Case information

None.

Case summaries are prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch). Please note that summaries are not provided to the Judges of the Court. They are placed on the Court file and website for information purposes only.

Torts — Evidence — Contributory negligence — Apportionment of liability — Admissibility of expert evidence — Impartiality of expert evidence — Finding that Jensen Building Limited and Paul Snelgrove both had a role in a client’s decision to abort one project and the loss on another — Whether the trial judge was required to apportion damages — Whether a party, having proved a right, is entitled to a remedy — Whether the trial judgment necessitates challenging all experts for bias — Whether the trial judge erred in excluding opinion evidence because the expert had summarized the facts as he understood them, when the expert testified that, if the facts at trial were different from his understanding, he would be compelled to reconsider his opinion.

The principals of P.M. Snelgrove General Contractors & Engineers Ltd. and Jensen Building Limited (“JBL”) became friends in 1990 and began working together on JBL’s construction projects in 2006. They agreed orally that Mr. Snelgrove would receive 30 per cent of the net profit. The arrangement worked well until Mr. Jensen discovered that Mr. Snelgrove had been having an affair with his wife in November 2007. Shortly thereafter, the clients who had hired JBL for the Wolfe Springs and Edward projects concluded that the stress of the discovery prevented Mr. Jensen from having the focus required to complete their projects. They terminated their agreement with JBL, leaving a large invoice unpaid. In December 2007, Mr. Jensen terminated his agreement with Mr. Snelgrove. Mr. Snelgrove brought an action against JBL for monies representing his fees for services rendered; JBL argued that no monies were owing after set-off and counterclaimed for damages sustained in the failure of the commercial relationship.

At trial, Mr. Snelgrove objected to JBL’s expert’s evidence on the grounds that it was not independent. The trial judge excluded the expert evidence on a voir dire. He ordered that JBL pay Snelgrove General Contractors $281,149.60 in respect of two projects. In relation to two other projects, he dismissed the claims and counterclaims based on his findings that JBL and Mr. Snelgrove both had a role in the losses suffered, but that neither had shown that they were entitled to compensation. The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal.