Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• The contract between the parties was vague, lacking clear detail on the scope of work and specific inclusions or exclusions.

• The plaintiff, Victor Fredericks, abandoned the project after realizing he could not complete the house for the agreed price, leaving the house unfinished.

• The defendants, Fredrick and Jane Smysniuk, completed the construction themselves and sought reimbursement for costs exceeding the contract price.

• The court found insufficient evidence of consensus on the scope and costs of work, particularly for items not expressly included in the contract.

• Both the plaintiff’s claim for additional payment and the defendants’ counterclaim for reimbursement of excess costs were dismissed due to the contract’s vagueness and unenforceability.

• The plaintiff’s lien against the property was ordered to be vacated, and the issue of legal costs was left for further submissions if necessary.

Facts of the case

Victor Fredericks, a contractor, began building a house for Fredrick and Jane Smysniuk in 2021 in Mount Uniacke, Nova Scotia. The defendants had purchased land in 2019 and, after revising their home plans to fit a budget of $450,000, found that even the revised plans exceeded their budget. In the summer of 2021, the parties met at a social event, and Fredericks, who had only recently started taking on projects as a general contractor, offered to build their home. The defendants informed Fredericks that their maximum loan was $550,000 and that this was their firm budget. Fredericks did not provide an estimate at that time, but the defendants understood he could build within their limit.

Before receiving a formal quote, excavation began on the property. The defendants repeatedly requested a written contract, which Fredericks eventually provided after several events had already occurred. The contract, signed on October 17, 2021, quoted a price of $581,325, which was above the defendants’ stated budget, but they agreed to it. The contract was a homemade document, not reviewed by a lawyer, and incorporated house plans dated August 19, 2020. The contract included allowances of $15,000 each for electrical and plumbing, but the “Scope of Work” section was vague and did not specify details of the work or materials.

After the contract was signed, Fredericks encountered financial difficulties and requested advances from the defendants. The defendants paid Fredericks $100,000 in October 2021, $20,000 in November 2021, $50,000 in March 2022, and $141,232.33 in April 2022, totaling $311,232.33. The defendants also used their own credit to purchase materials, expecting reimbursement, which was not provided. By May 2022, Fredericks advised the defendants that the project was over budget by more than $350,000 and subsequently left the project, retrieving his tools and not returning.

At the time Fredericks left, the exterior of the house was essentially finished, but the interior required significant work. The defendants completed the house themselves, hiring tradespeople and using their own labor, incurring total costs close to $800,000. They kept detailed records of expenses.

Discussion of policy terms and contract clauses

The contract referenced attached plans and included a lump sum price of $581,325, a payment schedule, and allowances for electrical and plumbing. The “Scope of Work” section was notably vague, stating only that the contractor would furnish all labor and materials without specifying details. The contract stated that changes to plans and specifications would be the homeowner’s financial responsibility, but there was no documentation or quantification of such changes or their costs. The contract incorporated house plans dated August 19, 2020, but these plans were also lacking in detail regarding specifications for fixtures, materials, and finishes, except for some references to “adaptable housing” and certain construction materials.

Outcome and ruling

Justice Denise Boudreau found that Fredericks did not substantiate his claim for additional payment. He was unable to explain or prove the amounts he claimed were owed or provide evidence for the project going over budget. The court concluded that Fredericks had misestimated the cost due to inexperience and failed to specify the contract’s scope, leading to his abandonment of the project. The plaintiff’s claim was dismissed in its entirety, and the lien registered against the property was ordered vacated.

On the counterclaim, the court accepted that the defendants had incurred expenses to finish their home but found the contract too vague to enforce reimbursement for costs beyond the agreed price. Many items claimed by the defendants, such as a heat pump and fireplace, were not clearly included in the contract or plans, and there was no evidence of a mutual agreement on these additional expenses. The contract’s vagueness and lack of enforceable terms led the court to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaim as well.

Neither party was successful. The court left the issue of costs to be determined by further submissions if the parties could not agree. No monetary award was granted to either party.