Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey, 2000 YKCA 1

JudgeMcEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Donald, JJ.A.
CourtCourt of Appeal (Yukon Territory)
Case DateFebruary 11, 2000
JurisdictionYukon
Citations2000 YKCA 1;(2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 161 (YukCA)

Ketza Constr. Corp. v. Mickey (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 161 (YukCA);

    227 W.A.C. 161

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2000] B.C.A.C. TBEd. SE.013

Ketza Construction Corp. (plaintiff/respondent) v. Joyce Margaret Mickey and Glenn Mickey (defendants/appellants)

(YU00411; 2000 YKCA 1)

Indexed As: Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey

Yukon Court of Appeal

McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Donald, JJ.A.

March 6, 2000.

Summary:

The plaintiff agreed to construct a "luxury" house for the defendants. Differences arose as to the cost of the work and payment for it. The plaintiff left the site at the defen­dants' request. The defendants completed construction with other trades at substantial additional cost. The plaintiff sued the defen­dants for compensation based on quantum meruit. The defendants counterclaimed for damages for negligent misrepresentation.

The Yukon Supreme Court allowed the plaintiff's claim based on quantum meruit and fixed the amount of the judgment. The court dismissed the counterclaim. The de­fendants appealed.

The Yukon Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by reducing the amount of the judg­ment.

Building Contracts - Topic 3544

Liability of builder - Duty to owner - Duty to provide skill and judgment - The Yukon Court of Appeal, per Southin, J.A., opined that where there was no oral fixed price con­tract and no written contract, a builder who failed to keep an owner apprised timeously on all aspects of the costs being incurred might be in breach of the implied obliga­tion to use reasonable care and skill - See paragraph 26.

Building Contracts - Topic 4002

Quantum meruit claims - Circumstances where doctrine applied - The plaintiff agreed to construct a "luxury" house for the defendants without a written contract - There was no oral fixed price contract - Differences arose as to the cost of the work and payment for it - The plaintiff left the site at the defendants' request - The defendants completed construction with other trades at substantial additional cost - The Yukon Court of Appeal affirmed that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for its services on quantum meruit - See paragraphs 3 to 13.

Building Contracts - Topic 4121

Quantum meruit claims - Elements of claim - General - The Yukon Court of Appeal stated that a claim on a quantum meruit may arise where there was (1) an express agreement to pay a reasonable sum, (2) a contract but no price was fixed and (3) a quasi-con­tract which might occur if work was carried on while negotiations were under­way but the nego­tiations failed to result in a contract - See paragraph 12.

Building Contracts - Topic 4168

Quantum meruit claims - Measure of com­pensation - Determination of - Bene­fit to owner - The plaintiff agreed to construct a "luxury" house for the defend­ants with­out a written contract - There was no oral fixed price contract - Differ­ences arose as to the cost of the work and payment for it - The plaintiff left the site at the defendants' request - The defendants com­pleted construction with other trades at substantial additional cost - The Yukon Court of Appeal held that in calculating the worth of the job, the trial judge erred in adding 12 percent for overhead and fee to the costs incurred by the plaintiff in constructing the house - See paragraphs 14 to 21.

Cases Noticed:

Powell v. Streatham Manor Nursing Home, [1935] A.C. 243 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 10].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Keating on Building Contracts (6th Ed. 1995), p. 84 [para. 12].

Counsel:

B. O'Ferrall and J.R. Laluk, for the appel­lants;

F.R. Eadie, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard before McEachern, C.J.B.C., Southin and Donald, JJ.A., of the Yukon Court of Appeal, at Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 11, 2000. The decision of the court was delivered on March 6, 2000, by Southin, J.A.

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Infinity Steel Inc. v. B & C Steel Erectors Inc. et al., (2011) 304 B.C.A.C. 227 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • February 7, 2011
    ...3 S.C.R. 575; 327 N.R. 100; 206 B.C.A.C. 99; 338 W.A.C. 99; 2004 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 20]. Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 161; 227 W.A.C. 161; 2000 YTCA 1, refd to. [para. Bond Development Corp. v. Esquimalt (Township) (2006), 226 B.C.A.C. 227; 373 W.A.C. 227; 20......
  • Litt et al. v. Gill, [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 491 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • March 31, 2015
    ...that means "the amount it deserves", or "what the job is worth": Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey , 2000 YKCA 4 at para. 13, 139 B.C.A.C. 161. Accordingly, if a defendant has requested and freely accepted services, the general rule is that he must pay for the reasonable value of those ser......
  • Bonilla v. Ciurariu, 2008 BCSC 925
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • July 15, 2008
    ...to be uncertain and therefore unenforceable: Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey (1999), 45 C.L.R. (2d) 246 (Y.T.S.C.), varied on appeal, 2000 YKCA 1 (CanLii), 2000 YTCA 4 (QL). [74] In this case, while the parties appeared to have agreed in general that Mr. Ciurariu would complete the renov......
  • Gichuru v. Ash et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 849 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 16, 2010
    ...that means "the amount it deserves", or "what the job is worth": Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey , 2000 YKCA 4 at para. 13, 139 B.C.A.C. 161. Accordingly, if a defendant has requested and freely accepted services, the general rule is that he must pay for the reasonable value of those ser......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Infinity Steel Inc. v. B & C Steel Erectors Inc. et al., (2011) 304 B.C.A.C. 227 (CA)
    • Canada
    • British Columbia Court of Appeal (British Columbia)
    • February 7, 2011
    ...3 S.C.R. 575; 327 N.R. 100; 206 B.C.A.C. 99; 338 W.A.C. 99; 2004 SCC 75, refd to. [para. 20]. Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey (2000), 139 B.C.A.C. 161; 227 W.A.C. 161; 2000 YTCA 1, refd to. [para. Bond Development Corp. v. Esquimalt (Township) (2006), 226 B.C.A.C. 227; 373 W.A.C. 227; 20......
  • Litt et al. v. Gill, [2015] B.C.T.C. Uned. 491 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • March 31, 2015
    ...that means "the amount it deserves", or "what the job is worth": Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey , 2000 YKCA 4 at para. 13, 139 B.C.A.C. 161. Accordingly, if a defendant has requested and freely accepted services, the general rule is that he must pay for the reasonable value of those ser......
  • Bonilla v. Ciurariu, 2008 BCSC 925
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • July 15, 2008
    ...to be uncertain and therefore unenforceable: Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey (1999), 45 C.L.R. (2d) 246 (Y.T.S.C.), varied on appeal, 2000 YKCA 1 (CanLii), 2000 YTCA 4 (QL). [74] In this case, while the parties appeared to have agreed in general that Mr. Ciurariu would complete the renov......
  • Gichuru v. Ash et al., [2010] B.C.T.C. Uned. 849 (SC)
    • Canada
    • Supreme Court of British Columbia (Canada)
    • June 16, 2010
    ...that means "the amount it deserves", or "what the job is worth": Ketza Construction Corp. v. Mickey , 2000 YKCA 4 at para. 13, 139 B.C.A.C. 161. Accordingly, if a defendant has requested and freely accepted services, the general rule is that he must pay for the reasonable value of those ser......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT