Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The La Traces and WBM brought mutual claims for breach of contract and negligence concerning the damaged relocation of a house, gazebo, and garage roof.

• The Court found a binding contract existed, consisting of written, oral, and inferred terms, but clarified that not all expectations amounted to enforceable terms.

• WBM admitted negligence for the House striking a tree during transport, which constituted a breach of the duty of care.

• Causation and quantification of damages were central, particularly whether the Structures could have been repaired rather than replaced.

• Expert evidence conflicted on the extent and cause of damage, with some attributing destruction to the move and others to post-move exposure and neglect.

• The Court held that WBM was liable for certain damage but rejected broader claims for full replacement and punitive damages, limiting compensation to repair costs.

The La Traces’ purchase and planned relocation of structures

In 2015, Dean and Darlene La Trace purchased a house, garage roof, and gazebo (the “Structures”) located on a property in Leduc County, Alberta. The Structures had been vacant since 2014 and were in deteriorated condition due to vandalism and lack of utilities. The La Traces acquired them from a remediation contractor representing the landowner, agreeing to pay $5,000 for all three Structures.

The La Traces hired Warkentin Building Movers Virden Inc. (WBM), operated by Wayne Warkentin, to move the Structures to their farm property near Sherwood Park. The original agreement was informal, later confirmed in a written Quote dated October 17, 2015, with a total cost of $84,000 (including GST). An additional quote dated January 24, 2016, confirmed that the La Traces would pay all third-party bills as they came in.

Preparation and the move

Due to structural concerns and regulatory limitations, WBM informed the La Traces that the House would need to be cut in two for transport. The La Traces consented to this in January 2016. The move began on January 26, 2016. During the move, the House struck a tree on the passenger side. WBM admitted responsibility for this incident.

Despite worsening weather and icy roads, the move continued. The House and master bedroom were placed on blocking at the La Trace property. The gazebo and garage roof were moved separately on January 29, 2016. By January 30, all Structures had arrived at the destination.

Claims and legal positions

The La Traces filed a Statement of Claim for $1,480,000 in damages for negligence, breach of contract, and violations under the Fair Trading Act (now the Consumer Protection Act), later expanding the claim to several million dollars in rebuilding and punitive damages.

WBM filed a counterclaim seeking $42,500 for the unpaid contract balance, $109,800 for lost use of equipment, $4,410 for a CN Rail invoice, plus costs and interest.

Policy terms and contractual interpretation

Justice Mandziuk determined that a contract existed and included written Quotes, emails, and oral exchanges. Enforceable terms included the scope of the move, payment structure, and allocation of third-party costs. However, expectations such as moving the House in one piece, use of angle iron, or completion by specific dates were found to be unenforceable due to lack of consensus or feasibility.

The Court also held that WBM’s disclaimer of responsibility for damage to drywall, stucco, wiring, or water lines due to moving stress was part of the contract.

Findings on breach and negligence

The Court found that WBM breached the contract by delivering damaged Structures, which, under the contract, were to be moved without damage. WBM admitted negligence for the House striking a tree during the move. The Court confirmed that WBM owed the La Traces a duty of care and breached the standard of care.

However, not all losses claimed by the La Traces were attributed to WBM. The Court determined that subsequent damage resulted from weather exposure and lack of mitigation over several years, which diminished or destroyed repairability.

Damages and causation

The Court accepted expert evidence that the House was reparable immediately following the move. Reports from MR Engineering and WBM’s experts supported the view that the damage—particularly from the tree strike—was reparable. The Court placed limited weight on the La Traces’ rebuild cost estimates, noting they were based on inspections years after the move and did not account for deterioration from exposure.

The Court declined to award damages for full reconstruction or general and punitive damages. It awarded only the cost of repair, holding that the La Traces could not recover for damage not caused by WBM and that their failure to mitigate their loss contributed to the outcome.

Conclusion

Justice Mandziuk found WBM liable in contract and tort for certain damage caused during the move but rejected the La Traces’ broader claims for full replacement and statutory violations. Damages were limited to the cost of repairing damage caused directly by WBM’s negligence, not losses attributable to the La Traces’ inaction or passage of time.

The total exact amount awarded to WBM is not summarized in a single total sum in the judgment.

Successful Party: Partially Warkentin Building Movers (WBM)
While both parties succeeded and failed on various issues, WBM was awarded monetary judgment for unpaid work, whereas the La Traces were only partially successful in proving damages for breach and negligence.