Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Conflicting evidence on whether deformities in insulated metal panels were caused by installation or manufacturing.

• Dispute exists over whether panel deformities are purely aesthetic or affect structural integrity.

• Admissibility of expert and opinion evidence under Rule 55 and the White Burgess framework was challenged.

• Summary judgment denied due to unresolved genuine issues of material fact, including causation and adherence to installation instructions.

• Allsteel’s argument that SPI’s claim is barred as pure economic loss without contractual relationship was rejected.

• Duty of care in negligence could not be resolved without trial due to insufficient evidence of proximity and material facts in dispute.

Background and contractual relationships

The dispute centers on installation work at the Woodbine Converter Station in Nova Scotia, part of the Maritime Link project. MasTec Canada Inc. (“MasTec”) served as general contractor and contracted Eastern Canadian Structures Limited (“Eascan”) to supply and install exterior insulated metal panels. Eascan purchased the panels from Structural Panels Inc. (“SPI”) and hired Allsteel Builders (2) Limited (“Allsteel”) to install them.

During installation, deformities resembling ripples or bubbles were noticed on some panel surfaces starting on September 30, 2016. Similar issues arose at the Bottom Brook site in Newfoundland, where Central Erectors Inc. installed the same SPI panels. Allsteel used a vacuum lifting device (“CladBoy”) for installation, and although SPI had recommended suction-based devices, deformities still occurred even after alternate methods were tried following updated installation instructions on October 7 and October 19, 2016.

SPI issued a memorandum on November 16, 2016, suggesting the deformities resulted from thermal expansion stress due to the panel’s dark steel and fastening method and described the issue as aesthetic, not structural. SPI's president later clarified that the memo was not meant to rule out installation as a contributing factor.

MasTec terminated its contract with Eascan on November 24, 2016, citing concerns with “long term reliability,” “delamination / buckling defects,” and project delays. MasTec replaced the SPI panels with Kingspan panels and issued new orders directly to Allsteel to install them.

Key findings from the summary judgment decision (2025 NSSC 68)

Allsteel sought summary judgment to dismiss the claims brought by Eascan and SPI. Justice Norton dismissed the motion, citing unresolved genuine issues of material fact. The Court found:

• Evidence conflicted on whether Allsteel followed SPI’s installation instructions.

• There was a dispute as to whether deformities were cosmetic or impacted functionality.

• The cause of the deformities was not definitively established.

• Expert evidence and factual affidavits indicated improper installation practices may have contributed to panel damage.

Justice Norton concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate since the evidence failed to resolve key factual disputes, particularly regarding causation and compliance with installation procedures. The motion was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Supplementary decision on legal theory (2025 NSSC 88)

In an addendum to the original ruling, Allsteel raised an additional ground for summary judgment—arguing that SPI’s claim for contribution was rooted solely in negligence and constituted unrecoverable pure economic loss due to the lack of contractual ties.

Relying on 1688782 Ontario Inc. v. Maple Leaf Foods Inc., Allsteel claimed SPI’s claim fell into the “negligent supply of shoddy goods or structures” category and failed to show an “imminent risk” of harm. However, the Court found:

• There was conflicting evidence about whether the deformities were structural.

• A genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether there was a danger or imminent risk.

• No authority supported recognizing Allsteel’s relationship with SPI as fitting an established proximity category in tort.

• Allsteel failed to show the absence of a genuine issue of material fact regarding proximity or duty of care.

As such, the supplementary ground for summary judgment was also dismissed. The court reinforced that proximity must be established through detailed factual analysis and not solely by classification under economic loss categories.