Skip to content

Narrow screen resolution Wide screen resolution Auto adjust screen size Increase font size Decrease font size Default font size default color brick color green color
Did BAD FAITH send preliiminary KITEC REMOVAL INPUT down the drain ? JERMARK v MTCC # 1371 2019/03/24 18:46  
This is not legal advice.

A Toronto condo corporation has lost an upfront motion for summary dismissal of a breach of contract claim by plumbing contractor JERMARK .

A formal trial will next begin as to whether or not JERMARK was the victim of some sort of "bad faith" breach of undocumented contractual relationship for its unpaid 2013 input to Board, management and owners.

The 2013 JERMARK inputs anticipated replacement of KITEC components of both common element & totally in-unit plumbing lines. ( Individual owner involvement culminated in a dispute, mediation & JERMARK being totally frozen out of the KITEC REMOVAL project. )

The defence erected is that there was neither a "sole source" contractual relationship nor a formal contract issued. That mediated disputes precluded JERMARK being allowed to continue anyway.

The KITEC project was ultimately tendered to other contractors without JERMARK.

1 - Was it about “bad faith” / breach of some sort of contract ?

Were the contested actions mere informality, sloppy incompetence by governancers , disruptive meddling by affected unit owners ? Or whatever ?

Or was it JERMARK taking informed & unilateral risks of wasting its professionalism pre-contract ? Speculative generation of business activity ? And then losing ?

2 - If it turns out to have NOT BEEN a contractual relationship - or an incompleted one - could there have been a duty of good faith to arguably even breach ?

“Good faith” aspects were apparently argued by both disputants as both sword & shield without specific express reference to S.C.C.’s Bhasin decision ( Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 (CanLII), [2014] 3 S.C.R. 494 ).

3 - This initial gate-keeping decision is totally silent about whether grounds of claim reached as far as some sort of formal “Indoor Management” reliance ( which arguably gets a very rough ride when dealing with statutory entities like condo corporations ).

Jermark v. ( M.T.C.C. # 1371 ) 2019 ONSC 1810 issued March 21/19
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
contact webmaster