SW Legal Case Law Published – Peter Swales big victory for client in Small Claims

 In Newmarket small claims court paralegal, paralegal firms Toronto, paralegal Newmarket, paralegal small claims court, paralegal Toronto, Small Claims Court, small claims court Newmarket, small claims court paralegal Newmarket

Our client had a major project to build a garage. He hired a construction company whom sub-contracted integral parts of the job to another company who botched it from the start. Our client was out a significant amount of money and lost time to complete the job. The Defendant tried to say they had no involvement.

Peter Swales pressed the Defendant and demonstrated with expert cross-examination that they were trying to deceive the court and obtained a major victory for our client. Please read how we won every point for our client and obtained a significant judgment and order for costs:

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE                                                           


Small Claims Court

50 Eagle St. West, Newmarket, ON L3Y 6B1


Claim No. SC-16-00032387-0000

Plaintiff – Paralegal
Peter Swales  @  SW LEGAL SERVICES

York Legal Suites, 615 Davis Drive #203 NEWMARKET ON L3Y 2R2   (Fax) 844-268-6108

Defendant – Paralegal

67 Mowat Avenue #411 TORONTO ON M6K 3E3   (Fax) 416-646-5306



Deputy Judge A. Di Cecco





  1. 1.                The Trial of this matter was commenced before me at the Town of Newmarket on November 8th, 2017 when, at the end of the day, it was remanded for trial continuation before me on February 23rd, 2018. The trial was not completed at that time and adjourned for further continuation before me to September 7th, 2018 on which date the evidence was completed and Judgment was reserved pending receipt and review of written submissions from the parties.
  2. 2.                The Plaintiff’s Claim by DAVID EDWARD RIGBY (hereinafter referred to as “Mr. Rigby”) against the Defendant, IMAGE FLOORING LTD. (aka IMAGAE CONSTRUCTION) (hereinafter referred to as “Image”), is for the return of $16,000.00 paid on account plus damages resulting from expenses incurred due to defective workmanship or requirements for tests and inspections, all adding up to $25,000.00. The defence is that the Defendant was not contractually liable for the contract in question and was only advising the Plaintiff on an ad hoc

At the commencement of the trial the parties agreed to the quantum and restricted the matter to be determined to the issue of liability.

  1. 3.                At the commencement of the trial the following documents were entered as exhibits for purpose of reference during the course of the evidence of witnesses:

Exhibit #1 – Plaintiff’s Book of Evidence

Exhibit #2 – Defendant’s Document Brief Index.



  1. 4.                The Plaintiff’s case started with the evidence of Mr. Rigby. He stated that he:

(a)   Was a General Manager and District Manager for CIBC at the times in question. Sometime in July or August he met the Defendant’s owner, Mr. Kanagasabapathy (hereinafter referred to as “Mr. Kana”), by one of the CIBC Account Managers. Mr. Rigby had bought a property at 517 Lake Drive, Georgina Ontario facing the lake. Mr. Rigby retained Mr. Kana’s company to do some basement renovations at his residence. All went well. Mr. Rigby later discussed with him the construction of a three-car two-story garage on Mr. Rigby’s property as shown on drawing on Exhibit #1, Tab #1, page 4. Mr. Kana ordered and paid for a five-page architectural drawings as shown at pages 6 to 11. The page 11 specifies that the foundation was to be foundation footings. From October 2013 to May 2014 estimates were provided by Mr. Kana to Mr. Rigby leading to an invoice of $28,594.00 dated July 12th, 2013 (Exhibit #2, Tab #2, page 4);

(b)   Mr. Rigby started the process for the building permit application and consulted with Mr. Kana. Through the process and specifications requirements from the Town of Georgina. Mr. Kana referred Mr. Rigby to a lumber supplier for particulars on meeting the application requirements (Exhibit #2, Tab #5). Mr. Kana referred Mr. Rigby to a local architect (Anthony ?) to provide and indicate the Canadian requirements. Tab #6, page 6, shows an invoice of $604.14 from the Defendant to the Plaintiff with respect to the cost of the drawings, etc. Page 7 sets out that the footings had to be “foundation footings”;

(c)   On July 6th, 2015 Mr. Rigby sent an email to his assistant, Raajani, pointing out that the approval process involved three inspections with the initial one being for the foundation footing of the garage. Mr. Kana had designated Gowri as his employee and job supervisor;

