Team Five Enterprises Ltd. v. Reasonable Renovations Discount Inc., 2020 NSSC 124

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Team Five Enterprises Ltd. v. Reasonable Renovations Discount Inc. , 2020 NSSC 124 Date: 20200406 Docket: Hfx No. 485926 Registry: Halifax Between: Team Five Enterprises Ltd. Applicant v. Reasonable Renovations Discount Inc.

Respondent Decision Judge: The Honourable Justice Denise Boudreau Heard: January 6, 7, 2020, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Final Written Submissions: February 7, 2020 Counsel: Richard Norman, for the Applicant John O’Neill, for the Respondent By the Court: [ 1 ] The parties to this application were involved in a contract for the renovation of an apartment building owned by the applicant. The respondent left the project during the term of the contract, and before the work was completed. The parties have filed competing applications, both alleging breach of contract and seeking damages against the other.

Facts [ 2 ] The applicant owns an apartment building located at 6618 Quinpool Road, Halifax. In July 2017, the building was damaged by fire and required significant repairs. The applicant wanted the work done as soon as possible, given that the rental income normally generated was lost until the work could be done. [ 3 ] During the fall of 2017, the applicant’s principal, Habib Habib, obtained a number of quotes from contractors.

The applicant summarily discarded from consideration any company that could not undertake to complete the work within a very short timeline. [ 4 ] The respondent company was available to do the work quickly, and promised to do so. The principal of the respondent was Ibrahim Manna. The respondent’s initial quote for the contract (dated September 8, 2017) was in the amount of $490,800, tax included, for the following work: 1. Removal or (sic) all smoke damages and any asbestos. 2. Reinstate all structural framing and roofing. 3. Replace any damages (sic) electrical, plumbing and insulation. 4.

Installation of drywall trim and paint. 5. Complete flooring and light fixtures. 6. Replace siding and decks.

7. Garbage removal. 8. If we have to remove the complete drywall in all seven units there will be extra charge that is not included in the price below (sic) 9. The estimated time for the project will be taken between 4 to 6 months unless something come that may take longer (sic) 10. And their may be unforeseen as we do demolitions that would be extra (sic) [ 5 ] A further and more detailed estimate was provided by the respondent on September 15, 2017, wherein it provided a proposed

schedule for the work to be completed. The proposed

schedule provided that the following work would be completed by the end of 2017: Removal all smoke damage material and all firable (sic) and asbestos (As D1E1) inspections Oct – Nov All roof (lower – middle – top level) and Attic and shingles Oct – Nov Framing repair to all Damage areas Oct – Nov … Flooring Hardware and ceramic tile Oct – Nov … Rear Decks Oct – Nov Exterior Demo Oct – Nov Chimney Repair Nov Genaral (sic) Demolition and Garbage removal Oct – Nov … Sidding (sic) Nov – Dec Staging rental and safety Oct Final Electrical (New Code) Nov Window vinyl and Istuallation (sic) Oct [ 6 ] The applicant accepted the respondent’s quoted price and chose it as the contractor for the project.

The applicant paid a $50,000 deposit to the respondent on October 11, 2017. On that same date, a contract was signed by Mr. Habib and Mr. Manna, attaching the above

schedule as a “Milestone schedule”. The contract also provided the following: 1. That work on the project was to commence by October 10, 2017 and attain “substantial performance” by March 10, 2018; 2. The respondent was to obtain all necessary permits under the provincial Building Code; ensure compliance with that legislation; ensure compliance with any mandatory inspections; and obtain all necessary easements from neighboring properties. [ 7 ] By the time this contract was signed, the application for a building permit from the Halifax Regional Municipality (“HRM”) had already been filed. Mr.

Habib testified that he and Mr. Manna went together to the HRM permit office on September 20, 2017, even though the defendant had not yet been awarded the contract. Mr. Habib testified that he believed this was an effort on the part of Mr. Manna to be helpful and to encourage Mr. Habib to choose his company for the contract. [ 8 ] On October 2, 2017, an email was sent by HRM to Mr. Manna and Mr. Habib, outlining the “detailed breakdown” they requested in order to process the application, including “deck plans, elevations, fire separation details, cladding materials, etc”. Mr.

Manna responded with some information. The HRM building official, Adam Sadler, then wrote another email to Mr. Manna on October 4, 2017: Hello Ibrahim, I still require more details on the deck construction, a site plan that includes distance to the property line, and elevations. Because the building is a multi unit with units above and below one another it requires all walls and ceiling between units (including all load bearing walls regardless of location) to meet a 1 hour fire rating and sound transmission rating of 50. Please describe how your

contractor will achieve this. In the meantime you can begin with demolition and remediation in preparation of the proposed construction. Adam Sadler Building official [ 9 ] I do not know whether that email was ever responded to by Mr. Manna. I do know that the HRM building permit was never granted during the time that the respondent worked on this project. [ 10 ] The October 11, 2017, contract between the parties also contained a

section entitled “

Section 3: Delays ” which read as follows: 3.1 If the Contractor is delayed in the performance of the work by causes beyond the reasonable control of the Contractor, then the Contract Time shall be extended for such reasonable time as agreed in an executed Change Order between the Owner and the Contractor. In no case shall an extension of the Contract Time be granted if the delay was due to a breach of contract by or negligence of the Contractor.

The Contractor shall be reimbursed by the Owner for reasonable direct costs actually incurred by the Contractor as a result of such delay, except for costs which the Contractor should have reasonable have avoided or mitigated. 3.2 Should the Owner, acting reasonably, believe that the Work will not be completed within the Contract Time for causes which are not the fault of the Owner, the Owner may notify the Contractor, and the Contractor shall then work additional overtime, engage additional personnel, provide additional equipment and take such other measures as are necessary to complete the Work within the Contract Time or any approved revision thereto. 3.3 To the extent that the Work will not be completed within he Contract Time for causes which are the fault of the Contractor or those for whom the Contractor is responsible under the Contract or are otherwise within the Contractor’s control, the Contractor shall bear all costs related to such delay and shall reimburse the Owner for all reasonable direct costs actually incurred by the Owner as a result of such delay, except for costs which the Owner could reasonably have avoided or mitigated.

It is acknowledged that the Site is a rental property and that it is reasonably anticipated that should the Project not be completed within the Contract Time the Owner will incur lost rent from April 1, 2018 onward. The contractor agrees that a reasonable pre-estimate of damages for the lost rent in the amount of $7500 per month shall be paid to the Owner from April 1, 2018 onward, in addition to any other reasonable direct costs. [ 11 ] The respondent started the “clean-up” phase of the project on October 20, 2017 (ten days later than provided for in the contract). Mr.

Manna testified that he was delayed in the start of the project because municipal work was being done on Quinpool Road during that time, which prevented access to the building from its main entrance. While access to the building could be, and was, arranged through neighbouring properties, Mr. Manna noted that those properties were also carrying out work. [ 12 ] Mr. Habib was out of the country from October 16 to November 4, 2017. During that time Mr. Habib testified that he made repeated efforts to contact Mr.

Manna to see how work was progressing, but he received little or no responses. [ 13 ] The evidence before me shows that the respondent hired the architectural firm Connor Architects and Planners Limited (“CAP”) to create construction plans for the project. Mr. Manna acknowledged that he did not make these arrangements with CAP until November 1, 2017 . He could not explain why, except to say that he felt the drawings could be prepared quickly. [ 14 ] Upon his return to Canada, Mr. Habib attended at the building, and was very disappointed to see that very little progress had been made on the project.

He also became aware that the HRM building permit had not yet been obtained. [ 15 ] On November 13, 2017, Mr. Habib texted Mr. Manna seeking a meeting: (10:42 am) HH: Good morning Sallam Ibrahim Please Call me When you get Chance, Ty. (11:48 am) IM: I will call you around 130 just in a meeting sorry 11:50 am) HH: Ok Please Ty. [ 16 ] Mr. Manna did not call back at 1:30, which prompted Mr. Habib to text: (2:55 pm) HH: Ibrahim You Say You well Call me at 1,30 pm Call me know Very Urgent! [ 17 ] No further responses were received from Mr. Manna. On November 14, 2017, Mr.

Habib tried again and a meeting was arranged: (1:25 pm) HH: Hi Salaam Ibrahim Please Call Me Thank You. (1:48 pm) IM: Hi can we meet at site at 215 / Today I have to show you something / Or at 3 (1:48 pm) HH: How about 3,30 pm? (1:49 pm) IM: Yes sounds good (1:50 pm) HH: great Thank you see you at 3,30 pm Today.

(2:03 pm) IM: Yes (3:16 pm) IM: Am their now (3:17 pm) HH: Ok I am on Way! (3:36 pm) HH: I am Hear now! [ 18 ] Mr. Habib and Mr. Manna met at the building on November 14, 2017. Mr. Habib began asking questions of Mr. Manna, as to the delays in the project, and expressed dissatisfaction with the answers he was receiving. At that point, Mr. Manna took Mr. Habib to the basement of the building and showed him a large support beam located there. Mr. Manna told Mr. Habib that he felt the beam was partly rotten. [ 19 ] At this point the evidence of the witnesses diverges quite significantly. [ 20 ] Mr.

Manna testified that he told Mr. Habib that he and his crew would not continue work on the project until Mr. Habib engaged a structural engineer to look at the post and ascertain its status; in particular, whether it was safe for them to keep working at the building. Mr. Manna further testified that Mr. Habib refused this request and dismissed Mr. Manna’s concerns, and further, that he asked him to not tell anyone about the support post, and to continue with his work. [ 21 ] For his part, Mr. Habib testified that when he was presented with the post, he asked Mr.

Manna what should be done to fix it, and reminded Mr. Manna that pursuant to the contract, he had a duty to repair the building. Mr. Habib notes that he is not experienced in construction and engineering issues, and he trusted Mr. Manna, as the contractor, to address and deal with this. Mr. Habib testified that Mr. Manna told him that he, Mr. Manna, would be bringing in an engineer to look at the post, and would fix it if necessary. Mr. Habib denied that Mr. Manna expressed any safety concerns to him at that time. [ 22 ] In the days following this meeting, Mr. Habib continued to try and contact Mr.

Manna, seeking updates and continuing to express his growing concerns about delays on the project. Mr. Habib says that he was making these calls three or four times a day at that point. According to Mr. Habib, Mr. Manna never responded to him, or met with him, after the November 14, 2017, meeting. [ 23 ] Mr. Manna, for his part, testified that he did meet again with Mr. Habib after November 14, “at a Tim Hortons a few days later”. He could not remember the date, the time, or the exact location of this second meeting. Mr. Manna testified that he and Mr.

Habib again discussed the beam at that time, and that both parties re-iterated their previous positions. [ 24 ] On November 17, 2017, Mr. Habib instructed his lawyer to write to the respondent. The letter indicated: We are advised by our client that while Work on the project has begun, Reasonable Renovations Discount Inc. (“Reasonable Renovations”) has not yet obtained the necessary permits to perform the work as required by the Halifax Regional Municipality. As you are aware, Reasonable Renovations is required under

article 2.1.1 of the Agreement to obtain all required permits and comply with all directions provided by the Halifax Regional Municipality. Team Five is growing concerned that the failure to obtain any required permits may result in delays with the progress of the Work. In particular, Team Five is anxious to ensure that the building is weathertight in the very near future, in light of the coming winter months. Team Five looks forward to confirmation that the required permits have been obtained.

Furthermore, Team Five wishes to remind Reasonable Renovations that the work is to be substantially performed by, on or before, March 10, 2018. [ 25 ] On November 22, 2017, Mr. Habib contacted CAP technician Jake Euloth by email, to firm up arrangements to attend the property and review any structural issues with the property. Mr. Euloth responded by email, on the same date, that he had arranged for an engineer to attend the site the very next day (November 23). Mr. Habib asked Mr. Euloth to advise Mr. Manna of the meeting. [ 26 ] On that same date, November 22, 2017, at 1:02 p.m., Mr. Manna sent Mr.

Habib an email. It read: Subject: Notice to Terminate This is to advise you that our Company, Reasonable Renovations Discount Inc., shall no longer be continuing to work on the project located at 6618 Quinpool Road, Halifax, NS. You are to hire a new Contractor to complete your work. For the record, the following has occurred: 1. Our Company began its first day of work on October 20, 2017, because the street was closed due to municipal repair work being performed; 2. Further delays occurred since our first day of work due to continuing street construction being preformed by the municipality; 3.

Further delays also included the neighbor occupying their parking lot therefore not (sic) restricting us from putting our construction bin there; 4. Upon removal of some drywall in the basement it was discovered that the main support beam for the entire building was severely eroded/damaged creating no structural support for the upper levels of the building. This is extremely dangerous and completely unsafe for people. This problem could not be discovered at time of our initial estimate due to the problem being hidden behind the drywall. 5.

Any left dumping on the back of the building will be taken out as soon as tomorrw (sic)

We do wish you the best of luck in completing your project. Sincerely, Ibrahim Manna, President of Reasonable Renovation Discount Inc. [ 27 ] This was the very first indication to Mr. Habib that the respondent was not intending to complete the job. He described being quite taken aback by this position on the part of the respondent. [ 28 ] Mr. Manna, for his part, testified that he felt the parties were at an impasse. He was worried about the support beam, and about his, and his crew’s, safety. He thought an engineer should come and look at the beam, but, he says, Mr. Habib would not agree.

He testified that he felt the work site was unsafe, that it would not be rectified, and so he simply decided to leave the project. [ 29 ] Mr. Manna agreed that Mr. Habib was a somewhat demanding client throughout. He agreed that Mr. Habib contacted him frequently. He noted that Mr. Habib would come to the building site often, sometimes even daily, but at least twice a week, and made phone calls daily, or almost daily. He noted that Mr. Habib was a person who was prone to quick anger and was somewhat difficult to deal with. [ 30 ] As it turned out, the support beam’s issues were minor and easily fixed.

I was provided with evidence from two sources: first, Patrick Jabbour, a partner at Eclipse Developments, the general contractor who took over the work on 6618 Quinpool from the respondent. He advised as follows: … 6. Prior to beginning work on the job, I looked around at the structure of the Property. I was advised by Mr. Habib, who I verily believed, that Reasonable Renovations had been concerned about the structural integrity of a support column in the basement. 7. I had no concerns working with the column. To be extra careful, we underpinned the column and poured a concrete footing under it.

There was no extra cost to Team Five for this work because it was so simple and required so little time to do. 8. I dealt with an HRM building official named Adam Sadler. He had no issue with the column during any of his inspections. He approved the building for occupancy. [ 31 ] I was also provided with an opinion report from John Salah, recognized as a expert in structural engineering. He attended the site on April 10, 2019, and inspected the support beam in question.

While his inspection was strictly visual, he notes that he was tasked with considering whether “the structural integrity of the building was compromised due to the present structural condition of this column”. [ 32 ] Mr. Salah concluded: The column as viewed, does not appear to show any visible signs of distress. This is based on vertical alignment, top and bottom bearing conditions, apparent stability, and structural feel for rot. The column itself is considered as quite massive for its required use. There appears to be some vertical splitting in the column. This can be seen in the photographs.

This can be considered as normal for a wood column of this age. However the split appears to have take very little from its structural integrity to carry the imposed loading. It was also observed that the split is not a complete separation of the two halves, in fact it is far from it. Therefore it is thought that the column continues to act as one unit, with little present danger. In terms of imminent danger of structural collapse of the building due to the present conditions of the column as you have posed the question, this is considered a non issue at this point.

Even if this column were to fail for some unknown reason, this would lead to localized failure within the building, it would never lead to a “total” collapse of the building. This more than likely, would come with lots of lead time warning. In its present condition, there is nothing to suggest that this time has arrived. RECOMMMENDATIONS The column is presently considered structurally sound…. Findings / Conclusions [ 33 ] I accept the evidence of Mr. Jabbour, and the opinion of Mr. Salah. [ 34 ] Furthermore, where the evidence of Mr. Manna and Mr. Habib diverges, I accept the evidence of Mr. Habib. [ 35 ] Mr.

Manna, during cross-examination, was frequently evasive and/or provided non-responsive answers. Often he answered a different question than the one he was asked, in circumstances where the question was not at all ambiguous. He frequently professed to not understand very simple questions. I conclude that Mr. Manna was responding as such, so as to avoid answering the questions. [ 36 ] Mr. Habib, on the other hand, was generally a careful and thoughtful witness who had good recall of events, and who appeared to be making sincere efforts to relate accurate information to the Court.

He answered questions directly and with candour. He had good records of events and was clearly a very detail oriented individual. [ 37 ] As to the origins of the dispute here, I find that Mr. Manna did take Mr. Habib to the basement of 6618 Quinpool Road on

November 14, 2017, and showed him the support beam. However, I accept entirely the evidence of Mr. Habib as to the exchange that occurred between the two men at that time. I accept that Mr. Habib saw the beam, that he sought Mr. Manna’s thoughts about it, that he reminded Mr. Manna of his obligations, and that Mr. Manna responded that an engineer would be coming to see it. [ 38 ] I reject entirely Mr. Manna’s evidence as to the discussion between he and Mr. Habib on November 14, 2017. I do not accept his evidence that Mr. Habib sought to “cover up” the issue of the support beam. Mr.

Habib’s actions (both before and after the respondent left the project) lead me to the conclusion that his evidence was the accurate and truthful version of events. [ 39 ] For example, the evidence shows that soon afterwards Mr. Habib himself was exchanging emails with the architectural firm CAP in order to confirm the attendance of an engineer to attend at the building to discuss any structural issues. [ 40 ] On the other hand, Mr. Manna’s affidavit notes the following: 29.

I believe I called Jake Euloth of CAP and informed him of my concerns and requested that he arrange to bring an engineer on site to examine the post when we met on site the following week. [ 41 ] Mr. Manna could not explain this statement further. It appears to conflict with his evidence that the reason for the impasse was Mr. Habib’s refusal to engage an engineer. [ 42 ] Furthermore, recall that Mr. Manna abandoned the job the day before the engineer was due to arrive. This would make no sense if Mr. Manna had made those arrangements. I find that Mr.

Manna, in fact, did nothing to have the support beam assessed by any engineering expert. [ 43 ] It should also be noted that when Mr. Habib was forced to retain a new contractor, he himself raised the issue of the support beam with Mr. Jabbour, again, seeking advice. These are not the actions of a person who is trying to hide anything. [ 44 ] I find that Mr. Manna’s version of his discussions with Mr. Habib at the building on November 14, 2017, is not credible; it is entirely unsupported by the rest of the evidence, and it is self-serving. [ 45 ] I further accept, as testified to by Mr.

Habib, that after their meeting on November 14, 2017, he continued to try and communicate with Mr. Manna, but that Mr. Manna would not answer him. I further accept that, as a result, there were no more meetings between the two after that date. [ 46 ] The evidence shows that an engineer was coming to the site on November 23, 2017, to assess any structural issues with the building. This inspection, I find, would have provided answers to the scope of the problem with the support beam, as well as a way forward. [ 47 ] Mr. Manna unilaterally and unconditionally left the project on November 22, 2017.

He did not wait for the results of the engineer’s inspection (scheduled for the following day). I do not believe that Mr. Manna’s request for an inspection of the support beam was a “good-faith” request. [ 48 ] I find that by November 2017, the respondent was behind

schedule in this project. The “milestones” provided for in the contract had not been met. Based on the pictures before me and the evidence of Mr. Habib, the respondent was then still mainly engaged in the demolition/clean-up stages of the schedule. The building permit was not yet issued, as HRM required more work to be done. The architectural firm had only begun its work. [ 49 ] I find that, by November 2017, Mr. Manna knew, or must have known, that the deadlines outlined in the contract would not be met. Mr. Manna was also aware of the significant penalties outlined in the contract for missing those deadlines.

Mr. Manna further knew that Mr. Habib was a demanding client who was not likely to accept excuses or explanations. [ 50 ] At that point, it would have been incumbent upon Mr. Manna to look to the “Delay” provisions in the contract and determine his options: for example, to seek extensions from the applicant. [ 51 ] But Mr. Manna did not attempt this option. Perhaps he was concerned about the significant monetary penalty that might have resulted. Perhaps he was simply tired of Mr. Habib. Whatever the reason, I find Mr.

Manna decided to ignore the provisions of the signed contract, and to simply abandon the project. [ 52 ] I find Mr. Manna used any concerns he might have had over the support beam to create a disagreement with Mr. Habib, and to create a reason to leave the project. [ 53 ] This respondent had responsibilities towards the applicant, pursuant to the contract.

It was not justifiable for the respondent to use the issue of the support beam, whether it was a legitimate concern or not, as a reason for the entire and wholesale abandonment of the project. [ 54 ] It is the contention of the applicant that the respondent, by his actions, unilaterally repudiated the contract between them. Repudiation has been described as a “clear and continuing unwillingness to be bound by the terms of the agreement” (see: White v. E.B.F. Manufacturing Ltd. , 2005 NSCA 167 , at para. 80 ) [ 55 ] The respondent clearly met that definition, with Mr. Manna’s email of November 22, 2017. Mr.

Manna, on behalf of the respondent, unilaterally and unconditionally abandoned this project. There is no other

interpretation of this correspondence, nor does Mr. Manna suggest there is any. [ 56 ] Mr. Manna does seem to be suggesting that he had reasonable justification for leaving this project, for the reasons he described. Those reasons did not justify the abandonment of this project. The respondent’s actions represent a clear repudiation of the contract. I

find in favour of the applicant. Damages [ 57 ] When Mr. Manna abandoned the project, the applicant was forced to seek alternate arrangements. It is also apparent from the photographs before me that the respondent left the job site without cleaning up significant debris, which had to be cleaned up as well. [ 58 ] The applicant seeks the following damages: (

a) Return of its $50,000 deposit [ 59 ] It is the contention of the applicant that this deposit should be returned, as it is not clear what work was done by the respondent while on site from October to November, and whether any work that was accomplished, would be worth $50,000. [ 60 ] Mr. Manna’s affidavit provides that, in his view, the work accomplished by the respondent by the time he abandoned the contract amounted to over $130,000. Mr.

Manna arrived at that figure by adding up amounts that he described in the barest of terms: for example, as “exterior roof $13,900”; “general demolition removal $40,500”; “staging rental and safety $7500”; “removal all smoke damage material $54,000”; and so on. [ 61 ] Mr. Manna provided me with no documentation to substantiate any of those amounts, nor even a breakdown of how he calculated them. I have no idea if these are actual costs, of either labour or materials, or if they are merely Mr. Manna’s estimates, and if so, what they are based on. [ 62 ] Mr. Habib, in response, disputed many of the amounts quoted.

He disputed that any roofing work was done, or that any staging was rented. Further, Mr. Habib presented the Court with an invoice from the respondent that he received, dated November 29, 2017, seeking the amount of $4000 plus HST. The invoice contains a list entitled “job description”, which included various generic items of work, without any detail provided. The invoice is silent as to the calculation of the $4000 requested. The invoice also notes the following: Origional (sic) Quoted Price: $54,000 Plus Tax Amount Received: $50,000 Plus Tax [ 63 ] Practically none of that is accurate.

This invoice further complicates and confuses, both on its own, but also when compared to the testimony of Mr. Manna as to the work accomplished by the respondent from October to November 2017, both in scope and in cost. [ 64 ] Quite frankly, given everything before me, I have very little confidence in Mr. Manna’s ability to provide accurate information to the Court. [ 65 ] I acknowledge that the respondent was on site at the property between October and November 2017. However, due to a complete lack of any supporting and/or credible evidence, it is impossible to quantify the value of that work.

I do not accept the “estimates” provided by Mr. Manna, assuming that is what they were (since none of them are substantiated). I therefore cannot credit the respondent with any amount for any work done. [ 66 ] The applicant’s claim for the return of his $50,000 deposit is granted. (

b) Reimbursement for cost to have new contractor (Eclipse Development) remove hazardous material and asbestos left behind by the respondent ($30,187.50) [ 67 ] This is an appropriate and reasonable claim, which the applicant has substantiated by way of documentation. It is allowed. (

c) Legal fees for the preparation of a new contract ($5,036.03) [ 68 ] I allow that claim as substantiated, reasonable and appropriate. (

d) The difference in the respondent’s contract price ($486,799.70) and the new price with Eclipse ($529,000) [ 69 ] I am unconvinced that this is a properly claimed amount. I do not accept that this money would not have been payable “but for” the actions of the respondent. I am unclear as to how this difference can be the fault of the respondent for abandoning the project. I have already granted an amount for the “clean-up” of the debris left behind by the respondent. I do not allow this claimed amount. (

e) Lost rent for delay in completion of work of two months (by the terms of the contract, such equals $15,000 or $7500 x 2) [ 70 ] This is also an appropriate and reasonable claim. It was provided for in explicit terms in the contract, and it was explicitly agreed to by both Mr. Habib and Mr. Manna. It is allowed. [ 71 ] If the parties cannot agree on costs, please provide me with written submissions no later than 30 days after this decision. Boudreau, J.