Tai An Holding Company Ltd. v. Boyal
 Ms. Zhang avers in her affidavit that she engaged two companies to provide
wallpaper, at a total cost of $54,298.88, and that the general contractor charged the
plaintiff a total of $75,807 for removal and disposal of the old wallpaper and
installation of the new wallpaper. (This latter figure was corrected or updated in
closing argument to $82,800 based on the supporting documents in the record).
Accordingly, the plaintiff claims a total of $137,098.88 for costs incurred to replace
the wallpaper as provided for under the PIP Schedule.
 The defendants say they were not responsible for any wallpaper work in
relation to the “guest suites”, because the relevant portion of the PIP Schedule,
ss. 1.4 and 1.5, states “n/a” – which I take to be shorthand for “not applicable” –
under the columns for responsible party, timeline, holdback, exemption, and results.
However, the entry in the first column of the table under both ss. 1.4 and 1.5 states,
“[r]enovate suites following scope previously defined for guestrooms, with the
addition of the items listed below”. There are no additional items listed. The clear
intent of this catch-all phrase was that, in respect of the “guest suites” on the first
and second floor (s. 1.4) and the third floor (s. 1.5), each party would be responsible
for the same scope of work for items described in earlier sections of the PIP
Schedule applicable to “guestrooms”. On this basis, I reject the argument that the
defendants were not responsible for any PIP work in relation to the “guest suites”.
 The defendants also rely on the affidavit evidence of Mr. Mandair, who avers
that the plaintiff’s claim does not account for wallpaper the defendants purchased
and left at the hotel when they gave up possession to the plaintiff. However,
Ms. Zhang counters this point in her reply affidavit, in which she explains that the
wallpaper materials referred to by Mr. Mandair were for replacement of wallpapering
on the third floor, and that all of the wallpaper costs the plaintiff incurred related to
rooms on the first and second floors.
 The defendants also complain that the plaintiff failed to obtain competitive
quotes for the wallpaper. This point is also addressed in Ms. Zhang’s reply affidavit,
explaining that her general practice was to use the supplier specified in the earlier