Olga Madraga Plaintiff - v. -, 2016 SKPC 130

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation : 2016 SKPC 130 Date: October 6, 2016 File: 15-1216 Location: Prince Albert _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: Olga Madraga Plaintiff - and - Timothy Blades Defendant Henry Siwak For the Plaintiff Timothy Blades For the Defendant ______________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT S.D.

SCHIEFNER , J ______________________________________________________________________________ [ 1 ] The de jure plaintiff in these proceedings (defendant by counter-claim) is Olga Madraga (“Olga”). However, Olga is in poor health and relies extensively on her daughter, Marilyn Madraga (Marilyn), for assistance. Marilyn has a power of attorney and is the de facto plaintiff in these proceedings (and the de facto defendant by counter-claim). In this action, the Madragas (i.e.: Olga and Marilyn) claim damages for breach of contract arising out of a contract of renovation. The defendant, Mr.

Timothy Blades (plaintiff by counter- claim), is a contractor and was retained by the Madragas to strip and resurface the ceilings on the main floor of their home and then repair and repaint the walls. Upon completion of the work, the Madragas paid Mr. Blades in full without holdback. However, the Madragas now allege Mr. Blades’ work was not completed properly and/or that his work workmanship was substandard; so much so that all the work must be completely redone. To this end, the Madragas claim damages in the amount of $18,026.60. [ 2 ] Mr.

Blades acknowledges that he had a contract with the Madragas to perform certain renovations but denies that his work was deficient or that his workmanship was inconsistent with the quality expected of other tradesman working in the industry. By way of

counter-claim, Mr. Blades alleges that he had a second oral contract with the Madgragas to perform work not covered by the original contract; namely, to paint the closets on the main floor. Mr. Blades alleges that the Madgragas breached this contract by repudiation without notice and, therefore, Mr. Blades counter-claims damages in the amount of $300.00 FACTS [ 3 ] Olga, Marilyn and Marilyn’s daughter live together in Olga’s house. Olga has owned her house for over 30 years.

The house is located in the RM of Buckland No. 491, near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan. [ 4 ] In 2014, the Madragas decided that it was time to spruce up their home. They wanted to remove the old stipple and repaint the ceiling, as well as repair the dents, scraps and divots in the walls and repaint the entire main floor of their home. Through a friend, they received the name of the defendant and were told that he was a contractor doing this type of work. Marilyn testified that she did not asked for references nor did she have any personal knowledge as to the quality of Mr. Blades’ work.

Rather, it appears that going into this project, the principal motivating and limiting factor for the Madragas was the cost. Marilyn wanted to stay within a budget of $10,000.00. The discussions between Marilyn and Mr. Blades culminated in an oral contract when Mr. Blades indicated that he could do the job within the budget identified; being $2,000.00 for supplies and approximately $7,000.00 to $8,000.00 for labour. [ 5 ] Unfortunately (and as is all too often the case), neither the scope of the work to be completed nor the terms of Mr. Blades’s retainer was ever distilled to writing.

This litigation could potentially have been avoided had the parties set down in writing exactly what they were contracting for and the specifics of the work to be completed. As it is, the Court is left to sift through their testimony in order to piece together the terms of their contract. [ 6 ] The parties verbally agreed that the estimated cost of the project would be approximately $10,000.00, with material to be supplied by Mr. Blades (colours to be selected by the Madragas).

The parties verbally agreed that the whole main floor was to be redone, which included three (3) bedrooms, the kitchen, living room, dining room and bathroom. Other than that, the terms of the contract were ill-defined. However, having heard the evidence, I am satisfied that the following terms formed a part of the agreement between the parties: Start and Completion a. The work was to begin in early November 2014 and conclude prior to Christmas. Mr. Blades would work on and complete one room at a time. The Madragas would have an opportunity to inspect each room as it was completed. Preparation b.

