Certainly. Here's the revised article with additional subheadings to improve clarity and structure, while strictly following your formatting and style requirements:

Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Defendants failed to secure a mandatory building permit, resulting in a structurally unsound and unusable garage.

• Plaintiff proved a fundamental breach of contract that justified termination and full recovery of losses.

• The trial proceeded without opposition due to the defendants’ last-minute withdrawal from the proceedings.

• Evidence supported the existence of a de facto partnership, allowing for joint and several liability.

• Expert testimony confirmed demolition was the only viable remedy due to foundational inadequacies.

• The court imposed substantial costs on the defendants for procedural misconduct and delays.

Background and contract formation

Susan Bolan hired Capital Home Services to convert her carport into an enclosed garage. The agreement was formed in March 2022, based on a quote presented by the company and signed by Ron Groulx. Although the name Capital Home Services appeared to be a business entity, it was in fact a sole proprietorship registered to Michael Alivisatos, also known as Michael A. Levis. The plaintiff believed she was dealing with “Michael Levis,” and this belief was shared by defendant Matthew Behan. The construction project was supervised primarily by Behan and another individual named Victor Salazar.

Construction issues and lack of permits

The defendants advised Bolan that no building permit was required for the project. She relied on this representation and paid $62,000 for the work. Construction moved forward until a city building inspector halted the project in August 2022 upon discovering the lack of a permit. The defendants failed to submit a permit application by the promised deadline and did not file until November. The application was rejected due to non-compliant design drawings. The plaintiff then hired a professional engineer who ultimately concluded that the structure was unsafe and should be demolished.

Procedural history and defendant withdrawal

The litigation began in May 2023. The defendants, initially represented by counsel, participated to a limited extent by filing a Statement of Defence. However, they repeatedly failed to attend discovery sessions and court-ordered conferences. Despite the court’s leniency and multiple opportunities to engage, the defendants ceased meaningful participation. On the eve of trial in August 2025, their lawyer informed the court that they would not appear and had instructed him to withdraw. The trial proceeded uncontested.

Evidence presented at trial

The court reviewed affidavits from the plaintiff and her retained engineer, as well as the cross-examinations of both witnesses. An official from the City of Ottawa building department testified that the permit was mandatory and the defendants’ application was defective. The plaintiff also testified regarding her damages and efforts to determine the identity of “Michael Levis,” ultimately confirming that he was Michael Alivisatos. Although some of the evidence about aliases was hearsay, the court found that Alivisatos' identity and role in the business were sufficiently established through non-hearsay means.

Findings on liability and partnership

The court found the construction to be fundamentally defective, especially the foundation work, which rendered the entire structure unsafe. It accepted the engineer’s conclusion that demolition was the only option. The court held that this constituted a fundamental breach of the construction contract and relieved the plaintiff from any further obligation to engage the defendants for remedial work.

Although Matthew Behan attempted to characterize himself as an employee, the court found insufficient evidence to support this claim. Behan did not provide payroll records or other documentation. All three defendants—Alivisatos, Groulx, and Behan—held themselves out as representatives of Capital Home Services and took active roles in the project. They operated without incorporation, and their conduct fell within the legal definition of a partnership. The court concluded they were “carrying on business in common with a view to profit” under the Partnerships Act and held them jointly and severally liable.

Damages and cost award

The plaintiff was awarded a refund of the $62,000 paid under the contract, $3,300 for demolition, and $3,341.98 for engineering fees. The court also awarded $10,000 in general damages for inconvenience and interference with the use of her property. Claims for fraud and misrepresentation were formally abandoned prior to trial.

The plaintiff’s total damages were assessed at $78,641.98. Pre-judgment interest was awarded in the amount of $8,179.00 pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act. The court also approved a full costs award of $48,923.85 due to the defendants’ abusive litigation conduct and repeated non-compliance. The total judgment was fixed at $135,744.83, for which Alivisatos, Groulx, and Behan were held jointly and severally liable.