SCENARIO You are a licensed paralegal working for the firm Coronet Paralegal Services LLP, 1740 Eglinton Avenue East, Toronto, Ontario M37 2L6 (Fax: 416-250-5555; Telephone: 416-250- 0000; Email: i..o@corparalegals.ca). Your firm was recently retained by Tanika Lewiston regarding a small claims court matter. You met with Ms. Lewiston last week to discuss her matter, offer an opinion, and answer her questions. The notes from your meeting are found below. Using your meeting notes, as well as the applicable law below, write an appropriate reporting letter to Ms. Lewiston. Your letter is to be written the day after your initial meeting. Write the letter in your own words. Do not simply "cut and paste" portions of the meeting notes. Do not cut and paste from other sites or sources. You will lose marks if you injudiciously cut and paste. The letter should be in full block, mixed punctuation format and include all components of a professional letter. You will send the letter to Ms. Lewiston via e-mail.

TO: File

DATE: June 24, 2024

RE: Lewiston v TLC Construction Inc. File No. 23-387

____________________________________________________________________

Met with Ms. Lewiston today regarding her small claims court matter. She lives at 73 Leslie Street, Townhouse 3, Toronto, Ontario M2P 3V4 (Tel. 416-555-4213; E-mail t..n@gmail.com).

Ms. Lewiston hired TLC Construction Inc. to renovate her kitchen. They entered into a written agreement on December 4, 2023, in which TLC agreed to complete the work by March 1, 2024. Ms. Lewiston paid a $10,500 deposit and TLC commenced work Feb. 5, 2024. Before signing the contract, Ms. Lewiston stressed the importance of finishing the renovation by March 5th, 2024. She told the contractor that she was planning a big 50th anniversary party for her parents, and 8 out-of-town family members were staying with her in home, starting on March 8th. She needed the kitchen for her guests and to also host a dinner for extended family, with a guest list of 30 people.

TLC did not complete the work by the agreed deadline. On March 8th, there were still no cabinets installed, and the new oven had not yet arrived. As a result of the unfinished kitchen, Ms. Lewiston had to rent two Air BnBs for her guests, and also made reservations for a party at a restaurant. This resulted in additional costs of $5,000 to her.

On March 12th, Ms. Lewiston realized that the quality of the kitchen cabinets was poor and the wrong kitchen faucet was installed. Furthermore, TLC had still failed to install a wine fridge as per Ms. Lewiston's request.

Ms. Lewiston became frustrated at the time and effort involved in trying to get TLC to complete the renovation properly so she put a stop to the work. On March 15, Ms. Lewiston hired Queenie's Renovations Inc. to complete the renovation, at a cost of $3,529.38.

Ms. Lewiston is upset and frustrated about the experience with TLC. She advised that she wants to start a Small Claims Court proceeding against TLC for breach of contract. She wants TLC to pay her $3,529.38 to cover the cost of having Queenie's Renovations Inc. complete the work and the cost she incurred for the Air BnBs and to hold the party at a restaurant.

Ms. Lewiston also inquired about punitive damages. She has read a lot about punitive damages, and she wants a judge to order TLC to pay her additional money in order to punish TLC for such unprofessional and unacceptable service.

I explained to Ms. Lewiston the law on punitive damages. I advised that I did not think an award of punitive damages would be likely and explained why.

I confirmed that Ms. Lewiston could pursue a claim for breach of contract and ask for damages as a result of the breach of contract.

We spoke about the Small Claims Court process and the steps involved in commencing a claim.

Ms. Lewiston confirmed that she would like us to assist her in commencing a claim against TLC. She agreed to provide a $1,500 deposit within the next 10 days.

Once I receive the deposit, I will start drafting a plaintiff's claim. I requested that Ms. Lewiston provide us with relevant documents including receipts, photographs, the contract, e-mail correspondence, etc.

PUNITIVE DAMAGES

In Walsh v. Raymond, 2016 CanLII 32825, Deputy Judge Paul Oddi, wrote:

"The leading case with respect to the availability of punitive damages is the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Whiten v. Pilot Insurance Co., 2002 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2002] S.C.J. No. 19

(QL). Justice Binnie summarized the availability and purpose of punitive damages as follows:

Punitive damages are very much the exception rather than the rule,

Imposed only if there has been high-handed, malicious, arbitrary, or highly reprehensible

misconduct that departs to a marked degree from ordinary standards of decent behaviour.

3. Where they are awarded, punitive damages should be assessed in an amount reasonably proportionate to such factors as the harm caused, the degree of misconduct, the relative vulnerability of the plaintiff and any advantage or profit gained by the defendant,

4. Have a regard to any other fines or penalties suffered by the defendant for the misconduct in question.

5. Punitive damages are generally given only where the misconduct would otherwise be unpunished or where other penalties are or are likely to be inadequate to achieve the objectives of retribution, deterrence and denunciation.

6. Their purpose is not to compensate the plaintiff, but to give a defendant his or her just dessert (retribution), to deter the defendant and others from similar misconduct in the future (deterrence).

7. Punitive damages are awarded only where compensatory damages are insufficient to accomplish these objectives, and

8. They are given in an amount that is no greater than necessary to rationally accomplish their purpose.

9. While normally the state would be the recipient of any fine or penalty for misconduct, the plaintiff will keep punitive damages as a "windfall" in addition to compensatory damages."