(d)   The building permit was obtained from the Town in September 2014. Mr. Rigby was under the mistaken impression that it lasted only one year, whereas it lasted two years. The Plaintiff had phone calls and five face-to-face meetings with Mr. Kana. From September 2014 to April 2015 he had frequent communications with Mr. Kana. Due to delays in the building permit application and minor variance application, Mr. Rigby realized that it was not likely that the project could have started in the Fall of 2014. In January 2015 he was in communications with Mr. Kana who advised him that the cost of the project was increased to $40,000.00 and assured him that Mr. Rigby’s project will be one of the first jobs he would undertake in the Spring of 2015. There were subsequent meetings arranged to determine a timeline sequence. Mr. Kana changed some of the appointments but the emphasis was always on a target completion date of September 2015. On June 24th, 2015 Mr. Kana had advised him that a contractor (Plaintiff did not know who) and Mr. Johnson (Mr. Kana’s construction foreman) will look after the job. There were emails indicating that some equipment was going to be rented. Mr. Rigby had assumed that Mr. Kana’s company’s equipment would be the only equipment used. The sub-contractors, Mani’s and Mr. Kana’s employees, only showed up one day a week on Sundays. Mr. Rigby experienced many unanswered messages from Mr. Kana or his assistant;

(e)   On August 13th, 2015 the Town of Georgina issued a stop order because no inspection had been done before the concrete had been poured and a geotechnical report would be required before the order would be lifted. The Defendant never provided the geotechnical report and Mr. Rigby had to get it from his subsequent contractor;

(f)     By August 28th, 2015 Mr. Rigby reached his patience limit. All his dealings were with Mr. Kana or his company. He had no dealings with any other person. Whenever he made the cash payments, they were made to Mani under the direction of Raajani of Mr. Kana’s office. The payments consisted of two payments, one on July 14th, 2015 for $6,000.00 and the other one on August 6th, 2015 of $10,000.00, both cash and paid to Mani;

(g)   Mr. Rigby retained another contractor, Ross Gordon, to obtain the necessary inspections, reports, and do the correction work and proceed with the contract to completion;

(h)   The October 23rd, 2015 letter from Mr. Kana to Mr. Rigby, where Mr. Kana denied contractual liability, contained a blatant lie and Mr. Rigby emphasized that Mr. Kana had said that he would do the contract with Mr. Johnson being the project co-ordinator but Mr. Kana’s company would do the job for Mr. Rigby. Never before that letter did Mr. Kana ever say in the previous one and a half year that he could not do the job. Mr. Rigby was never referred to anybody else and he never dealt directly with anybody else. Mr. Johnson was only on his property once to stake out the foundation location.

  1. 5.                Under cross-examination by Mr. Capicotto, Mr. Rigby said:

(a)   He was not sure whether Mr. Kana had visited his property before the Quote of $28,594.00 for the garage was provided;

(b)   On the previous basement contract, all the payments were made to Mr. Kana or his contractors. There was no permit applied or needed, according to Mr. Kana, for the basement work;

(c)   The architectural drawings were obtained by the Defendant. Mr. Rigby paid the $604.14 to have the drawings converted to Canadian standards. Mr. Kana alone was the one that quoted to him the prices. Mr. Kana knew that his company would be the one to build Mr. Rigby’s garage. Mr. Kana and his office had assured Mr. Rigby that Mr. Rigby’s will be his first job in the Spring of 2014. Mr. Kana never told him that he would not take on any more projects for 2014. The request of April 27th, 2015 by Mr. Rigby for revised drawings on the assumption that a beam would not be required in the garage where quickly abandoned when Raajani of Mr. Kana’s office had told Mr. Rigby that they could not do a false floor on that job. The only quote in writing provided to Mr. Rigby from Mr. Kana was the original quote.

