The Water Shed Conditioning Ltd. v. Bird Construction Ltd.

The Water Shed Conditioning Ltd. v. Bird Construction Ltd.

Defendant cannot charge Claimant for most Ross Refrigeration invoices because work was done mostly before the required written notice and/or there was no evidence Ross was hired as Claimant's foreman; reasonable backcharges directly attributable to Claimant are limited to glycol ($847.29), leak repair ($1,025.80) and one-half of Atlantica purging costs ($5,018.13) totalling $6,891.22; net judgment for Claimant is $16,108.78 plus prescribed interest and claim costs, with potential holdback for liens left to the parties.

Citation
2015 NSSM 38
Parties
Claimant: THE WATER SHED CONDITIONING LIMITED; Defendant: BIRD CONSTRUCTION LTD.
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
24 August 2015
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Contract/construction Dispute / Decision (adjudication)
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant. Original claim $23,000.00 reduced by allowed backcharges $6,891.22 resulting in net judgment to Claimant $16,108.78; prejudgment interest awarded at 4% for one year $644.35; claim issuance cost $193.55; subject to potential holdback for liens.
Legal Topics
Backcharges, Breach of Contract, Set Off/counterclaim, Prejudgment Interest, Jurisdictional Limit
Source Language
English
Construction Law Contract Law Commercial Law Backcharges Breach of Contract Set Off/counterclaim Prejudgment Interest Jurisdictional Limit

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

THE WATER SHED CONDITIONING LIMITED

Claimant

BIRD CONSTRUCTION LTD.

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Contract/construction Dispute / Decision (adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendant may backcharge Claimant for Ross Refrigeration invoices
  2. 2 Whether Claimant breached obligation to provide full-time supervisor/foreman under subcontract
  3. 3 Whether Defendant complied with Article 10(b) notice and cure procedure before incurring costs

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant cannot charge Claimant for most Ross Refrigeration invoices because work was done mostly before the required written notice and/or there was no evidence Ross was hired as Claimant's foreman; reasonable backcharges directly attributable to Claimant are limited to glycol ($847.29), leak repair ($1,025.80) and one-half of Atlantica purging costs ($5,018.13) totalling $6,891.22; net judgment for Claimant is $16,108.78 plus prescribed interest and claim costs, with potential holdback for liens left to the parties.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant. Original claim $23,000.00 reduced by allowed backcharges $6,891.22 resulting in net judgment to Claimant $16,108.78; prejudgment interest awarded at 4% for one year $644.35; claim issuance cost $193.55; subject to potential holdback for liens.

Orders

  • Judgment for Claimant in the amount of 16108.78 CAD
  • Prejudgment interest awarded at 4% for one year amounting to 644.35 CAD