The Art of Painting by Antonio Inc. - v. -, 2019 SKPC 57

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN CIVIL DIVISION Citation: 2019 SKPC 57 Date: October 29, 2019 File: 463/18 Location: Regina _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: The Art of Painting by Antonio Inc. - and - Tamara Anderson and Christopher Anderson Mr. Louis Mercier For the Plaintiff Mr. Jeffery Deagle For the Defendants _____________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT D.

KOVATCH , J _____________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND [ 1 ] The plaintiff company painted residential and commercial properties. The defendants hired the plaintiff company to paint the interior of their home in Pilot Butte, Saskatchewan. When the plaintiff completed his work on the defendants’ property, he presented a final invoice. The defendants said the job was not completed and identified some other problems with the work. They refused to pay

the invoice. The plaintiff then commenced this action. The defendants defended the action and brought a counterclaim. In the counterclaim, they allege that the plaintiff’s work was not done in a proper and workmanlike fashion. Further, significant portions of the work would have to be redone at considerable cost. They claim damages for the cost of the additional work that would be required. THE EVIDENCE [ 2 ] Antonio Konomis gave evidence for the plaintiff. He testified that he is the principal in the plaintiff company. He is 46 years of age and was born in Greece.

He lived in Greece until approximately five years ago, at which time he moved to Canada. He began working as a painter in Greece at around age 20 and has worked in that trade fairly continuously until the present time. [ 3 ] Coming from Greece, English is not his first language. He has a great deal of difficulty with English and required the use of an interpreter. This may have led to a somewhat unfortunate result for Mr. Konomis in this trial. I will return to this in due course. [ 4 ] Mr. Konomis presented a series of photographs as Exhibit P-1.

He said that he took these pictures with his cell phone of the exterior and interior of the defendants’ home, at various times while work was ongoing. The pictures show what appears to be a very nice looking house, both outside and inside. It shows some of the work done by the plaintiff. While these pictures are not real close-up shots, they appear to show a very attractive home with some very nice work done on the interior. I say this to simply observe that it was certainly not obvious that there were problems with the work or that the work was not done in a good and workmanlike fashion. [ 5 ] Mr.

Konomis said that he first went to the defendants’ home at 157 Rock Pointe in Pilot Butte during the month of January 2018. According to him, at that time, the defendants only wanted to paint the walls and trim in their home. He quoted them $2.25/sq. ft. for the painting work. It was agreed that the house was 2225 sq. ft., so that the quoted cost for this painting was $5,006.25. [ 6 ] According to Mr. Konomis, this quote did not include the railings or doors or closets. It included only the walls and trim. He testified that the walls and trim were previously painted by another worker, who did a very bad job.

The plaintiff had to do a lot of touch-ups and repairs while he was doing the walls and trim. The defendants asked him to do all the doors. They were in the process of installing the doors at that time. [ 7 ] He testified further that they then asked him to do all of the closets. The defendants had ordered closet organizers that came pre-packaged with many different pieces. These pieces needed to be assembled, and then the organizers had to be painted. He agreed to do all of this work. [ 8 ] Lastly, he testified that during the course of the work the defendants asked him to do all of the rails.

This required that the rails be sanded to remove all of the old paint, and a new stain or paint applied. [ 9 ] Mr. Konomis testified that he quoted $1,000.00 as an extra charge for doing the doors. Further, that he quoted $3,500.00 extra to do the closets and $900.00 extra to do the railings. [ 10 ] During examination-in-chief, Mr. Konomis at first testified that there were no statements from the defendants to the effect that they were not satisfied with the work. Later, while still testifying in-chief, he said that everyday Mrs.

Anderson put tape or other stickies on the wall marking defects or areas to be touched-up. He said that she was never satisfied. He said she used a magnifying glass to inspect his work and look for problems. [ 11 ] He testified that Chris, Mr. Anderson, removed the doors and brought the doors to him to be painted. He said that he taped where the hinges were on the doors and on the frames, and painted the doors. He sanded and spray painted the doors.

He denied that it was his job to remove or reinstall the doors and stated this would be the carpenter’s job. [ 12 ] The railings required a lot of work, as they had to be sanded in order to remove all of the existing paint. Then a new stain or paint had to be applied. He indicated that Mrs. Anderson was not happy with the job done the first time, and so he redid it. There was still a problem, so he did the railings for the third time. There was also one wall, a dark wall, alongside a living room area that he had to repaint a number of times before they were finally satisfied. [ 13 ] Mr.