  1. 6.                At this point of the cross-examination of Mr. Kana by Vince Capicotto the trial was adjourned for continuation before me to February 23rd, 2018.
  2. 7.                The trial continued before me on February 23rd, 2018 with the continuation and completion of the cross-examination of Mr. Rigby by Capicotto. He stated:

(a)   In the Spring of 2015, all permits were obtained by him. Mr. Kana had given him a range of estimated expenses between $52,000.00 and $54,000.00. The original quote of $28,594.00, although lower in price, had a list of most of the work that was required to be done. The work was started on Sunday, June 28th, 2015;

(b)   Exhibit #1, Tab #2 (pages 16 & 17) indicates his email to Mr. Kana outlining the delays that had taken place before starting the project;

(c)   In January or February 2015, Mr. Kana had told him that Mr. Rigby’s project would be his first work after the winter of 2015. Mr. Rigby had complete trust in Mr. Kana. Mr. Kana had been to his house even before Mr. Rigby had bought it;

(d)   Exhibit #2, Tab #1 (page 1) is the email from Mr. Rigby to Mr. Kana of July 9th, 2013 referring to Mr. Rigby obtaining a quote for financing. That was before the purchase agreement on the house was, in fact, accepted;

(e)   He wanted the garage to be completed by September 15th, 2015;

(f)     At the start of the work, Mr. Kana was not on site. His sub-contractors, Mr. Mani and his helpers were looking after the foundation for the garage. It was the same arrangement as he had had with Mr. Kana when Mr. Kana worked on his basement previously;

(g)   Everything was put together by Mr. Kana and his people. Mr. Kana or his people would just tell Mr. Rigby how much to pay the sub-contractors;

(h)   Exhibit #1, Tab #2 (page 23) was Mr. Rigby’s email of July 20th, 2015 to Mr. Kana requesting him to assist him for the damage that was caused to the eavestrough at his house by the cement truck. That was to make Mr. Kana aware so that he would communicate it to the sub-contractors;

(i)      Exhibit #2, Tab #9 (page 7) refers to the second $6,000.00 cash deposit to Mani. It was preceded by a $10,000.00 cash payment to Mani under the directions of Raajani of Mr. Kana’s office;

(j)     This method of payment was similar to what they had done before in 2013 for the basement;

(k)   On Saturday, August 22nd, 2015 the cement truck came from an unrelated company;

(l)      Mr. Rigby was surprised when he was asked to pay for some machinery rental. He had expected that would be part of the contract and that Mr. Kana had told him he would use his own equipment. It cost Mr. Rigby $1,235.00. He was happy at least that his garage would be done;

(m)  Raajani had left messages to him that “my contractors were coming there on Saturday at 9:00am”. On August 22nd, Mr. Rigby asked the contractors to leave because they were very late after the concrete truck driver had arrived and indicated that there would be problems with the cement because of the delay in pouring that was being experienced;

(n)   After terminating those subcontractors, he hired Mr. Ross Gordon to correct and finish the project. He had some subsequent conversations with Mr. Kana relating to water and soil conditions. Mr. Rigby paid for a soil report which cost him $550.00;

(o)   On July 16th, 2015 he had told Raajani that inspections were required. Mr. Mani was oblivious to the requirement of inspections and that they were, in fact, required before the cement was poured;

(p)   Mr. Rigby was relying all the time on Mr. Kana’s statement that the Engineer could always sign off after the pouring of cement. He said that he was very naive and relied on Mr. Kana until the Town put a stop work order;

(q)   Exhibit #1, Tab #5 shows the order requiring soil tests and samples (issued on September 25th, 2015 with the inspection held on July 30th, 2015). The footings were poured before July 30th, 2015;

(r)     The order was issued because the Defendant failed to get an inspection even though it was the Plaintiff who was to arrange for the inspection;

(s)   Exhibit #2, Tab #12 (page 3) was an October 22nd, 2015 email from Mr. Rigby to Mr. Kana through Raajani asking them whether they were going to finish the project or if his present contractor, Ross Gordon, was to. Raajani was Mr. Kana’s construction co-ordinator;

(t)     In Mr. Kana’s letter to Mr. Rigby of October 23rd, 2015 Mr. Kana indicated that he was acting only to provide referrals and sources for Mr. Rigby. He stated that Mr. Kana was, by that time, between a rock and a hard place, was making fictitious responses and lies and Mr. Rigby was just trying to give him an opportunity to correct the foundation problem;

(u)   Tab #6 (pages 53 & 54) indicate that the soil was disturbed, loose and wet, that there was weak mortar and concrete when the cement was poured and that water had ponded resulting in a loose and deleterious footing. That required the replacement of the footings;

(v)   He was paying cash to Mani because that was what Raajani told him to do (Exhibit #2, Tab #11, page 3 and Tab #10, page 7). In addition, Raajani arranged to pay the machine excavator;

(w)  Image Floor paid for the drawings;

(x)   From 2013 to 2015, all of his communications were with Kana. He did not have any communications directly with Mani or any other contractors;

