Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 04 SEPTEMBER 2015

A Cautionary Tale: The Party That Imposes Specifications For Methods And Materials Is Responsible For Its Defects

Although this decision is not a typical products case, the considerations are similar to those that a court reviews in a case involving the implied warranty of fitness under the provincial Sale of Goods acts.

CanadaConsumer Protection

The Ontario Court of Appeal has held that where a plaintiff has imposed the methods and materials that the defendant must use to complete a project, the defendant is absolved of responsibility if the project proves to be defective, as the risk has been allocated to the plaintiff. Although this decision is not a typical products case, the considerations are similar to those that a court reviews in a case involving the implied warranty of fitness under the provincial Sale of Goods acts.

In Bruell Contracting Ltd. v. J. & P. Leveque Bros. Haulage Ltd.,1 the Ontario Ministry of Transportation ("MTO") awarded a contract to Leveque Bros. Haulage Ltd. ("Leveque") to resurface 17.9 kilometers of road. The contract imposed certain specifications regarding the methods that Leveque was required to use. Shortly after Leveque completed the work, the road deteriorated for a number of reasons. As a result, MTO insisted that Leveque remove the defective surface and reapply a new

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from