Lapointe Drainage Limited v. Doran

Lapointe Drainage Limited v. Doran

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings that the drainage system was inadequate—based on failure to verify soil and filter properties and installation in very wet conditions—were supported by evidence and not palpably wrong; the limitation clause was not enforceable because it appeared only on the back of an estimate, was not discussed or incorporated into a written agreement and was not pleaded.

Citation
C36782
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim/appellant: Lapointe Drainage Limited; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim/respondent: Robert Benedict Doran
Court
Court of Appeal for Ontario
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
25 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; costs fixed at $20,000 all inclusive.
Legal Topics
Construction Defects, Professional Negligence, Limitation of Liability Clause, Damages, Appellate Review Standard
Source Language
English
Contract Tort (negligence) Civil Procedure Property Construction Defects Professional Negligence Limitation of Liability Clause Damages +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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lapointe Drainage Limited

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim/appellant

Robert Benedict Doran

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Appeal to Court of Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether appellant was liable for installing an inadequate subsurface drainage system
  2. 2 Whether trial judge's factual findings were palpably and overridingly wrong
  3. 3 Whether the limitation of liability clause on the back of an estimate was enforceable against the respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's factual findings that the drainage system was inadequate—based on failure to verify soil and filter properties and installation in very wet conditions—were supported by evidence and not palpably wrong; the limitation clause was not enforceable because it appeared only on the back of an estimate, was not discussed or incorporated into a written agreement and was not pleaded.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; costs fixed at $20,000 all inclusive.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $20,000 all inclusive.