Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Canada decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The court ordered the certification application and the defendants’ want of prosecution application to be heard together on an expedited timetable in this proposed class proceeding.
The defendant breached the implied condition under the Consumer Protection Act s.26(5) by failing to perform the stair and landing work in a skilful and workmanlike manner, causing water ingress and related damage; the claimant is entitled to compensation for reasonable remediation costs of $4,422.75 plus costs of $96.80.
Source excerpt
Adjudicator found the defects were patent and the parties had agreed to specific holdbacks ($1,500 deficiency and $3,500 landscaping); absent a contractual obligation by the seller to perform additional repairs and given insufficient evidence of repair costs for most items, the claimants are entitled only to the agreed holdbacks plus court costs.
Source excerpt
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.
Source excerpt
The claim is barred by res judicata because a prior final decision by a competent adjudicator involved the same parties and addressed the same flooring and structural issues; the claimant had opportunity to present those complaints at the prior hearing and did not present any compelling evidence or circumstances to justify overriding the policy of finality, so the claim is dismissed.
Source excerpt
The court dismissed a homebuyer’s claim that sellers fraudulently or negligently misrepresented hidden rot and insects in a log home disclosure statement.
The Court of Appeal held that the order setting aside Indal’s addition as a defendant had a final effect, so the plaintiff could appeal as of right.
Explore more