The Madragas were to move the small items, including personal belongings from each room prior to Mr. Blades commencing work in that room. Mr. Blades was to move or cover the larger items and furniture in each room. Mr. Blades would also cover and protect the flooring. Mr. Blades would also remove and reinstall all electrical fixtures, curtain rods and such other things attached to the walls that might be necessary to permit repair and painting, such as magazine racks. The Ceilings c. Mr.

Blades was to strip the old stipple off the ceiling, repair damage, sand or smooth the ceiling, prime the ceiling and then paint the ceiling twice. I am satisfied that Mr. Blades understood and the Madragas desired that the ceiling would be flat and smooth when the work was complete. While Mr. Blades testified that the stipple was more difficult to remove than he anticipated, he did not dispute the end goal of the contract was for the ceilings to be rendered flat and smooth. The Walls

d. Mr. Blades was to repair all walls, prime and then apply two coats of paint, in colours to be selected by the Madragas. It was agreed that the walls would also be flat and smooth when the work was complete. Cleaning e. Mr. Blades would conduct a general cleaning at the end of each day and remove unwanted paint spots and splatters. The Madragas would damp mop the rooms after being worked on and generally throughout the house while the work was being performed to prevent dust from spreading. Exclusions f. I am satisfied that the closets were excluded from the scope of the original contract.

While Marilyn testified that she felt the closets were part of the original contract, Mr. Blades testified as to his belief that they were not. Certainly, there was no evidence that the parties had a specific conversation about the closets prior to the commencement of the original contract. The conflicting impressions of the parties likely arose out of whether or not the closets fall within the meaning of the “ whole main floor ”. Both parties agreed that the whole main floor was to be repainted but did not clarify what that term meant.

In my opinion, it is more likely than not, that if the parties had turned their mind to this issue, the closets would not have been included as part of the original contract. The Madragas were on a fix budget and the estimate was very close to their maximum budget. Under these circumstances, it is more likely that the closets would have been an extra, to be completed if the project was under budget. [ 7 ] Mr. Blades testified that he began working on the project on or about November 7th and started in one of the bedrooms. The furniture in that room was moved and the floor and furniture was covered with poly. Mr.

Blades removed the curtain rods and light fixtures. Mr. Blades scraped the stipple from the ceiling and then sanded the ceiling to make it smooth. Mr. Blades indicated that in some places the stipple was strongly attached to the ceiling and it was not possible to remove all of the material. Although contradicted by other testimony, Mr. Blades indicates that he applied a thin coat of drywall mud (skim coat) to help smooth the surface where necessary. Mr. Blades also patched holes and dents in the walls. Mr.

Blades testified that each night he vacuumed up the worst of the dust but he also acknowledged that the kind of work he was doing was very messy. Mr. Blades testified that he told Marilyn that the work would be messy and that she agreed to damp mop to help prevent dust from spreading. Mr. Blades also emphasized that the house was in very poor condition when he began and needed a lot of work, more work than he originally anticipated. [ 8 ] Mr. Blades testified that, when he was finished stripping and preparing the ceilings and repairing the walls, he applied a coat of primer and two (2) coats of paint.

The colour of the paint was selected by the Madragas and varied from room to room. Mr. Blades testified after painting, he reinstalled the curtain rods and lighting fixtures. For several of the rooms, the Madragas had purchased new lighting fixtures and he installed the new fixtures for them. Mr. Blades testified that he did not remove any of the trim. In some places, the trim was missing. Mr. Blades testified that he did not attempt to repair or replace any missing trim. [ 9 ] Mr. Blades testified that the Madragas had an opportunity to inspect each room as he completed it.

Marilyn complimented him on the quality of his work. He followed the same procedure on each room, which included two (2) more bedrooms, the dining room, the living room, bathroom and the kitchen. [ 10 ] Marilyn testified that in total they paid Mr. Blades $9,605.90 in two (2) payments. The first was by invoice dated November 11, 2014 in the amount of $2,125.73, and the second (and final payment) by invoice dated December 16, 2014, in the amount of $7,480.17. Marilyn testified that by December 16, 2014, Mr.

Blades had finished stripping and painting the ceilings and had painted all the walls in all the rooms (excluding the closets). [ 11 ] Marilyn testified that, soon after the work was complete, a friend of her daughter stopped by and stated that she didn’t think Mr. Blades had done a very good job of painting the house. This person pointed out what she felt were flaws in Mr. Blades’s workmanship. As a result, the Madragas began a close inspection of Mr. Blades’s work and came to a similar conclusion.

Marilyn noted dust on the top of her cupboards, dents and imperfections in the walls that had been painted over, and areas of the ceiling that were not as smooth as she had anticipated. Marilyn also noticed that the closets had not been painted. Finally, Marilyn noticed spots of paint on the trim, on the linoleum and on some of the hardwood. [ 12 ] Prior to Christmas of 2014, Marilyn called Mr. Blades and informed him of her concerns. Mr. Blades told Marilyn that he would be glad to come back, repair any areas in the walls or ceilings that he missed, and remove any paint splatters from the floor or

trim. Mr. Blades testified that he does not charge for this kind of work and that he offered to do this work for the Madragas for free. Mr. Blades testified that the paint he used was water-based and that any spots he missed on the floor and trim could be removed with hot water and rag. [ 13 ] However, during their conversation prior to Christmas, Mr. Blades told Marilyn that he did not agree that the closets were part of the original contract and that he estimated that it would take approximately six (6) hours to paint the interior of the closets at a cost of approximately $750.00.

Ultimately, the Madragas agreed to pay an additional $300.00 and that Mr. Blades would come back to the house on January 27, 2015, to repair and repaint any areas that were not smooth and flat, paint the closets, and to clean any paint splatters. On January 27, 2015, Mr. Blades arrived at the house but no one was home. He called but no one answered the phone. The next Mr.

Blades heard anything about his work with the Madragas was when he was informed by the Better Business Bureau of Saskatchewan that the Madragas had filed a complaint. [ 14 ] Marilyn testified that Olga was sick in January of 2015 and that she was too busy dealing with her mother to meet Mr. Blades at the house on the 27th. In cross-examination, Marilyn acknowledged that she did not notify Mr. Blades of their unavailability on the 27th. Ultimately, the Madragas decided not to have Mr.

Blades paint the closets, repair and repaint his work, or clean the paint splatters. [ 15 ] In the fall of 2015, the Madragas retained First General Services (PA) Ltd. to provide an estimate of the cost to repair and repaint the main floor their house. Chelsey Rudock testified on behalf of the Madragas. She is an estimator with First General Services (PA) Ltd. and a journeyperson carpenter with six (6) years of experience in the construction industry. Ms. Rudock examined Olga’s house on or before November 5, 2015. In doing so, she went through each room of the house and looked for defects in Mr.

Blades’s workmanship. Ms. Rudock then prepared an estimate of the cost to repair any defects she found and repaint the ceilings and walls of the main floor of the house (including closets). While not presented or qualified as an expert, I am satisfied that Ms. Rudock has expertise in construction, including the field of painting. [ 16 ] Based on her observations of the subject house, Ms. Rudock confirmed a number of things. Firstly, she confirmed that the stipple on the ceilings of the subject house had been stripped.

While efforts had been made to smooth the surface; the ceiling was not completely smooth in all areas. In some areas where the stipple had been removed, a texture remained on the ceiling and a skim coat of plaster would be required in these areas to render the surface completely flat and smooth. Ms. Rudock testified that every room had at least one area where visible texture remained on the ceiling requiring repair. For each room where an area of texture remained, Ms. Rudock recommended that the entire ceiling be skim-coated, re-sanded, primed and repainted.

The corollary of doing so is the need to prepare each room by moving and covering the furniture and covering the floors. [ 17 ] Secondly, Ms. Rudock confirmed that the main floor had been painted, but identified a number of areas where the surface was not perfectly flat and smooth. For example, on some walls there were drywall screws or nails that were protruding from the wall and thus visible. Ms. Rudock referred to these as popped screws and testified that Mr. Blades should have repaired these spots prior to painting. Specifically, Ms.

Rudock saw about a dozen popped drywall screws on the exterior wall of the master bedroom. By way of another example, Ms. Rudock observed drywall patches that, in her opinion, had not been properly sanded prior to painting. In addition, Ms. Rudock observed divots and scrapes in the drywall - the kind of marks consistent with general wear and tear from living - as well as damage from moving furniture. In cross-examination, Ms. Rudock admitted that some of the dints and marks on the walls could have occurred after Mr. Blades finished painting. [ 18 ] Thirdly, Ms.

Rudock testified that there was a little strip of overspray from the ceiling (likely stipple) on one of the walls in the bathroom that had not been removed by Mr. Blades (or anyone else) prior to painting. [ 19 ] Ms. Rudock provided a detailed estimate of the cost to repair and repaint the entire main floor of the subject house (ceilings and walls), including the closets. The estimate also included charges for packing, removing, returning and unpacking personal belongs, together with costs for removing electrical fixtures, taping, masking and protecting surfaces. It should be noted, however, that Ms.

Rudock’s estimate was to repaint the entire main floor, including walls and areas where no particular defect was identified. [ 20 ] Ms. Rudock used price-estimating software (Xactimate) to prepare her estimate of costs to repair and repaint the subject house. Ms. Rudock testified that this software is available to other paint contractors in Prince Albert but she was unsure of how many contractors in the city used this particular software because there is a fee associated with its use.

The software estimates prices based on industry standards for particular steps in the painting process, such as skim coating, priming, and painting, as wells as concomitant activities such as masking, moving furniture and covering floors. The costs were as follows: Skim coat on ceilings: $1.43 per square foot Skim coat on walls: $0.48 per square foot

Primer on ceilings or walls (one coat): $0.72 per square foot Paint ceilings or walls (two coats): $0.90 per square foot Move and cover furniture: $0.30 per square foot Mask and cover floors: $0.23 per square foot Detach and re-install fixtures: $41.79 - $148.85 per fixture [21] Finally, Ms. Rudock did not observe any damage or significant problem with paint spilled on the floors. Ms. Rudockconfirmed that, if there was any paint splatted on the floor, it could be removed with soap, water and a rag. [22] Marilyn’s daughter took pictures of the house to document some of the areas where it was alleged that Mr.

Blades’sworkmanship was substandard. These photographs, approximately forty-seven (47) in total, were tended as evidence on behalf of theplaintiffs. With all due respect, these photographs are of little evidentiary value. Most of the pictures are out of focus, or poorlyexposed, or over-pixilated. [23] Marilyn also testified as to marks, dents, and paint splatters. However, much of Marilyn’s testimony was a review of herdaughter’s largely unhelpful photographs and thus not particularly helpful to this court.

In addition and with all due respect, I decline togive much weight to Marilyn’s testimony as to the defects in Mr. Blades’s workmanship. In my opinion, Marilyn’s testimony found itsgenesis in the opinions of others, including her daughter and her daughter’s friend, neither of whom testified. ANALYSIS OF CLAIM

a) Terms of the Original Contract: [24] Having heard the evidence in these proceedings, I am satisfied that the Madragas had an oral agreement with Mr. Blades forhim to paint the main floor of their house (excluding closets). While it is clear that they did not record their agreement in writing or turntheir minds to certain terms of their agreement, I am satisfied that there was an agreement. Of significance, I am satisfied that the partiesagreed that, upon Mr.

Blades completing his work, the ceiling and walls would be flat and smooth. [25] A contract to carry out work implies a condition that the work will be done in a good and workmanlike manner and that thetrade persons employed will carry out the work using the ordinary amount of skill possessed by those who regularly perform thatparticular trade. Work which does not meet the specifications contained in a contract is not in compliance with the contract andconstitutes a breach.

In the absence of specifications in the contract (which was the case here), work which is not of reasonableworkmanlike quality is not in compliance and constitutes a breach. See generally: Mack v Stuike, 43 DLR (2nd) 763, (SK QB). However, the test to be applied is not one of satisfaction guaranteed; neither is perfection the test to be applied. For example,minor deviations from the contractual specifications may still be considered good and workmanlike. See: Al Vogel Construction Ltd vForbes, 174 Sask R 236, (SK QB).

b) Was there a breach of the original contract? [26] The evidence tendered by the Plaintiff in support of the assertion that Mr. Blades’s workmanship and skill deviated from thatpossessed by painters in the industry was threefold: firstly, Marilyn’s testimony that she observed marks and dints in the walls that werepainted over and that the house was a mess after Mr. Blades was done, including dust on the top of the cupboards and paint splatters onthe floor; secondly, the pictures taken by Marilyn’s daughter; thirdly, the evidence of Chelsey Rudock of First General PA. [27] Mr.

Blades denies his work was substandard. In his defence, Mr. Blades offered his own testimony, together with the factthat Marilyn reviewed his work as he completed each room, raised no concern at that time, complimented him on his work, and not onlypaid him for his work but hired him to complete more work. Mr. Blades also points to the fact that he did additional work for theMadragas (not covered by their contract) such as installing new light fixtures.

[28] Having considered the evidence, I am not satisfied that Mr. Blades’s workmanship was wholly deficient. His work wascertainly not so deficient that all of his work must be totally redone. There was no dispute that Mr. Blades removed the stipple from theceiling. There was no dispute that he primed and painted the surfaces properly and in conformity with his contractual obligations. Withall due respect, the suggestion that Mr. Blades’s workmanship was wholly defective is inconsistent with the fact each room wasinspected by the Madragas as work progress.

Having considered the evidence, I am also satisfied that Mr. Blades substantially completedhis contractual obligations. [29] However, I am satisfied that deficiencies in the contract did occur. [30] Specifically, I am satisfied that the ceilings in each room of the main floor contained areas which were not rendered flat andsmooth when Mr. Blades completed his work. There was no dispute that the goal of stripping and repainting the ceiling was to leave aflat and smooth surface. I accept the evidence of Ms.

Rudock that the ceilings in each room on the main floor contained areas withvisible patterns of texture following the removal of the stipple. I am also satisfied that the proper procedure to repair these areas wouldhave been to skim coat these areas and sand them smooth and to repeat this procedure if the first attempt was unsuccessful. I amsatisfied that these areas of texture represent more than minor deviations from the contractual specifications. Because there were areaswhere a texture was visible, I am satisfied that portions of the work were not completed in a good and workman like manner.

As a result,I am satisfied that there was a breach of the contract and that portions of ceilings in each room will need to be skim coated again andprimed again. I am also satisfied that if a portion of a ceiling must be repaired, the proper procedure would be to repaint all of that ceilingnot just the portion repaired.

As I have been satisfied that the ceilings in each room contained at least one area of unwanted texture, I amsatisfied that all of the ceilings on the main floor of the house will need to be repainted. [31] I am also satisfied that the outside wall in the master bedroom contained numerous popped screws that were not properlyrepaired by Mr. Blades prior to painting. As a result, this wall was also not left in a flat and smooth condition and that the defects in thiswall were more than minor deviations from the contract specifications.

I am satisfied that the proper procedure would have been torepair the popped screws prior to painting. Because this was not done, I am satisfied that the workmanship on this particular wall wasinconsistent with the quality of work reasonably expected of trade person working in the painting industry. In coming to this conclusion,I again accept the evidence of Ms. Rudock as to the condition of the subject house. [32] I should note that, while Ms.

Rudock was clear as to the existence and nature of the defects in the outside wall in the masterbedroom, her evidence with respect to defects in the remaining walls was vague and less compelling. While Ms. Rudock describeddefects in various rooms of the subject house, she did not testify that there were significant defects on every wall in every room. In myopinion, many of the defects Ms. Rudock described would be best categorized as minor deviations from the contract. Nonetheless, sheprepared an estimate for repainting every wall in every room. Simply put, Ms.

