Higgins Construction Ltd. v. Crosby

Higgins Construction Ltd. v. Crosby

There was a binding written contract dated May 29, 2001 incorporating CCDC 2; Higgins completed Phase I work and notified Crosby of Building Inspector requirements but many Code issues (mechanical/electrical segregation, fire separations, dampers) fell outside Higgins' contracted scope (Phase II mechanical/electrical was subcontracted/managed by Crosby and designed by Thompson Engineering), so Higgins was not liable for those items; Higgins admitted and was liable for two specific deficiencies (handrails and non-compliant glass) totaling $1,680; Higgins' claim for extras in the amount of $25,000 is allowed less that set-off, with interest awarded at 4% per annum for four years ($3,731.20)...

Citation
2007 NSSM 98
Parties
Claimant (defendant by Counterclaim): Higgins Construction Limited; Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim): John Crosby
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
11 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision (adjudication)
Outcome
Claim allowed in part for Higgins; set-off allowed for Crosby in limited amount; judgment issued for Higgins net of set-off with interest and costs.
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Scope of Work, Building Code Compliance, Set Off, Damages, Interest, Warranty, Defects
Source Language
English
Contract Construction Building Code Remedies Commercial Law Breach of Contract Scope of Work Building Code Compliance +5 more

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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Higgins Construction Limited

Claimant (defendant by Counterclaim)

John Crosby

Defendant (plaintiff by Counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision (adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Building Code violations in the February 11, 2002 inspection report constitute deficiencies or incomplete work for which Higgins is contractually liable
  2. 2 Whether the alleged deficiencies fell within the scope of work Higgins contracted to perform under the May 29, 2001 contract (Phases I/III)
  3. 3 Whether Higgins complied with CCDC notification obligations and whether failure to correct code violations makes Higgins liable under CCDC clauses

Ratio Decidendi

There was a binding written contract dated May 29, 2001 incorporating CCDC 2; Higgins completed Phase I work and notified Crosby of Building Inspector requirements but many Code issues (mechanical/electrical segregation, fire separations, dampers) fell outside Higgins' contracted scope (Phase II mechanical/electrical was subcontracted/managed by Crosby and designed by Thompson Engineering), so Higgins was not liable for those items; Higgins admitted and was liable for two specific deficiencies (handrails and non-compliant glass) totaling $1,680; Higgins' claim for extras in the amount of $25,000 is allowed less that set-off, with interest awarded at 4% per annum for four years ($3,731.20)...

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in part for Higgins; set-off allowed for Crosby in limited amount; judgment issued for Higgins net of set-off with interest and costs.

Orders

  • Judgment for Higgins Construction Limited for special damages of CAD 23,320.00 (claim of CAD 25,000.00 less set-off CAD 1,680.00)
  • Interest awarded to Higgins at 4% per annum for four years in the amount of CAD 3,731.20