(y)   He was never advised that Image Floor was not the contractor on this job;

(z)   Exhibit #1, Tab #2 (pages 16-17) reflect his frustrations that were always expressed by him to Mr. Kana and no other person;

(aa)      On July 8th, 2015 he was waiting for Mr. Kana to show up at his property and tried to get things moving along;

(bb)     Mr. Rigby was never told by anyone to talk or deal with anybody else;

(cc)      Exhibit #2, Tab #9 (pages 5-10) is an email from Raajani requesting for his co-operation saying “If you trust, we will finish the work”;

(dd)     Exhibit #2, Tab #9 is an email from him to Raajani of July 6th, 2015 pointing out to him that three inspections were required;

(ee)      In his email of July 28th, 2015 he was asking Raajani if someone could let him know if the foundation forms were completed for inspection. It was followed with three subsequent emails to Mr. Kana with no email response;

(ff)         Mr. Johnson, who was indicated to Mr. Rigby by Mr. Kana as the person that would work on the site only, attended at the site on one occasion before the work started and never again.

  1. 8.                The trial was adjourned at the end of the day on February 23, 2018 and continued before me on September 7, 2018. The Plaintiff confirmed that the evidence for the Plaintiff was completed and the Defence evidence started with the evidence of Mr. Kanagasabapathy.
  2. 9.                Kana stated that:

(a)   He is the owner of the Plaintiff company. He started the company about 20 years ago operating mainly in the construction flooring business. Since December 2014 his company has been operating in the flooring business;

(b)   He met the Plaintiff when he switched his company’s business from RBC to CIBC. He was introduced to Mr. Rigby as the General Manager in charge of his own account manager. At that time he had a meeting at Mr. Rigby’s office which lasted four hours with Mr. Rigby and the account manager. At the end of that meeting Mr. Rigby asked for a favour in obtaining a quote for improvements and basement renovations to his own house for the purpose of bank financing. Exhibit #2 Tab #1 has the communication of June 29, 2013 by email to Mr. Rigby advising the particulars of the financing he was seeking. This was followed up with the email of July 9, 2013 from Mr. Rigby with more details about the financing and improvement loan for the house that he and his wife was in the process of buying;

(c)   Mr. Kana provided a quote from the RS Means book. This was done as a courtesy to Mr. Rigby without any commitment and no contract tendered;

(d)   The quote for the three-car garage was for a basic garage with slap-on grade construction with itemized cost breakdown totalling $28,594.00. The quote was dated July 12, 2013;

(e)   Later on in July he received his business loan and line of credit approval;

(f)     He explained that the quote was for a basic slab on grade construction. If it were to be an engineering foundation (ie, an engineering structural slab foundation), the price for the foundation and slab and cement floor would have been 10 to 15 times higher than the one quoted;

(g)   The contract for the basement was for a total of $30,451.45. It was started in October 2013 and finished on October 29th, 2013. The contract agreement is in Tab #4 of Exhibit #2;

(h)   Mr. Kana got some of his employees to help Mr. Rigby to get the drawing on line;

(i)      When the drawing was chosen Mr. Rigby was to submit it to L. Anthony, from an architectural firm to be able to convert the drawings to our local municipal standards. Mr. Kana’s company did not do any engineering work;

(j)     In the email from Mr. Rigby of October 21st, 2013 he indicated that his attempt to get the permit for the three-car garage turned into a disaster with the Town requiring a site plan and height minor variance. In that communication, Mr. Rigby stated that if Mr. Kana and others were holding up people for that job there was no need to hold them up further;

(k)   On the next day Mr. Kana entered into a large school construction contract which was going to tie him up for at least another seven months or more;

(l)      On August 5th, 2014 Mr. Rigby sent and email to Gowri, employee of Mr. Kana’s company, asking assistance on the lumber design. His email also asked whether “once the permit was approved can you begin construction on the garage by September 2014”;

(m)  Mr. Kana was just offering assistance without charge, no contract was entered into for the garage, and Mr. Rigby was just asking him for referrals;

(n)   The building permit was obtained on September 11th, 2014 by the Plaintiff;

(o)   Later on, on a cold day, Mr. Rigby met Mr. Kana at 420 Ellesmere Road. Mr. Kana told him that he was not taking any more contracts for construction projects and his company had become unionized;

(p)   In the early part of 2015 Mr. Kana referred Mr. Rigby to Sabe Foundations (Mani);

