Capital Residential Contracting Limited v. MacKenzie

Capital Residential Contracting Limited v. MacKenzie

Claimant's claims were dismissed for failure to prove on a balance of probabilities that the claimed extras and alleged damages were their contractual entitlement or supported by reliable evidence. The Defendant's counterclaim succeeded in part where the adjudicator accepted reliable evidence (including witness testimony and a specific Floors Plus quote) that the laminate flooring was improperly installed and required replacement; the adjudicator adopted the Floors Plus estimate for flooring, applied a reduced Gionet figure for baseboards, and awarded limited amounts for shower head replacement, dryer ventilation repair, miscellaneous painting/caulking and the counterclaim filing fee....

Citation
2025 NSSM 4
Parties
Claimant: Capital Residential Contracting Ltd; Claimant: Sam Kamermans; Claimant: Tyler Durette; Defendant: Brian MacKenzie; Defendant: Joanne Vogt
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision (adjudication)
Outcome
Claimant's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim allowed in part
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Defective Workmanship, Damages Assessment, Admissibility and Weight of Estimates/quotes, Change Orders and Variation of Contract
Source Language
English
Contract Law Construction Law Consumer Protection Tort/negligence Breach of Contract Defective Workmanship Damages Assessment Admissibility and Weight of Estimates/quotes +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Capital Residential Contracting Ltd

Claimant

Sam Kamermans

Claimant

Tyler Durette

Claimant

Brian MacKenzie

Defendant

Joanne Vogt

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision (adjudication)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimant is owed the unpaid final draw
  2. 2 Whether the Claimant performed services in a skillful, efficient and competent manner under the Consumer Protection Act implied term
  3. 3 Whether the flooring and related work were defective and the appropriate cost of remediation

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant's claims were dismissed for failure to prove on a balance of probabilities that the claimed extras and alleged damages were their contractual entitlement or supported by reliable evidence. The Defendant's counterclaim succeeded in part where the adjudicator accepted reliable evidence (including witness testimony and a specific Floors Plus quote) that the laminate flooring was improperly installed and required replacement; the adjudicator adopted the Floors Plus estimate for flooring, applied a reduced Gionet figure for baseboards, and awarded limited amounts for shower head replacement, dryer ventilation repair, miscellaneous painting/caulking and the counterclaim filing fee....

Court Disposition

Claimant's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim allowed in part

Orders

  • Award to Defendant: $7,835.21 for floor replacement (Floors Plus estimate)
  • Award to Defendant: $3,864.00 for baseboards and related painting/finishing (Gionet estimate reduced)