Determine who is liable, why they are liable and what would the the remedy be?

The Claimant hired the Defendants (or one of them) in August 2015, to renovate her bathroom. The lawsuit is a consequence of a leaking shower stall that has stubbornly resisted repair. She wants the shower torn out and replaced.

The proper legal identity of the Defendant is a bit elusive. The Claimant named the three entities, Ultimate Bathroom Renovations, Ultimate Bath Systems and Gerald Kelly, all as Defendants. The written contract is with Ultimate Bath Systems, which is said to be a business name of Kotatek Bath Renos Inc. A search of that name reveals that it is now Ultimate Group Inc.

Ultimate Bathroom Renovations is a proprietorship of Gerald Kelly. The name Ultimate Bath Systems appears to have been dissolved. In spite of all these confusing machinations, it is clear that Mr. Kelly is the owner of the business, and he would not deny responsibility for work done under any of those names.

The Claimant reasonably believed she was dealing with some or all of the Defendants, and specifically Mr. Kelly personally. Any findings in this decision may be against all named Defendants jointly.

There is a year-plus long history of frustration experienced by both parties. The Claimant has not got the bathroom she contracted for. The Defendants have put in a great deal of effort trying to fix the problem. What started out as a cordial relationship has turned sour. Words have been exchanged and reputations called into question. The dispute has spilled over onto social media, which has become a common (though not so productive) way for consumers to express their frustration.

From the outset, the Defendants enjoy a good reputation. They are a large business that has been active and successful for nine years in the Halifax area. Negative comments that the Claimant has made on social media and to the Better Business Bureau were understandable, but unhelpful.

All in all, the rights of the parties will turn on the unique facts and not on any extrinsic factors such as reputation.

The Facts

The evidence consists of the testimony of the Claimant and Defendant and a few other individuals. There is voluminous documentary evidence, including lengthy email exchanges. In the world in which we all live, (for what it is worth) email threads are often difficult to follow. Depending on how they are printed out, they are most often in reverse chronological order and are frequently duplicated many times over. Having said that, there is nothing in the lengthy email exchanges that is particularly controversial. What it shows is a Claimant that communicated (and documented) her complaints and a Defendant who was generally responsive, but also clearly frustrated by his inability to fix the problem.

The Claimant testified that she contracted with the Defendant to renovate the ensuite bathroom in her newly acquired home in about September 2015. One of the major features of the renovation was to replace a bathtub with a modern shower stall. The work started on September 21, 2015 and mostly concluded the day after.

The shower stall selected was a unit manufactured by an internationally known company, Fleurco. The model included a so-called (and attractive) Novara glass door. The total cost of the shower stall, including materials, labour and HST was $6,129.50. This is clearly a luxury item.

On November 2, 2015 the Defendants workers returned to install a vanity. While there, they noticed some loose, dried silicone on the shower stall, which they repaired. It should be noted that the Claimant had not yet used the shower, as she did not move in until late November. She testified that she first used the shower on November 26. She said that on that occasion she noticed a loud noise coming from the base or the floor beneath, when she first stepped into the stall. Also, the shower doors leaked. She contacted the Defendant to report the problem.

The Defendants workers returned December 18, 2015 to address several issues, including a leaking tap, low water pressure, lack of hot water and squeaks in the base.

Visits were made on January 12, 2016, January 25, 2016 and March 7, 2016 to try to address the leaking door. Those efforts were not successful.

The Defendant suggested getting a Fleurco representative in to help assess the problem. A Mr. MacCauley from Fleurco attended on March 31, 2016 and reported his findings. He believed there were installation problems, rather than any defect in the unit.

Based on that, on April 8, 2016, the Defendant completely removed and reinstalled the shower doors.

Several months later, on August 18, 2016, with reports that the shower doors were still leaking, the Defendant returned and removed and reinstalled the entire unit.

By then, the Defendant believed that all that was left to do was to perform some minor deficiency repairs to correct problems caused by the reinstallation. A final visit was done on September 28, 2016. The Claimant believes that the Defendant did not leave the bathroom in pristine condition, and moreover, the shower still leaked.

As matters stand in December 2016, the shower still leaks, there are some minor touch ups required in the bathroom as a result of repairs damaging the walls, and some of the repair efforts by the Defendant involved steps that were against the manufacturers instructions, such as caulking on the inside of the unit.

The Claimant is unhappy because she did not receive what she contracted for. She has lost patience with the Defendant, and has had several other companies in to get a quote on fixing the unit. Those companies apparently do not want to try to fix another contractors work, and would only quote on removing the existing shower unit and replacing it with something new.