Rumpel Construction Ltd. v. Western Canadian Construction Company Ltd.
Street project, showing how many square feet an average framer could complete per
day, material costs, labour costs, other employee costs, etc., and applied these
numbers to the Orono project to arrive at a total cost and profit estimate. Mr. Rumpel
also provided detailed breakdowns of other similar projects to support this estimate.
In his testimony, Mr. Rumpel explained the assumptions he used in these
calculations, and how he applied these to the Orono project, all of which I found to
be straightforward and reasonable. Mr. Rumpel was not seriously challenged on his
profit estimates based on prior projects similar in size to the Orono project.
 However, when pressed in cross-examination about what Rumpel’s “true
loss” was, Mr. Rumpel estimated it at $440,000. While this conclusion was not
clarified by either side, this may have been in light of arguments made by Western
that only net profit, and not gross profit, should be compensated, and that overhead
items which normally come from gross profit including staff CPP premiums, office
expenses etc. should not be included as compensable damages.
 At the same time, Rumpel introduced documents that suggested that it had
been awarded a contract to frame a building for Abstract Developments at 1201 Fort
Street, which was set to start in the fall of 2019. Emails between Rumpel and
Abstract suggest that before Western breached the Orono contract, Rumpel may
have offered, or was “open to” terminating this contract by agreement in order to
allow Abstract to find a framer who could start the job sooner. At that time, Rumpel
was not in a position to frame Fort Street given the Orono schedule, and would not
be able to start the job until mid-2020, even if Abstract delayed the start date.
However, because of Western’s contractual breach, Mr. Rumpel was available to
frame Fort Street during the Fall of 2019.
 In considering an appropriate amount of damages, I accept the long-standing
legal proposition that, as in this case, where a breach of contract allows an individual
to take on new business that they would not have otherwise been able to undertake,
this “substitute” business must be accounted for when assessing their losses. On the
other hand, other business which would have been performed in any event,