Grozell v. Gibson, (2013) 421 Sask.R. 252 (PC)

• Judge: Whelan, P.C.J.
• Court: Provincial Court of Saskatchewan (Canada)
• Case Date: May 27, 2013
• Jurisdiction: Saskatchewan
• Citations: (2013), 421 Sask.R. 252 (PC);2013 SKPC 91

Grozell v. Gibson (2013), 421 Sask.R. 252 (PC)

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2013] Sask.R. TBEd. JN.018

Larry Grozell v. Gary Gibson

(414 [2012]; 2013 SKPC 91)

Indexed As: Grozell v. Gibson

Saskatchewan Provincial Court

Civil Division

Whelan, P.C.J.

May 27, 2013.

Summary:

The plaintiff retained the defendant for services regarding the preparation of plans to build a group home. The plaintiff sought the return of the funds paid, claiming that he did not receive the plans contracted for and they were not provided in a timely fashion. The defendant, by counterclaim, sought payment for additional hours occasioned by the plaintiff's changes to the plans.

The Saskatchewan Provincial Court held that the plaintiff received value from the defendant to the extent of $7,844.60. The plaintiff was awarded the difference between what he paid and that amount, in the sum of $3,359.30.

Building Contracts - Topic 705

The contract - Plans and specifications - Designer's duty respecting - [See Contracts - Topic 7433 ].

Contracts - Topic 7433

Interpretation - Ambiguity - Contra proferentem rule - The plaintiff retained the defendant for services regarding the preparation of building plans - The plaintiff sought the return of the funds paid, claiming that he did not receive the plans contracted for - The plaintiff argued that there was ambiguity in the contract as to what was to be provided and that it should be construed against the defendant - The Saskatchewan Provincial Court found that the parties were in agreement to the extent that the defendant contracted to provide structural engineered stamped building plans necessary to obtain a building permit - The parties were not in agreement that the defendant was to provide a site plan, electrical or mechanical plans - "These types of plans are very specific in nature and before the Defendant can be found to be bound to provide such plans they must have been specifically enumerated in writing. The contra proferentem rule does not apply" - The parties contracted for structural engineered stamped plans and expertise in structural insulated panel construction in a format suitable to obtain a building permit - It was to be provided for a fixed sum, without regard to the number of hours employed in producing the product - See paragraphs 36 to 40.

Cases Noticed:

Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Co. v. Hewson (2004), 254 Sask.R. 203; 336 W.A.C. 203; 2004 SKCA 112, refd to. [para. 38].

Goffin v. Abbey Life Insurance Co. of Canada (1996), 144 Sask.R. 299; 124 W.A.C. 299 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 38].

Henderson v. Knogler (2009), 330 Sask.R. 256; 2009 SKQB 96, refd to. [para. 39].

Greenside Properties Inc. v. 8458429 Holdings Ltd., [1996] B.C.T.C. Uned. 392 (S.C.), refd to. [para. 41].

Stefan v. Lichter (2005), 270 Sask.R. 124; 2005 SKQB 383, refd to. [para. 47].

Dixon v. Wiebe, [1979] 3 W.W.R. 354 (Sask. Q.B.), refd to. [para. 47].

Counsel:

T. Adamus, for the plaintiff;

G. Gibson, defendant, on his own behalf.

This trial was heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, before Whelan, P.C.J., of the Saskatchewan Provincial Court, who delivered the following judgment, dated May 27, 2013.