Canada: Warranties - Who's Reponsible?

Last Updated: June 27 2013
Article by Bill Preston

There have been three recent Ontario cases which I think will give you some guide to the following questions:

  • When is it the builder's responsibility, not the designer's?
  • If there is an early termination of the construction contract, who is responsible for the warranties for the Work performed?
  • Can you enforce a manufacturer's warranty against the deep pockets in the distribution chain?

In 2006, the City of Brampton decided it needed an outdoor 1,500 m² concrete lacrosse pad.  Stantec's design required that it be laid upon a Styrofoam insulation sub-surface and its drawings spec'd:

3.9  Concrete shall be bull floated to true and level, followed by a power steel trowel finish.  The desired finish shall be as smooth as possible, while avoid being burnt or black (a burnt finish is too smooth).  An experienced rink surface specialist shall make final acceptance on site.

3.10  Concrete is [4-7%] air entrained and concrete finisher/supplier shall determine finishing technique required to provide desired finish without degrading the air void system.

Dirm for a price of $20,000 subcontracted to perform the concrete finishing in April/07, relying upon ready-mix supplied loads.  A week before the scheduled pour, Dirm, at a site meeting, expressed reservations about the use of a steel trowel on the hyper air entrained concrete, but after a test pad was completed, Dirm confirmed that the required smooth finish could only be achieved by using a steel trowel.  April the 20th was a sunny, warm (18°C), windy day.  Dirm called for 29 loads of concrete delivered to the site over an 8-hour interval, and by 1:30 in the afternoon had begun power troweling the surface.  It explained that its decision concerning this method of work was consistent with what everyone, including designers known – concrete finishers start troweling when they determine that their foot depression on the fresh concrete is less than a ¼ inch – this is a universally-accepted standard.  But, Dirm also had to admit that had it used the same method of finishing the surface as what it had used for the test pad, the troweling would have taken two weeks.  In this case, Dirm completed troweling of all of the 29 loads for the lacrosse pad at 11 in the evening of the same day.

Within three weeks surface blistering and serious cracking of the surface was evident.  Eventually, Dirm refused responsibility, taking the position that its installation was compliant with Stantec's design and had been performed using the well-recognized trade standards for troweling.  As a result, Bennington Construction, the general contractor, spent $168,622.20 to complete a reasonable repair.  It then sued Dirm.  The trial judge held Dirm responsible for these repair costs by explaining:

  1. Dirm was aware of the City's purpose and unless the subcontract other prescribes, there is an implied term in the subcontract that Dirm's choice of method of work must achieve the reasonable durability expected by the City of Brampton for the lacrosse pad;
  2. It is not sufficient that Dirm complied with Stantec's design;
  3. Given Dirm's concerns, experience with a test pad, the warm, windy weather and the Styrofoam sub base, Dirm ought to have permitted the bleed water in the concrete to evaporate over time by poly-covering, wind shielding, and misting or fogging;
  4. Thus, it was "possible" for Dirm to both be compliant with Stantec's design and the implied requirement that the City's purpose be reasonably achieved.

In essence, concrete finishing is an art, and it is implicit that Dirm warrant that it choose a "possible" method of work which is both compliant with the design and achieves the owners reasonable purpose.

But, what if Bennington had terminated Dirm before the concrete surface began blistering and cracking?  Would a judge have still said that Bennington is entitled to recover its repair costs?  The recent Ontario case of Hulst Town Contracting v. Innisbrook Developments has some answers.  Hulst was a site services contractor which in late 2002 accepted a unit-priced CCDC 4 contract to perform site services for both Phases I and II of Innisbrook's new residential subdivision in Innisbrook, Ontario.  In 2003 Hulst had completed Phase I and most of Phase II.  What was left in Phase II included top coating the asphalt roadway and completing some concrete curbing and sidewalks for Phase II.  At this point, the parties mutually terminated the CCDC 4.  Later, other contractors completed the outstanding Work.  But neither party documented the terms of the termination – no letters, no emails, no field notes, and certainly no release form!  Thus, when Innisbrook later demanded that Hulst returned to repair deficiencies in the Work which it had performed, Hulst refused and recalled that Innisbrook's president had agreed that it had "no further obligations under the contract"; while, Innisbrook, without the testimony of its deceased president, argued that it would have been against the character of the deceased to agree on any term other than "We'll delete the unfinished balance and I'll take care of it."  In the end, the judge held Hulst Town Contracting responsible for warranties because:

  • To contradict the clear written term of the CCDC 4 which made Hulst Town Contracting responsible for warranties on its work, Hulst needs documentation – recollection of oral discussions doesn't cut it; and
  • The other circumstances at the time of the termination support Innisbrook's position that the balance of work left was very minor and separate from what Hulst had completed, thus it is reasonable that Hulst would not have obtained a release of its warranty obligations without something in writing.

