MacKay v. Forgeron Engineering Ltd.

MacKay v. Forgeron Engineering Ltd.

Defendants fulfilled their contractual and professional obligations by designing the pad as instructed; they did not breach the standard of care or have a duty to advise on bylaw avoidance, therefore the claimant's refund claim fails.

Citation
2010 NSSM 70
Parties
Claimant: Jonathan Dryden MacKay; Defendant: Forgeron Engineering Ltd.; Defendant: Earl Forgeron
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
22 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision on Claim
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Refund Claim, Standard of Care, Engineering Stamp, Scope of Retainer, Building Code Compliance
Source Language
English
Contract Law Professional Negligence Construction Law Municipal Bylaws Building Permits Refund Claim Standard of Care Engineering Stamp +2 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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Dryden MacKay

Claimant

Forgeron Engineering Ltd.

Defendant

Earl Forgeron

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision on Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants breached the contract or standard of care in providing engineering services
  2. 2 Whether defendants had a duty to advise claimant on municipal bylaw applicability or alternatives to requiring an engineer's stamp
  3. 3 Whether claimant was entitled to a refund or reduction because the work became unnecessary

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants fulfilled their contractual and professional obligations by designing the pad as instructed; they did not breach the standard of care or have a duty to advise on bylaw avoidance, therefore the claimant's refund claim fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed