City of Toronto v. Metallic Roofing Company of Canada

City of Toronto v. Metallic Roofing Company of Canada

The Court held that the plaintiffs could not recover for extras because they did not comply with the contractual terms governing extras, but were entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal; the reference ordered by the Chancellor must assess those damages; no costs were awarded as each party partially succeeded.

Citation
(1906) 37 SCR 692
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: City of Toronto; Respondent / Plaintiff: Metallic Roofing Company of Canada
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
14 April 1906
Procedural Posture
Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; plaintiffs' claim for extras dismissed; plaintiffs awarded damages for wrongful dismissal; no costs to either party.
Legal Topics
Recovery for Extras, Wrongful Dismissal of Contractor, Obligations to Follow Contract Terms for Extras, Remedies for Defective Work
Source Language
English
Contract Construction Damages Recovery for Extras Wrongful Dismissal of Contractor Obligations to Follow Contract Terms for Extras Remedies for Defective Work

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City of Toronto

Appellant / Defendant

Metallic Roofing Company of Canada

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Contract / Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the Court of Appeal for Ontario

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs could recover payment for extra work performed without complying with contractual terms for extras
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs were entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal
  3. 3 Whether the defects were caused by plaintiffs' workmanship or by original roof construction and delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the plaintiffs could not recover for extras because they did not comply with the contractual terms governing extras, but were entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal; the reference ordered by the Chancellor must assess those damages; no costs were awarded as each party partially succeeded.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; plaintiffs' claim for extras dismissed; plaintiffs awarded damages for wrongful dismissal; no costs to either party.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part.
  • Claim for extras dismissed for failure to observe contractual terms.