Desjardins v. Dartmouth Handyman Services

Desjardins v. Dartmouth Handyman Services

The contractor breached the implied term under the Consumer Protection Act by performing window installations that failed to follow manufacturer instructions (no shimming, improper sealing, wrong sizing), thereby voiding warranties; the Claimants acted reasonably in refusing further payments and in not permitting...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2024 NSSM 15
Parties
Claimant: Marie Josee Desjardins; Claimant: Chris Agaiby; Defendant: Dartmouth Handyman Services
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
19 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
Claim allowed in favour of the Claimants
Legal Topics
Implied Condition of Services, Breach of Contract, Defective Workmanship, Duty to Mitigate, Warranty Voidance, Damages, Prejudgment Interest, Mechanic's Lien/threat
Source Language
english
Consumer Protection Contract Tort Construction/building Property Law Implied Condition of Services Breach of Contract Defective Workmanship +5 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marie Josee Desjardins

Claimant

Chris Agaiby

Claimant

Dartmouth Handyman Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Dartmouth Handyman Services performed services in a skillful, efficient and competent manner under Consumer Protection Act s.26(5)
  2. 2 Whether the window installations voided manufacturer warranty
  3. 3 Whether Claimants reasonably mitigated or were required to allow contractor to return

Ratio Decidendi

The contractor breached the implied term under the Consumer Protection Act by performing window installations that failed to follow manufacturer instructions (no shimming, improper sealing, wrong sizing), thereby voiding warranties; the Claimants acted reasonably in refusing further payments and in not permitting remediation; accordingly Claimants are entitled to monetary relief for the deficient work and related costs.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed in favour of the Claimants

Orders

  • Judgment in favour of the Claimants in the amount of $11,640.20 CAD (total, including prejudgment interest of $230.00 CAD)
  • Declaration that no further monies are owed to Dartmouth Handyman Services (res judicata as to payment claim)