Yes No Share to Facebook
Defective Workmanship Litigation - Part 1:
Involves Poor Work Definition, Expert Witness Report, Mitigation, and More!
Last Updated: July 05 2026
Question: What counts as a “defect” in Ontario construction work, and what should a homeowner document to protect a possible claim for defective workmanship?
Answer: In Ontario, a defect in construction or renovation work generally means the work (or materials) falls below what the contract required or below the negligence standard for doing work in a good and workmanlike manner, and the key point is that simply meeting minimum building code rules may still leave the contractor in breach if the contract called for a higher trade standard; whether something is a defect is fact-specific and can depend on contract wording, implied standards, and evidence about what is reasonable in the trade, and courts may treat building code violations as evidence of deficiency, not as automatically equivalent to contract compliance; if you need help evaluating your defective workmanship facts, calculating potential damages, and organizing a next-step plan with a paralegal, Askew Paralegal Services can help, call (289) 439-4740 to discuss your situation in Ontario.
Contractors, among others, such as subcontractors or tradespeople, who are paid to build, assemble, install, fix, repair, meaning to perform workmanship for various reasons, are human and will, from time-to-time, make mistakes that may be costly to correct, if correctable at all, resulting in litigation for monetary recovery of the resulting losses.
The Law
What Defines a Defect?
Workmanship that fails to meet the standard required of the work is defective. The standard required standard may be expressly stated within a contract or, if the contract was silent, meaning failed to state a standard, the standard may be implied. The standard required may be described in detail or may be stated or implied as simply to perform in a manner that is usual to trade; or in some circumstances, the standard required may be to just achieve the requirements of the relevant building code, if any.
Of course, a defect is also often highly subjective. Excessively proud property owners may be more discriminating upon the quality of workmanship than the contractor who believes that the quality of workmanship, while imperfect, meets or exceeds the specifications stated as contractual obligations or the common law standard expected in negligence law known as a good and workmanlike manner. The contractor may also perceive, sometimes wrongfully, that simply satisfying the standards of workmanship prescribed by statutes such as the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, Chapter 23 is satisfactory. Of course, a defect is a defect only when a judge says so. In Scott v. Sarsfield Foods Ltd., 2000 CanLII 3533, a defect was explained by Justice Stewart whereas it was said:
[37] Principles relied upon by both parties are summarized, to a large degree, in I. Goldsmith and T.G. Heintzman, Goldsmith on Canadian Building Contracts, fourth edition (Toronto; Carswell, 1988 at pp. 5-11 to 5-14 under a Breach Contract; 2. By Contractor(b) Defective Work which reads in part as follows:
Work which does not meet the requirements of the specifications contained in the contract, or which, in the absence of such specifications, is not a reasonable workmanlike quality, is not proper compliance with the contract and constitutes a breach. Furthermore, compliance by the contractor with the specifications will not be sufficient performance if the specifications were prepared by him and are deficient, even if they were approved by the owner. Whether work, or material supplied, is defective or not is, in each case, a question of fact, depending on the construction of the particular specifications where there are any, and on expert evidence as to what is reasonable where there are none.
Where a contract, either expressly or by implication, contains a particular standard for the work to be done, an owner is not entitled to insist on work of a higher quality.
On the other hand, compliance by the contractor with a statutory or regulatory standard of conduct may not be sufficient, if it is not the standard called for by the contract, or reasonable in the circumstances.
An owner who has accepted the work does not thereby necessarily lose his right to claim damages for defective work, unless the defects have been expressly approved, or unless approval of them can be otherwise inferred from the owner’s conduct. Sometimes a contract contains a provision guaranteeing certain parts of the work for a particular period, and any defects occurring during such period of guaranteed maintenance must be remedied by the contractor.
Generally speaking, a contractor is liable only for defects resulting from his own work or from work or materials of his suppliers and subcontractors. ...
Apart from being contractually liable to the owner, a contractor who has been guilty of negligent constrction in a dangerous or unsafe structure may be liable in tort to the owner and to third parties. ... The standard of care for which the contractor is responsible may be determined by his contractrs with the owner or subcontractor or, in the absence of specific provisions applying to the circumstances, by expert evidence about the standard of conduct in his industry.
Interestingly, it is important to note that while violations of the Building Code Act will constitute a defect, the reverse is untrue; whereas, compliance with the Building Code Act may still be a violation of the express terms, or the implied terms, of the contractual requirements. Essentially, compliance with the Building Code Act is the statutory minimum requirement; however, a higher level of performance may be required. As stated in Enfield Hardware Ltd. v. DeGier, 2002 NSSC 164, the usual standards of a trade may be higher than the minimum requirements of the applicable Code. If the contract calls for standards higher than the applicable Code, or a contract is silent on specific standards and therefore the usual standards of the trade apply, compliance with the mere minimum Code requirement may be deemed a defect. Specifically, in Enfield Hardware it was said:
[9] I want to make one very significant point. The homeowner is entitled to rely on the expertise of the contractor to complete the work in accordance with the terms of the contract. National Building Code violations may be evidence of a deficiency in the contract, which may in fact result in a breach of contract, but the reverse is not true. Compliance with the building code is not evidence of compliance with the contract. The contract rules the relations between the parties.
Learn More About
Defective Workmanship Litigation
Learn More About Defective Workmanship Litigation - Part 1...
Here are links to six (6) other webpages:
NOTE: A considerable amount of online searches featuring “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically indicates a desire for prompt and proficient legal counsel instead of a specific designation. In Ontario, licensed paralegals are governed by the same Law Society that regulates lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation cases. Advocacy, legal reasoning, and procedural expertise are fundamental to that function. Askew Paralegal Services provides legal representation within its licensed parameters, focusing on strategic positioning, evidence preparation, and compelling advocacy aimed at attaining effective and beneficial outcomes for clients.