Konomis testified that he had to go to Toronto. This was around April 5, 2018. He said that Mrs. Anderson was at the house that day. He advised that he had completed the work and asked if there was anything more to do. She did not indicate there was anything more to do. He then removed a bunch of sheeting and equipment, packed up and left. He prepared his invoice and had it delivered to the Andersons. Soon, he left for Toronto. Following this, there were telephone conversations and text messages between the parties. I need not go into detail as to what those conversations were about.

Suffice it to say the problems were escalating. The defendants said the work was not completed and there were problems with the work. They refused to pay. The plaintiff became angry, and eventually these proceedings were commenced. [ 14 ] Mr. Deagle began his cross-examination by asking about a man named Stan. He suggested that the Andersons had no discussions with Mr. Konomis before Mr. Konomis came to the Andersons’ home with Stan in January 2018. Mr. Deagle suggested that they had prior texts and dealings with Stan and then Stan brought Mr. Konomis to their home. Mr. Konomis appeared to agree with that. Mr.

Konomis also appeared to agree that all of the Andersons’ discussions, at least at that first meeting in January, were between the Andersons and Stan. This would make sense because of Mr. Konomis’s lack of comprehension of the English language. In simple terms, the Andersons and Stan conversed in English, and Stan and Mr. Konomis conversed in his language. [ 15 ] The Court was also advised and it was agreed that between the time when the work was done and the trial of this matter, Stan passed away. [ 16 ] Under cross-examination, Mr.

Konomis said he started the job in January and began first working on the casings and baseboards. He said while he was doing this work, the defendants asked him about doing the doors, then asked him about doing the closets and, lastly, about the railings. Later in his testimony, however, he said they asked him to do the railings before he did the doors.

[ 17 ] Mr. Deagle suggested that the Andersons had numerous discussions with Stan. He suggested that all of the Andersons’ discussions were with Stan. Mr. Konomis appeared to agree they had a lot of discussions with Stan. He stated however, that he also had some discussions, particularly with Mrs. Anderson. [ 18 ] Mr. Deagle suggested that throughout the January to April time period, there were numerous problems raised with the work. Mr. Konomis denied this, and said no problems were raised with the work. Mr. Deagle confronted Mr. Konomis with a text from Chris Anderson, dated April 10, 2018. The text from Mr.

Anderson says “I have some issues to go through with you.” Mr. Konomis replied that Mr. Anderson never said there was a problem with the job. There was discussion of another text that mentioned problems with the headings and casings. [ 19 ] Mr. Deagle confronted Mr. Konomis about his statement that Mrs. Anderson used a magnifying glass to inspect his work. Counsel suggested that he never did see Mrs. Anderson with any magnifying glass. Mr. Konomis was evasive and reluctant to answer the question.

Eventually however, he agreed that he never did see her with a magnifying glass. [ 20 ] There was considerable discussion about the doors. Counsel suggested that the plaintiff took most of the doors off before painting. Mr. Konomis denied this. Counsel also suggested that Mr. Konomis put the doors back on. Mr. Konomis said he helped carry the doors back in, and Mr. Anderson put them on. [ 21 ] Mr. Konomis agreed that he did not paint the top or the bottom of the doors. [ 22 ] There was considerable debate and argument about what happened after April 5, when payment was not made. Most of this is irrelevant. Mr.

Konomis stated that Mr. Anderson told him that he would not pay the account, as Mr. Konomis was not Canadian. This was adamantly denied by Mr. Anderson. Mr. Konomis suggested this was borne out by the texts, but on my reading of the texts, I could find nothing to support this allegation. [ 23 ] Giannis Konomis testified. He is the 21 year old son of Antonio Konomis. He testified that he worked for his dad for $25.00 per hour. He did a lot of work on the defendants’ home. His work consisted of covering and clean up, sanding, touch-ups and painting.

He agreed he was not present for the initial discussions nor when the agreement was made. [ 24 ] He said the previous painters had done a poor job. On a number of occasions, one of the Andersons would say: “You do a good job. Can you do this or can you fix this?” He said they also asked him to redo a number of tasks. They did the railings three times because Mrs. Anderson did not like the colour. He also did one particular wall a number of times. [ 25 ] Mr. Chris Anderson testified that he is 40 years of age. He works as a plumber and a framer.

He built the house at 157 Rock Pointe from scratch and acted as the general contractor for that work. [ 26 ] He said they were very displeased with the work done by the first painter. He was given Stan’s name as a painter, and made contact with him. Stan came to his house for the first time in early January. Stan was by himself at that time. On this first occasion, he asked Stan to quote only on doing the railings. On January 7, 2018 Stan did advance the quote via text message.