The sequel: the judge also criticized Innisbrook's documentation proving the amount of its costs to complete Hulst's deficiencies and thus shrunk its claim down to a total of $6,870.61!

The third Ontario case dealing with enforcement of warranties is Graci v. New Steel Roofers and Dura-Loc Roofing.  This case involved the installers following written warranty:

All material is guaranteed to be as specified.  All work is to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices.

With this warranty, New Steel made three essential arguments that it was not responsible:

  1. Where the material was purchased from others, I don't guarantee that this material (e.g. steel roofing) is fit for the customer's purpose;
  2. Also, I only promise that New Steel's installation will be compliant with the standard practice used by New Steel; I don't promise that it will be compliant with industry standard; and
  3. Alternatively, because the owner denied me a fair opportunity to repair, I can't be held responsible for the warranty.

The Court quickly knocked down these three submissions by noting that the guarantee includes an implied warranty of fitness for purpose, while it is reasonable that the standard adopts industry standard and finally, once the customer has an expert opinion that the whole roof must be replaced, then the owner no longer has a duty to let New Steel continue trying to patch its Work.  Pretty much what you expected, right?  Well, the judge went further.  He also decided that New Steel was negligent when it sub'ed the installation work out to Lifetime Roofing without giving Lifetime any installation instructions nor making regular site inspections of Lifetime's performance.  This is negligence and this permitted the Court to make New Steel jointly and severally liable with the manufacturer for the costs of replacing the roof and Court costs in the total amount of $276,718.36!

But, I am not reporting this case to you because New Steel took a big financial hit on a contract for which it earned only a $20,000 contract price.  Rather, this case is instructive because it deals with the struggle and the answers to enforcing the below manufacturer's warranty:

"50 Year Transferable Warranty" and

"Workmanship 10 yrs. Warranty"

Graci had decided to be his own general contractor for construction of his new home in Ancaster, Ontario.  He had some construction experience as well as draft plans prepared by an architect.  For his new home, he chose ARI Classic I steel roof in walnut colour.  He was not familiar with ARI, but he was aware of the sterling Ontario reputation of Dura-Loc, and he had read marketing materials representing that ARI was a "Dura-Loc company."  Also the supplier from whom he purchased the roofing, BAT, told him that Dura-Loc stood behind ARI products. Regrettably, the roof system didn't work.  Rather, after five months of New Steel and Dura-Loc failing to fix the leaks, Graci hired his own expert who opined:

  • The installation was so poor that one could stand below and see the sky above through puncture holes and gaps;
  • Degranulation of the steel roofing tiles, which began to appear within three months of installation, had progressed to the point where 60% of the roof was exposing the raw steel of the tiles;
  • And, the white stains on the walnut finish was mastic resin which had leached out of the roofing tiles;
  • Thus, the only fix was to remove and replace the roof.

Graci hired a separate installer and purchased a different roof product to complete the roof.  He then sued Dura-Loc on its warranty.  Dura-Loc defenced on various grounds.  But, for my report, the interesting one was Dura-Loc's position that it did not stand behind ARI's warranty; that Graci should look to ARI.  What Graci then learned was:

  • ARI Corp. was an insolvent Nevada shell corporation financed and controlled by Dura-Loc people;
  • ARI Corp. had, two years before, purchased the marketing image and production methods out of the insolvency of ARI California;
  • While Dura-Loc had fabricated the steel tiles in Ontario and then sent them to California for granular finishing and return to Ontario for the Graci's home;
  • Dura-Loc also used its sale's network to promote, sell, and distribute the ARI Classic I steel roof system;
  • But Dura-Loc used the ARI letterhead for both order forms and invoicing between itself and Graci's supplier, BAT.

How did the judge deal with Dura-Loc's Defence?  He didn't buy it.  He concluded:

  1. Dura-Loc is responsible for the warranty because its sales representations, promotional literature, and public advertising reasonably led Graci to rely upon Dura-Loc to stand behind the warranties;
  2. And, if that's not enough, given Dura-Loc for its financial benefit was closely connected to ARI Corp., the Court can and will lift the corporate veil and treat the two companies as one.


My reading of these three cases persuades:

  1. Judges will do their damnedest to imply a warranty of fit-for-purpose though the work is compliant with design, thus builders must be very careful in choosing their method of work;
  2. Also, if the construction contract is mutually terminated before completion, the builder should take care to obtain a written release of warranties on its Work performed or expect that it will have to return to sort out the difficult disputes of whether its Work was defective or the successor contractor caused the defect; and
  3. Finally, given most supply chains involve a number of different companies and people, Judges do have the ability to search through the chain to find that company which has deep pockets.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions