Ford (G.) Homes Ltd. v. Draft Masonry (York) Co., (1983) 2 O.A.C. 231 (CA)

• Judge: Blair, Morden and Cory, JJ.A.
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ontario)
• Case Date: October 21, 1983
• Jurisdiction: Ontario
• Citations: (1983), 2 O.A.C. 231 (CA)

Ford Homes Ltd. v. Draft Masonry Co. (1983), 2 O.A.C. 231 (CA)

MLB headnote and full text

G. Ford Homes Ltd. v. Draft Masonry (York) Co. Ltd.

Indexed As: Ford (G.) Homes Ltd. v. Draft Masonry (York) Co.

Ontario Court of Appeal

Blair, Morden and Cory, JJ.A.

October 21, 1983.

Summary:

A sub-contractor claimed for the price of a staircase supplied and installed in a home. The trial court dismissed the claim because the staircase was not installed in accordance with the Ontario Building Code. The sub-contractor appealed.

The Ontario Divisional Court allowed the appeal and allowed the sub-contractor the full amount of its claim. The defendant appealed.

The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Divisional Court and restored the judgment at trial.

Contracts - Topic 2082

Implied terms, trade custom - Terms required for business efficacy - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that a term will be implied in a contract to give it business efficacy - See paragraphs 10 and 17.

Building Contracts - Topic 580

Implied terms - Compliance with building codes - A sub-contractor supplied and installed a circular staircase in a home - The staircase had to be replaced because it did not comply with the Ontario Building Code - The Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the sub-contractor's action for the price of the staircase because in the circumstances it was an implied term of the contract that the staircase would be installed in compliance with the Code - The court stated that there could be no business efficacy to the contract without such a term - See paragraph 17.

Contracts - Topic 2051

Implied terms - General principles - The Ontario Court of Appeal referred to the general principles which a court must consider in determining whether a contract is subject to an implied term - See paragraph 9.

Building Contracts - Topic 584

Implied terms - Warranty of fitness of work and materials - The Ontario Court of Appeal stated that work and materials supplied cannot be reasonably fit for the purpose for which they were required unless they comply with the Ontario Building Code - See paragraph 18.

Cases Noticed:

Moorcock, The (1889), 14 P.D. 64, folld. [para. 10].

Young and Marten Ltd. v. McManus Childs, Ltd., [1968] 2 All E.R. 1169, refd to. [para. 11].

Independent Broadcasting Authority v. EMI Electronics Ltd. and BICC Construction Ltd. (1980), 14 B.L.R. 1, refd to. [para. 12].

Hart v. Bell Telephone (1976), 26 O.R.(2d) 218, refd to. [para. 13].

Laliberte v. Blanchard (1980), 31 N.B.R.(2d) 275; 75 A.P.R. 275, refd to. [para. 13].

Myers v. Brent Cross Service Co., [1934] 1 K.B. 46, refd to. [para. 13].

CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Mollenhauer Contracting Co. Ltd. et al. (1975), 51 D.L.R.(3d) 638, dist. [para. 14].

Lewis v. Todd, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 694; 34 N.R. 1, refd to. [para. 16].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts (10th Ed.), p. 274 [para. 10].

Counsel:

D.J. McGhee, for the defendant (appellant);

D.H. Creighton, for the plaintiff (respondent).

This appeal was heard by Blair, Morden and Cory, JJ.A., of the Ontario Court of Appeal on September 29, 1983.

The decision of the Court of Appeal was delivered orally by Cory, J.A., and was released on October 21, 1983.