The text reads as follows: Estimate sand with different grades down to bare wood, 2 coats hand wiped stain, cover walls and floor, spray 2 coats of finish, labour only $950.00. thnx [ 27 ] Mr. Anderson accepted this quote. A few days later, he asked Stan about quoting on the whole house. Stan agreed to come out and have a look and advance a quote. On this latter occasion, he came to the home with Antonio Konomis. According to Mr. Anderson, while Antonio Konomis was present, all of the discussions were between Mr. Anderson and Stan. Mr. Anderson said that he told Stan all of the work that he wanted done.

He said he specifically indicated that all walls, doors and closets were to be done, and this was agreed to by Stan. On January 17, 2018, Stan advanced a quote, again by text message. This text message was admitted as Exhibit D-6. It reads as follows: 1. All repairs as discussed (nails, holes, cocking etc.). 2. Re-spray all trim/casing. 3. Apply two coats of Benjamin on all wall (top line) labour/material incl. $2.25/sq. ft. [ 28 ] Mr. Anderson said that he accepted the quote. It was agreed that he would use Stan. He said he had no contact with the plaintiff about doing the work.

The work proceeded, but in the days following, it became apparent that Stan was not regularly present. [ 29 ] Mr. Anderson said that fairly early on there were some problems. For example, Antonio and the other labourers were not wearing booties. As a result of some of these problems, he called Stan. [ 30 ] Mr. Anderson described the feature wall or the black wall. He said that the first painter applied a very shiny finish. It was reflective. Because of this, it showed all the flaws in the wall. They wanted the wall redone with a much duller finish that would not display all of the minor flaws in the wall.

The first time the wall was done by Antonio, it had the same very shiny finish. They asked that the wall be re-done. [ 31 ] Mr. Anderson said that all of the doors were already hung in the house. They had to be painted. He said he removed a few

doors and Antonio removed the rest. Antonio removed the hardware and hinges. After Antonio painted the doors, he rehung them. A number of the doors stuck to the casings. When the doors were pulled away from the casings, damage was done to the doors and the casings. [ 32 ] Mr. Anderson said in addition there were three glass heavy duty doors. These doors had not been previously painted. He said Antonio removed them, painted them for the first time, then put them back. These doors do not close and lock. Mr. Anderson said that some or all of the doors had to be painted on the very top and the bottom.

He said that this was required to seal the doors. Further, the salesman from Rona advised they would not stand by the warranty for the doors, as they had not been properly sealed. Mr. Anderson clearly indicated that he felt that Antonio’s workmanship was not proper, because he did not paint the tops and the bottoms of the doors. [ 33 ] Mr. Anderson testified he was out of town on April 5, 2018. It was on this day Antonio advised he was done the project, packed up his tools and items and left. The next day, Mr. Anderson received the plaintiff’s account. It was three times the original quote.

On receipt of the invoice, Mr. Anderson called Stan who told him that he, Mr. Anderson, would have to speak to Antonio about the matter. [ 34 ] Mr. Anderson adamantly denied he ever said anything about not paying Antonio because he was not Canadian. He said that the job was not done. They wanted a number of other things done. Further, there were a number of other problems that they wanted rectified. Because things were not done, he did not pay. He entered a number of quotes from other suppliers to replace doors on the house.

He advanced a counterclaim for the replacement cost of these doors, which would, if accepted, virtually off set the entire quoted amount for the plaintiffs’ work. [ 35 ] Under cross-examination, Mr. Anderson admitted he did not pay anything to the first painter. He also agreed that the quote of $2.25/sq. ft. was low.

He agreed that he made no deposit prior to the start of work, and as a result has not paid the plaintiff anything for the work done, not even the cost for materials that went into the project. [ 36 ] He agreed that Antonio offered to come back and paint the tops and the bottoms of the doors, but he refused this. He also agreed that the original painter had not painted the tops or the bottoms of the doors. [ 37 ] Mr. Anderson became defensive and evasive during cross-examination. He did not want to answer a number of questions from counsel about who took the doors down and who put them up.

Finally, he agreed that he took down at least some of the doors, and asked Antonio to repaint them. Later, he also agreed that he put some of the doors back on “cause it was taking forever”. [ 38 ] The second and final witness called by the defendants was the defendant Tamara Anderson. She testified that she is a registered nurse and works in that capacity. However, she was very much involved with the planning and design of the defendants’ home in Pilot Butte. She said the first painters were from Queen City Painting. They did a very poor job.

