A&B Mechanical Ltd. v. Canotech Date:, 2014 MBCA 80

Citation: A&B Mechanical Ltd. v. Canotech Date: 20140908 Consultants Ltd. et al., 2014 MBCA 80 Docket: AI 14-30-08108 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MANITOBA Coram: Chief Justice Richard J. Chartier Mr. Justice Marc M. Monnin Mr. Justice William J. Burnett BETWEEN : A & B MECHANICAL LTD. o/a ) A & B MECHANICAL and the said ) A & B MECHANICAL ) A. E. Verhaeghe ) for the Appellant (Plaintiff) Respondent ) - and - ) T. W. Turner and ) N. D. M.

Hamilton CANOTECH CONSULTANTS LTD. ) for the Respondent ) (Defendant) Appellant ) Appeal heard and ) Decision pronounced: - and - ) September 8, 2014 ) 5994731 MANITOBA LTD., the said ) 5994731 MANITOBA LTD. o/a ) ADRENALINE ADVENTURES and ) ADRENALINE ADVENTURES LTD. ) also known as ADRENALINE ) ADVENTURES ) ) (Defendants) ) CHARTIER C.J.M. (for the Court): [ 1 ] Canotech Consultants Ltd. (Canotech) agreed to build a water park and entered into a written contract with the owner to build it (the main contract). Canotech then entered into a subcontract with A & B Mechanical Ltd. (A &

B) for the performance of the mechanical work for the water park. A dispute arose between Canotech and A & B over the latter’s unpaid accounts. A & B moved for

summary judgment. The motion judge found in favour of A & B. He subsequently ordered that interest was to accrue on the unpaid balances at the same 13 per cent rate of interest that was specified in the main contract. [ 2 ] The only issue on this appeal is whether the motion judge erred in awarding interest at the rate of 13 per cent. [ 3 ] In his brief reasons, the motion judge, while alluding to the basis for his reason to grant

summary judgment (namely, the incorporation of substantial provisions of the main contract into the subcontract), emphasized that the granting of a higher rate of interest would be the appropriate equitable remedy in the circumstances. [ 4 ]

Part XIV of The Court of Queen’s Bench Act , C.C.S.M., c. C280 (the Act ) gives the motion judge a discretion to allow interest at a rate higher or lower than the prescribed rate, in certain circumstances. On this appeal, the appellant conceded there was jurisdiction for the motion judge to set a higher rate under

Part XIV, if he found it was just to do so. [ 5 ] We agree that the motion judge had the jurisdiction to set a higher rate. In the end, we have not been convinced that the 13 per cent rate of interest he set was in anyway unjust in the circumstances. [ 6 ] As a result, the appeal is dismissed with costs.

C.J.M. J.A. J.A.