Johnvale must deliver its written submissions on costs and interest by May 29, 2019. Zonte must deliver its written submission on costs and interest by June 7, 2019. Any reply submissions must be delivered by June 11, 2019.
[60] If the parties are unable to agree on the form of my final report, an attendance may be required to settle the report.
Released: May 21, 2019 ___________________________
MASTER C. WIEBE
COURT FILE NO.: CV-15-531407
DATE: May 21, 2019
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
In the matter of the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30
BETWEEN:
Johnvale Contractors Ltd.
Plaintiff
- and -
Zonte Investments Inc.
Defendant
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Master C. Wiebe
Released: May 21, 2019