As a result, their account was not paid. [ 39 ] The defendants then sought quotes from other painters. Her husband, Chris, went to Lowe’s and they supplied him with Stan’s name. Stan came out and provided a quote for the railings. They then asked him to quote on the whole house. At that time, he came out to the house with Antonio Konomis. She and her husband met Stan and Antonio at which time she detailed the work she wanted done. To do this, she spoke to Stan a lot. She indicated she told him she wanted walls, doors, headers and closets painted.

Further, Stan advised her to redo the headers and doors so that the paint matched. She said that she told Stan about the closets. She told him that they had custom closets coming with shelves that needed to be assembled and painted. As they discussed these matters, Stan also discussed matters with Antonio. A few days later, Stan supplied the quote for $2.25/sq. ft. At the time of the quote, nothing was said about Antonio. However, on the first day of work, Stan was not present. Rather, Antonio, his son and two others were present. She said she saw Stan about five times after that.

She had difficulty communicating with Antonio. As a result, when there were problems, she contacted Stan. [ 40 ] Mrs. Anderson indicated that, during the first week, she detected a number of problems. She was marking these problems with frog tape. Antonio asked her to quit using frog tape, and so she did. She testified that at no time did she have any discussions with Antonio about money or extra charges. [ 41 ] She introduced into evidence a large number of photographs taken by her and her daughter during the months of February and March 2019.

She testified that these pictures showed that the same old problems or very similar problems continued to exist after Antonio’s paint job. They thought they were trying to get rid of these problems by repainting. In particular, nail holes were not filled and there was paint on the floor and trim. In addition, the doors stuck. Prior to painting, the doors did not stick. [ 42 ] Mrs. Anderson testified that on April 5, 2018, she was at work until 5:00 p.m. She denied that she did a walk through with Antonio on that day, and denied there was any discussion about what needed to be done.

She denied that she told him everything was fine. She said the railing was still taped, and Antonio had not cleaned up. [ 43 ] On the morning of Saturday, April 7, 2018, Stan delivered the bill. She said it was only at this time that she realized that Antonio was done, and was not coming back. She advised Stan of her concerns, and he told her to discuss them with Antonio. [ 44 ] She indicated that Antonio never said there was any extra charge for railings, closets, etc.

After Antonio left, they opened up the French Doors and some of the paint and wood tore off of the frame, and stuck to the door. [ 45 ] With respect to the railings, Mrs. Anderson said that she wanted them stained, and so she purchased stain. However, the stain was difficult to apply. After Antonio had finished the railings, they did not look any better. She discussed this with Antonio, and Antonio then picked out paint. However, the paint was blue gray and did not match the rest of the surroundings.

She went and got other paint, and Antonio did the railings for the third time, and this time they were fine. [ 46 ] She indicated there was a feature wall in the living room. It had been painted by the first painter. She said she gave Antonio the paint colour scheme and the paint can. There was no discussion about the shine to be placed on the wall. The other walls all had a

matte finish. When she came home after this wall was finished, it was very shiny. She did not like the high shine as it displayed all of the defects and problems underneath. She testified that she asked him to redo this wall and he did. Then it was fine. She denied that he had to redo this wall many times. [ 47 ] Mrs. Anderson entered as Exhibit D-11, a quote that they received for replacement doors. She testified that she did not know who took down the doors. [ 48 ] She testified she did not see Antonio or Stan since the invoice was delivered on April 7, 2018.

Some of Antonio’s family members came to her home in July 2018. However, Antonio and Stan were not with them. About halfway through the job, Antonio gave her his business card. This was the first time she realized that Antonio had his own company. [ 49 ] Under cross-examination, she agreed that the prior painter did a poor job. Further, that in March, 2018, she had cleaners come in and clean up all of the old paint from the previous painter. [ 50 ] She agreed that at the meeting in January, there were no closet organizers or shelves present. She stated that no one in the home owns or has a magnifying glass.

She agreed that there was no deposit made prior to Antonio commencing work, and that they had not paid anything on his invoice. She also testified that she did not know if it was common to paint the tops and bottoms of doors or not. She denied that the problems with the doors only became visible or noticeable during the winter. ANALYSIS What was the amount owing by the defendants to the plaintiffs under the original contract? [ 51 ] In making his argument, the plaintiff’s counsel did not refer in detail to the law of contract.

