Aucoin v. Pinnacle Condominium Construction Ltd.

Aucoin v. Pinnacle Condominium Construction Ltd.

The developer failed to deliver an 'extended balcony' as contracted because the surface provided (roofing shingles) rendered the area unusable as a balcony and risked leaks; therefore the developer breached the Amendment and must pay the reasonable cost to remove the roofing material and install a durable, waterproof walking surface (tiling) as estimated by the claimant.

Citation
2007 NSSM 3
Parties
Claimant: M. Georgina Aucoin; Defendant: Pinnacle Condominium Construction Ltd
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
10 January 2007
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court / Decision
Outcome
Claim allowed. Defendant ordered to pay cost of removing existing roofing shingles, cost of tiling the extended balcony pursuant to claimant's estimate, and claimant's costs.
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Breach of Contract, Damages, Common Elements, Construction Specifications
Source Language
English
Contract Real Property Condominium Law Construction Defects Remedies Contract Interpretation Breach of Contract Damages +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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. Georgina Aucoin

Claimant

Pinnacle Condominium Construction Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court / Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the developer complied with the Amendment to construct an 'extended balcony'
  2. 2 Whether the constructed structure qualified as a 'balcony' under the Agreement and Schedule B
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to damages for the developer's breach

Ratio Decidendi

The developer failed to deliver an 'extended balcony' as contracted because the surface provided (roofing shingles) rendered the area unusable as a balcony and risked leaks; therefore the developer breached the Amendment and must pay the reasonable cost to remove the roofing material and install a durable, waterproof walking surface (tiling) as estimated by the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed. Defendant ordered to pay cost of removing existing roofing shingles, cost of tiling the extended balcony pursuant to claimant's estimate, and claimant's costs.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay the cost of removing the existing roofing shingles on the extended balcony.
  • Defendant to pay the cost of tiling the extended balcony pursuant to the claimant's estimate.