SCAM 429353

IN THE SMALL CLAIMS COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA

Cite as: Scott v. MacDonald, 2014 NSSM 44

Between:

Grace Scott                                                              CLAIMANT

John Keith MacDonald                                            DEFENDANT

Adjudicator: David T.R. Parker QC

Heard: September 25, 2014

                                                 Decision: September 25, 2014

Counsel: Brian S Creighton represented the Claimant

                The Defendant was self-represented

Order and Decision

1. This matter came before the Small Claims Court in Amherst Nova Scotia on the  25^th day of September 2014.  The claimant appeared and was represented by Counsel, and the defendant did not appear.  Both parties appeared before this court on an earlier date, September 4, 2014 and requested an adjournment which was granted by the court.  The court then set down a date of September 25, 2014 at 11 AM at the Small Claims Court in Amherst and both parties acknowledged that date.

2. The defendant did not appear and following an adjournment and confirming with counsel for the claimant that both parties were aware of the court date and the time for the proceedings it was determined that the matter should proceed.  The claimant provided evidence to the court of her claim and following a review of her evidence and final summations of Counsel the following determination and order of this court was made.

3. The claimant hired the defendant, a building contractor to shingle her roof at a quoted price of $9630.38.  This work was done and the work was completed in July 2010.  In September 2010 the roof leaked and the defendant in response repaired the roof.

4. In February 2011 shingles came off the roof and in November on two occasions shingles had lifted off the roof and were repaired by the defendant in December 2011 along with water damage that had occurred.  In April, August and November 2013 shingles lifted off the roof and the defendant again was called on to repair the roof.  According to the claimant the roof started to look like a patchwork job.

5. In January 2014 the roof continued to leak and as a result the claimant said she had had enough and obtains another contractor to redo her roof.

6. Both the claimant’s insurer and the defendant’s insurer arrived at different conclusions about what the problem was with respect to the roof put on by the defendant.  The bottom line however is that the shingled roof was defective and did not do the job it was intended to do.  The shingles should not have blown off certainly at such an early time in the life of a roof. The roof was intended to protect the home from leaks from rain and it did not.

7. The claimant should be reimbursed for the roof she paid the defendant to complete satisfactorily.

It Is Therefore Ordered That the defendant pay the claimant the following sums: $9,630.38

$   193.55 court costs

$     88.55 service costs

$9,912.48 Total

Dater at Amherst this 2^nd Day of October 2014