For example, he did not argue when and where there was a meeting of the minds, and what the exact terms of the contract were. Rather, he focused on the large amount of work done by the plaintiff over the course of three months, and invited the Court to put a fair price on the work performed. [ 52 ] Mr. Deagle, for the defendants, argued that the first step the Court must take is to determine what the terms of the original contract are, and what was owing under that contract. He referred to Canoak Flooring Ltd. v Link and Link , 2008 SKPC 173 , 329 Sask R 52 [ Canoak ]. As I understand it, Mr.

Deagle argued there was a binding contract or agreement reached between the defendants and Stan in January, 2018. Further, that there may have been an assignment of the agreement, or an employment situation, or an agreement for Antonio to take over from Stan. Regardless of which scenario occurred, there was an agreement between the defendants and Stan, and later, Antonio stood in Stan’s shoes. As a result, the plaintiff cannot be in a better position than Stan would have been under the original contract. [ 53 ] For the most part, I am compelled to adopt this analysis.

The Andersons both testified that all of their dealings and discussions were through Stan. Antonio said that he quoted on the job and that he discussed with the defendants all of the additional work, and advised there would be extra charges for that. But the only actual quotes put in evidence were those made by Stan. It is clear that Antonio has a difficult time with the English language. He could not precisely say what any of the parties stated during the course of discussions. All he could do was give his characterization or belief as to what the nature of those discussions and the agreement were.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, Stan is now deceased and cannot give evidence as to the actual discussions. Antonio’s evidence is largely hearsay and based upon his understandings, on the basis of what he believes he was told by Stan. [ 54 ] On the basis of the above, I would conclude that there were two quotes advanced by Stan; one for the railings, and the other based upon the square footage, for the balance of the house. Both of these quotes were accepted by the defendants, and formed the basis of the contract between the parties.

There was an agreement that the railings would be done for $950.00, and that the rest of the house would be done for $2.25/sq. ft. [ 55 ] The original quote from Stan is stated above. I would have thought that assembling and painting all the shelving in the closet organizers resulted in substantial extra and detailed work. On that basis, it would seem to me that there should be some extra charge. Having stated that however, Stan and/or Antonio were quoting on the work. They were the trades people. They were drafting the quote. The onus was on them to be clear as to what the quote included and what it did not.

If there was to be an extra charge for the closets, it was incumbent upon them to state what that extra charge would be. [ 56 ] On the basis of the above, I would conclude that the contract was for the railings at $950.00 and the balance of the house at $2.25/sq. ft. The contract was not for more or less. [ 57 ] It was agreed that the house was 2,225 square feet. As a result, the base painting charge for the house should be $5,006.25. [ 58 ] The railings were quoted on earlier by Stan. This quote was not subsumed or set aside by the $2.25/sq. ft. quote. The railings were an extra. According to Mrs.

Anderson’s evidence she wanted the railings stained and she purchased stain in the first instance. She was not happy with the result, and requested the railings be redone. There is no suggestion that there was a problem with the workmanship respecting this first attempt at staining. As a result, the defendants must be responsible for the second attempt at dealing with the railings, and the plaintiff responsible for the third. In my view the charge for the railings should be $950.00 x 2, or $1,900.00.

What adjustments, if any, should be made to these charges as a result of the work not done in a proper and workmanlike fashion? [ 59 ] In the Canoak decision, at paragraphs 23-25 , her Honour Judge Scott stated:

[23] There is an implied term in a contract for the performance of services that the work will be carried out in a “proper andworkmanlike manner” (Maisonneuve v. Burley, 2001 SKQB 407 , [2002] 1 W.W.R. 111 (Sask.Q.B.). As the Court inMaisonneuve stated: The contract between the plaintiffs and the defendant was a contract to do work and supply materials. The governing law is set forth inMack v. Stuike (1963), (SK KB), 43 D.L.R. (2d) 763 (Sask.

Q.B.) At p. 771 of Mack, supra, Balfour J. quotes fromHalsbury’s Law of England, vol. 3, 3d ed. (London: Butterworths, 1953) at 453, para. 818 as follows: …A contract to perform any work, in the absence of any stipulation as to the manner in which it is to be carried out, implies a conditionthat the work shall be done in a good and workmanlike manner, and the workmen employed on the work must be possessed of theordinary amount of skill possessed by those exercising the particular trade… [24] The Court in Maisonneuve held that in order to succeed in negligence a party must prove that a worker’s actions amount to abreach of a duty of care owed them by the worker.

The Court stated that: …the tort of negligence revolves around three elements−duty, breach and loss and, as stated by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal inSEDCO v. William Kelly Hldg.