(q)   If Mr. Rigby was sending him drawings through his company Mr. Kana was acting as his buddy and helping him with referrals. Raajini, from Mr. Kana’s office, was helping him with sourcing the drawings and transferring them to the architectural firm. His company’s name was on the drawings and he is not sure whether he paid for the drawings through his company;

(r)     No money was received nor asked by him or his company for the garage work. No contract nor commitment to do it was entered into by his company;

(s)   With respect to Tab #11, on July 3rd, 2015, Raajini was helping him to sort things out with the equipment rental company when the actual excavator rented was of a larger capacity to permit excavation to a four-foot depth;

(t)     With respect to the July 6th, 2015 communication from Mr. Rigby to Raajini with respect to the seven inspections required, he explained that that was another situation of his and his employees helping from the outside fence. The same explanation was given by him with respect to the communications dealing with the main road water seeping through;

(u)   On a Sunday before then, he brought Mani to Mr. Rigby’s place. The two of them, Mr. Rigby and Mani, discussed the details and the arrangements for the garage construction. On the way back, Mani told Mr. Kana that Mani and Mr. Rigby had discussed a contract price of $18,000.00 + HST and whether there would be no tax if the payment was all cash;

(v)   On July 10th, 2015 Mr. Rigby emailed Raajini advising her that a Town inspection had to be done before there was any pouring of the foundation otherwise the Town might resort to putting a stop-order;

(w)  Mr. Kana said that both the inspections and the bearing-capacity to support the garage were things that the structural engineer to be retained by Mr. Rigby had to deal with. Mr. Kana saw Mr. Rigby as his account controlling bank manager on both the $2.7M mortgage and the $2.5M line of credit;

(x)   With respect to the email communication from Mr. Rigby to Mr. Kana, Mr. Kana responded that Mr. Rigby was just asking Mr. Kana to help him go after Mani for money;

(y)   Even after August 31st to September 1st, 2015 Mr. Rigby was reaching out to him and his employees for help;

(z)   As of October 22nd, 2015 Mr. Rigby was asking Mr. Kana to assist him in repairing the damage to his garage. Mr. Kana said that there was an attempt by Mr. Rigby to just have him help Mr. Rigby in going after Mani;

(aa)      Raju was the structural engineer who submitted a $550.00 account for the soil report;

(bb)     It was not until October 23rd, 2015 that he replied to Mr. Rigby’s emails and told him that he was not the general contractor and he was only referring to Mr. Rigby the sub-contractors for Mr. Rigby retaining them directly;

(cc)      He repeated that there were no subsequent written agreements after the initial meeting, S. Sobey was the foundation contractor that dealt directly with Mr. Rigby, and no payments were made to his company or to him with respect to the garage work. Mr. Kana was just helping Mr. Rigby out as Mr. Rigby was his banker.

  1. 10.            On cross-examination by Mr. Swales, Mr. Kana stated that:

(a)   The initial $549.42 for the drawings was paid by Sunnath from his office. Mr. Kana was not sure his company reimbursed Sunnath;

(b)   He explained that all the work that his employees and himself were offering was to Mr. Rigby because he was his bank manager and not intended to be taking charge of the contract or acting as a general contractor;

(c)   The help that came from them was as a team which they were working on;

(d)   With respect to the email of June 16th, 2014 through to August 2018 to Jay in which Mr. Rigby was concerned about the Defendant’s company’s delays and with respect to all of the other subsequent emails he said that he did not feel obliged to respond to them because he never had a contract with Mr. Rigby and Mr. Kana was just helping him out because Mr. Rigby was his account manager;

(e)   With respect to the emails received further to the meeting between Mr. Rigby and Mr. Kana in February 2015, he denied that there was such a meeting and with respect to Mr. Kana’s visit to Mr. Rigby’s home the prior Tuesday of June 15th, 2014 he stated that it was not him but Mr. Johnson and Mani that visited Mr. Kana’s house at that time. Also with respect to June 23rd, 2015 he said that it was Mr. Johnson and Mani that were to help him, Mr. Rigby, and not he, Mr. Kana;

(f)     With respect to the email of June 26th, 2014 he said that he never indicated that he would bring his own equipment to the site;

(g)   He explained that he did not respond to all of the emails clarifying that he was not the general contractor because he was very busy and involved in another big legal contest that generated about 4,000 emails during that period of time;