Rudock’s evidence described a procedure for a new and“perfect” paint job. However, perfection is not the contractual standard against which Mr. Blades’s work is to be measured. [33] Furthermore, the weight given to Ms. Rudock’s testimony must be tempered by the delay in her inspection of the subjecthouse. The Madragas lived in the house for many months after Mr. Blades completed his work.

While it is doubtful that the condition ofthe ceilings could have been affected by the wear and tear of ordinary living, the same cannot be said for the walls. [34] Simply put, other than the outside wall of the master bedroom, I am not satisfied that the evidence demonstrated, on thebalance of probabilities, that Mr. Blades’ work on the walls was in breach of his contractual obligations to the Madragas. REMEDY [35] Mr. Blades offered to repair and repaint any areas were the ceilings or walls were not smooth and flat. However, inSaskatchewan, there is no right for a contractor to repair defective workmanship.

See: Birkic v Harlos, 62 Sask. R. 1988, CanLII 5375(SK QB). Rather, the accepted statement of law is that the Madragas are entitled to damages measured by the cost of making good thedefects and omissions in work performed by Mr. Blades. Furthermore, it should also be noted that the cost to remedy contractualdeficiencies is not limited by the cost of the original contract. See: Abstract Construction v Wagman, 2016 SKPC 77 , 2016SKPC 077 . MEASURE AND CALCULATION OF DAMAGES [36] I do not have a specific estimate of the cost of making good the defects that I have found. However, I am satisfied that I have

sufficient evidence from which such costs can be calculated. In this regard, I rely on the unit prices set forth in Ms. Rudock’s estimate. I am satisfied that the unit process utilized by Ms. Rudock is consistent with industry standards. [ 37 ] On the other hand, it should be noted that Ms. Rudock’s estimate was based on completing a skim coat on all of the ceilings on the main floor not just the areas where Ms. Rudock testified that a visible texture remained. Ms. Rudock did not provide an estimate of the cost to only repair the portions of the ceiling that were not smooth and flat.

However, it was clear from her testimony that only portions of the ceiling had areas of visible texture. Mr. Blades testified that he could repair the ceilings in a couple hours of work. On the other hand, Ms. Rudock’s estimate was based on skim coating the entire ceiling. Having considered the evidence, I find that 20% of the ceilings required repair. I appreciate that 20% involves an element of interpolation. However, I am satisfied that this percentage is consistent with the tenor of the evidence I heard both from Mr. Blades and Ms.

Rudock. [ 38 ] Based on the information tendered in these proceedings, I calculated damages as follow: Living Room: Skim Coat and sand ceiling: (524.1 x .20) 104.82 x $1.43 = $149.89 Apply primer to ceiling: 104.82 x $0.72 = $75.47 Repaint ceilings: 524.1 x $0.90 = $471.69 Move and cover furniture: 250.00 x $0.30 = $75.00 Mask and cover floors: 524.1 x $0.23 = $120.54 Light Fixture detach and reinstall: 1 x $41.79 = $41.79 Total = $934.38 Bathroom: Skim Coat and sand ceiling: (102.3 x .20) 20.46 x $1.43 = $29.26 Apply primer to ceiling: 20.46 x $0.72 = $14.73 Repaint ceilings: 102.3 x $0.90 = $92.07 Move and cover furniture: 90.00 x $0.30 = $27.00 Mask and cover floors: 102.3 x $0.23 = $23.53 Light Fixture detach and reinstall: 1 x $41.79 = $41.79 Total = $228.38 Master Bedroom: Skim Coat and sand ceiling: (363.3 x .20) 77.26 x $1.43 = $110.48 Apply primer to ceiling: 77.26 x $0.72 = $55.63 Repaint ceilings: 386.3 x $0.90 = $347.67 Move and cover furniture: 124.8 x $0.48 = $59.90 Move and cover furniture: 90.00 x $0.30 = $27.00 Mask and cover floors: 386.3 x $0.23 = $88.85 Light Fixture detach and reinstall: 1 x $41.79 = $41.79 Total = $731.32 Bedroom 1: Skim Coat and sand ceiling: (167.4 x .20) 33.48 x $1.43 = $47.88 Apply primer to ceiling: 33.48 x $0.72 = $24.11 Repaint ceilings: 167.4 x $0.90 = $150.66 Move and cover furniture: 90.00 x $0.30 = $27.00