Ltd., (SK CA), [1990] 4 W.W.R. 134 at p. 152, three questions are raised: …Did a duty of care arise; if so, what was the nature and scope of that duty; was the duty breached; and, if the duty was breached, wasthere a loss, that is compensable loss of the nature recoverable under the form of the tort at issue? [25] To summarize, implied in a contract for services is the term that the work will be done in a proper and workmanlike manner andfailure to perform work to that standard will constitute a breach of contract.

Alternatively, where a service provider breaches a duty ofcare to his customer, by performing work which falls below the standard of reasonable care, the service provider will be found to havebeen negligent. [60] The defendants have launched a counterclaim, alleging the plaintiff’s work was not done in a proper and workmanlikefashion. They claim damages for replacing a series of doors, and ask that these damages be offset against the plaintiffs claim. If thiswere successful, the plaintiff’s claim would be reduced to almost nothing.

However, in my view, except for one relatively small matterthat I will return to, the defendants’ counterclaim cannot be allowed. [61] As I understand it, the counterclaim is most substantially based upon the doors. It is alleged that the doors were not properlysealed, in that they were not painted on the top and the bottom. Mr. Anderson testified that he discussed this with the salesman at Ronathat sold him the doors. The salesman indicated that because the doors were not sealed, Rona would not stand behind its warranty ofthose doors.

As I understand it, the Andersons also allege that the doors do not fit properly within their frames, and stick, and that thedoors also stick to the door frames. [62] In my experience, most often, expert evidence is presented to the Court regarding the relevant trade. The expert evidence is tothe effect that a proper technique is this, which will bring about this result. Further, that having viewed this work, it does not meet theproper and workmanlike standard. No such evidence was led in this case. There was evidence that the doors were not sealed in that theywere not painted on top or bottom.

However, even I have seen many doors that were not painted on top or bottom. The statementattributed to the salesman from Rona, strikes me as a rather self-serving effort by the salesman to avoid any liability. I would needprofessional and expert evidence to conclude that not painting the tops and bottoms of the doors was poor workmanship. [63] Perhaps more importantly, Mr. Konomis testified that he did not take down or put up the doors. Further, that was thecarpenter’s job. Mr. Anderson testified that he did take down and put up some doors, “because it was taking forever”.

It seems to methat a problem with how the doors fit is much more directly related to their installation than it is to the painting of the doors. Whetherthe doors were installed by a carpenter or by Mr. Anderson, the liability cannot be laid at the feet of Mr. Konomis. In addition, it wouldseem to me to be very possible, if not probable, that the doors stuck to the frames because they were hung too early and before the paintwas dry.

As mentioned, I do not believe the plaintiff should be liable for problems resulting from the installation or hanging of thedoors. [64] The Andersons introduced a number of photographs. These photographs detail little touch- ups to be done, and significantclean up. In my view such touch-ups and clean up are a necessary part of work being done in a good and workmanlike fashion. As aresult, the cost of doing touch- ups and cleaning must be deducted from the overall contract price. In my view, a deduction of $1,500.00should be more than sufficient to do any touch-up and clean up work.

COSTS [65] Neither party called any outside evidence or an expert witness. The success of the action is divided. On this basis, I will notmake any order as to costs. Each party will be responsible for their own costs. The plaintiff made a more significant claim for costs,based upon a job that he lost in the province of Ontario, and the cost of returning to Saskatchewan to deal with this action. In my view,these are not the kinds of costs that are allowed under the The Provincial Court Act. 1998, SS 1998, c P-30.11. In addition, the plaintiffwas residing and carrying on business in Saskatchewan.

He launched the action here. He then chose to move to Ontario. He then, as

was his right, chose to return to Saskatchewan to prosecute to this action. Under the circumstances, I would not allow him any costs for this. CONCLUSION [ 66 ] The plaintiff shall have judgment against the defendants in the total sum of $6,000.93, calculated as follows: Calculation of Amount of Judgment Labour for railings - $950.00 x 2 = $1,900.00 Contract amount for painting house $2.25/sq. ft x 2225 sq. ft = $ 5,006.25 Sub-Total $6,906.25 Less cost of touch-ups and clean up $ 1,500.00 Balance for work $5,406.25 GST $270.31 PST $ 324.37 TOTAL OF JUDGMENT $ 6,000.93 [ 67 ] There will be no order as to costs.

Dated at the City of Regina, Province of Saskatchewan this ___ day of October 2019. _____________________________ Kovatch, J