Can-West Development Ltd. v. Parmar

Can-West Development Ltd. v. Parmar

The Aviva Report and the defendants' cancellation of the warranty claim are not relevant to the decisive contractual issue of whether the plaintiff breached the construction contract and, given the extensive trial evidence, would not probably have affected the result; the evidence therefore fails parts two and four...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2019 BCSC 1816
Parties
Plaintiff: Can-West Development Ltd.; Defendant: Devinder Singh Parmar; Defendant: Anju Parmar
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil: Construction Contract / Application to Reopen Trial After 24 Day Trial, Before Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave to reopen trial denied.
Legal Topics
Reopening Trial, Admissibility of New Evidence, Home Warranty, Breach of Construction Contract, Palmer Test
Source Language
english
Contract Law Civil Procedure Construction Law Insurance Law Reopening Trial Admissibility of New Evidence Home Warranty Breach of Construction Contract +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Can-West Development Ltd.

Plaintiff

Devinder Singh Parmar

Defendant

Anju Parmar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Construction Contract / Application to Reopen Trial After 24 Day Trial, Before Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to reopen the trial to admit Aviva Home Warranty Insurance Report and evidence of cancellation
  2. 2 Whether the Aviva Report is relevant to the decisive issue of whether the plaintiff breached the construction contract
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' cancellation of the insurance claim permits an adverse inference

Ratio Decidendi

The Aviva Report and the defendants' cancellation of the warranty claim are not relevant to the decisive contractual issue of whether the plaintiff breached the construction contract and, given the extensive trial evidence, would not probably have affected the result; the evidence therefore fails parts two and four of the Palmer test and the application to reopen is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave to reopen trial denied.

Orders

  • Application for leave to reopen the trial to admit the Aviva Home Warranty Insurance Report and evidence of cancellation is dismissed.