Mask and cover floors: 167.4 x $0.23 = $38.50 Light Fixture detach and reinstall: 1 x $41.79 = $41.79 Total = $329.94 Bedroom 2: Skim Coat and sand ceiling: (178.4 x .20) 35.68 x $1.43 = $51.02 Apply primer to ceiling: 35.68 x $0.72 = $25.69 Repaint ceilings: 178.4 x $0.90 = $160.56 Move and cover furniture: 90.00 x $0.30 = $27.00 Mask and cover floors: 178.4 x $0.23 = $41.03 Light Fixture detach and reinstall: 1 x $41.79 = $41.79 Total = $347.09 Dining Room: Skim Coat and sand ceiling: (222.6 x .20) 44.52 x $1.43 = $63.66 Apply primer to ceiling: 44.52 x $0.72 = $32.05 Repaint ceilings: 222.6 x $0.90 = $200.34 Move and cover furniture: 150.00 x $0.30 = $45.00 Mask and cover floors: 222.6 x $0.23 = $52.12 Light Fixture detach and reinstall: 1 x $41.79 = $76.85 Total = $470.02 Kitchen: Skim Coat and sand ceiling: (213.9 x .20) 42.78 x $1.43 = $61.18 Apply primer to ceiling: 42.78 x $0.72 = $30.80 Repaint ceilings: 213.9 x $0.90 = $192.51 Move and cover furniture: 200.00 x $0.30 = $60.00 Mask and cover floors: 213.9 x $0.23 = $49.20 Light Fixture detach and reinstall: 1 x $41.79 = $148.85 Total = $542.54 [ 39 ] The Plaintiff, Olga Madraga, shall be entitled to damages in the total amount of $3,583.67.

c) Terms of Second Contract: [ 40 ] Mr. Blades counterclaims against the Madragas for breach of a second contract between the parties. Having considered the evidence, I am satisfied that the parties entered into a second contract and that the terms of that contract were that Mr. Blades would paint the closets on the main floor for the sum of $300.00. I am also satisfied that the Madragas breached this contract by repudiations without notice to Mr. Blades. Mr. Blades is therefore entitled to damages for breach of that contract. Mr.

Blades claims $300.00; being the opportunity lost by not being able to work on January 27, 2015. No dispute was taken by the Madragas with respect to the calculation of the damages claimed by Mr. Blades. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept Mr. Blades’ calculation and award damages to Mr. Blades for breach of the second contract in the amount of $300.00

CONCLUSIONS AND ORDERS [ 41 ] To summarize, I find that the parties entered into two (2) contracts. In the first contract, Mr. Blades agreed to paint all the rooms on the main floor of Olga Madraga’s house (excluding closets). In the second contract, Mr. Blades agreed to paint the closets on the main floor of the subject house. Having considered the evidence, I find that the Madragas are entitled to damages in the amount of $3,441.48.00 arising out of defects in the work performed by Mr. Blades in the original contract. I also find that Mr.

Blades is entitled to damages in the amount of $300.00 arising out of the repudiation of the second contract by the Madragas without notice. From the sum of $3,583.67 there shall be deducted a credit in favour of Mr. Blades in the amount of $300.00. [ 42 ] There shall be a judgment in favour of the Plaintiff (defendant by counter-claim), Olga Madraga, against Mr. Blades in the total sum of $3,283.67. [ 43 ] As both parties have been successful, each party shall bear their own costs in these proceedings. Pre-judgment interest shall not attach.

Dated at the City of Prince Albert, in the Province of Saskatchewan, this 6 th day of October, 2016. ______________________________ S.D. Schiefner, J