Supreme Court Judgments

Decision Information

Decision Content

Kerrybrooke Development Ltd. v. Ellis‑Don Ltd., [1990] 1 S.C.R. 275

 

Westeel‑Rosco Limited/Westeel‑Rosco

Limitée, Robert Seipp, Brian Fiddler,

William Rozell, Gary Ashton, Phillip

Wellings, Kent Glasier, Cory Berg, Sidney

Stechoski, Lee Cannon, Dan Brooks, Jim

Greginsky, Tom Rice, Brian Murphy and

Kevin Lowe                                                                                                    Appellants

 

v.

 

Kerrybrooke Development Limited/La

Société immobilière Kerrybrooke Limitée and

Simpsons‑Sears Limited/Simpsons‑Sears Limitée                           Respondents

 

and

 

Ellis‑Don Limited, Brian Kirk and Daryl Zorn                                 Respondents

 

Indexed as:  Kerrybrooke Development Ltd. v. Ellis‑Don Ltd.

 

File No.:  21228.

 

1990:  March 1.

 


Present:  Lamer, Wilson, La Forest, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory and McLachlin JJ.

 

on appeal from the court of appeal for saskatchewan

 

                   Negligence ‑‑ Building contracts ‑‑ Liability of contractor and subcontractor.

 

                   APPEAL from a judgment of the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (1988), 67 Sask. R. 304, affirming a judgment of Scheibel J. (1986), 46 Sask. R. 47, 18 C.L.R. 20.  Appeal dismissed.

 

                   Leonard D. Andrychuk and Jeffrey M. Lee, for the appellants.

 

                   No one appeared for the respondents Kerrybrooke Development Ltd. et al.

 

                   E.R. Gritzfeld, Q.C., and M. T. Megaw, for the respondents Ellis‑Don Ltd. et al.

 

                   The judgment of the Court was delivered orally by

 

                   Lamer J. ‑‑ We need not hear from you Mr. Gritzfeld and Mr. Megaw, we are ready to give judgment now.  Our colleague Justice La Forest will pronounce the judgment of the Court.

 

                   La Forest J. ‑‑ The courts below found that the damages in this case resulted solely from the appellants' negligence.  There was no finding of negligence against the contractor, although it was liable in contract to the owners for the damage to the roof.  Under these circumstances, we are all of the view that the courts below arrived at the proper decision.

 

                   The appeal is dismissed with costs.

 

                   Judgment accordingly.

 

                   Solicitors for the appellants:  MacPherson, Leslie & Tyerman, Regina.

 

                   Solicitors for the respondents Ellis‑Don Ltd. et al.:  Gritzfeld & Associates, Regina.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.