(h)   Mr. Kana indicated that it was his feeling that Mr. Rigby was just trying to frame him up with all of those suggestions in the email. Mr. Kana acknowledged that not once did he respond to Mr. Rigby’s emails saying that Mr. Rigby was wrong on his assumptions of responsibility by Mr. Kana;

(i)      He was challenged by the statement in Raajini’s email wherein she stated “we did all the effort which is ruined. I feel bad to leave the job half way without completion”;

(j)     On Mr. Rigby’s emails to Mr. Kana of October 8th, 2015 he refers to the fact that three quotes were made by Mr. Kana with the first one being $28,594.00, the second one being $40,000.00, and the third one being $52-$54,000.00.

(k)   Raajini was co-ordinating most everything. In the email of July 14th, 2015 from Mr. Rigby to Raajini, Mr. Rigby indicated that it was not his job but hers to co-ordinate “your people”. Mr. Kana explained that all of the communications from Raajini was just an indication that she was just helping Mr. Rigby;

(l)      Mr. Kana said that Mr. Rigby was getting free service from his office and the Defendant did not get any share of the contract.

  1. 11.            The evidence of Mr. Kana completed the evidence being called by the Defendant in the Defence. No reply evidence was called and the matter was reserved for Judgment pending receipt of Plaintiff’s written submissions by September 25th, 2018 to be followed with a response by the Defendant’s submissions by October 12th, 2018.
  2. 12.            I received and reviewed the written submissions from both the Plaintiff and the Defendant in this matter.
  3. 13.            In making my findings in this matter I have taken into account the following facts:

(a)   The cash payments made by the Plaintiff to Mani were made on the Plaintiff’s direction;

(b)   The previous and past renovation to the Plaintiff’s property was done directly and exclusively between the Plaintiff and the Defendant;

(c)   There were constant communications between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s office for specifications and co-ordination of work;

(d)   Jay referred the Plaintiff to Anthony (the architect) for design;

(e)   July 15, 2015 the Plaintiff advised Jay of the three municipal inspections requirements that had to be met;

(f)     All communications before the job started were with Jay;

(g)   The Plaintiff has no idea of who the actual contractor was;

(h)   The price increases and assurances prior to the commencement of the work came from Jay to the Plaintiff;

(i)      Jay never said the Defendant would have had to deal with someone else;

(j)     The Plaintiff indicated that the past project with the Defendant in relation to the basement was similar and the Defendant was the general contractor with all of the communications and arrangements were carried out in the similar way as in the subject project;

(k)   There was a long series of emails from and to the Defendant referring to the work actually being done;

(l)      The installation equipment rental was changed to an excavator capable to dig to a four-foot depth;

(m)  The Defendant is making new confusing explanations, justifications, and allegations blaming the Plaintiff as trying to frame a course of action to its favour. If such were the case they do not refer to isolated incidents but they were stretched out over a lengthy period of time and not consistent with the suggestion that Mr. Rigby was scheming such a course of action into the future.

  1. 14.            On the evidence, I cannot accept the Defendant’s suggestion that the Defendant was only offering assistance as a goodwill gesture in providing guidance to the Plaintiff.

There will be Judgment in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the amount of $23,337.73 and, in determining damages, I will allow all of the amounts claimed and broken down as follows:

$14,487.00 For engineered foundation slab
3,400.00 For engineered foundation solution ($900.00 + 2,500.00)
2,975.73 For preparation of foundation investigation
1,800.00 For soil and concrete testing (as requested by Town in relation to foundation)
      675.00 For repairs to eaves trough, siding and soffit
  1. 15.            The parties will have the following timeline to make submissions on costs:

Plaintiff            7 days from receipt of this Judgment

Defendant                     7 days thereafter

Plaintiff            7 additional days to respond

(notwithstanding the above, I will be reasonably flexible on short delays).



  1. 16.            As of January 30th, 2018 I have not received any submissions on costs from either of the parties. In view of the three-day trial duration I will fix costs in the amount of $2,500.00 in favour of the Plaintiff, David Edward Rigby.

Accordingly, the Judgment will be in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the amount of $23,337.73 together with costs in favour of the Plaintiff against the Defendant fixed at $2,500.00 plus interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate from October 10th, 2018.



DATED this   11th   day of  February, 2019.



Deputy Judge A. Di Cecco

Recommended Posts

Leave a Comment

Start typing and press Enter to search