drawings and that this item was within the contract scope. But the evidence of the pre-contract
negotiations between the parties showed that the HVAC work was removed from the scope to
reduce the price. Another example was item 70 which concerned underpinning. Mr. Hobson was
clear that he was not qualified to do underpinning, that it was not therefore in his scope, and that
Ms. Fensham confirmed this in emails. Ms. Fensham did not contradict that evidence. Yet, Mr.
McElhinny in cross-examination stated that underpinning was within the Hobson contract scope. In
addition, as stated earlier, I have generally decided to prefer the evidence of Mr. Hobson over that of
the defendants’ witnesses where the two conflict. Here there is such a conflict, and as a result I
prefer the evidence of Mr. Hobson. I will not consider these 25 items as a result.
[84]
Reducing the 138 items by the 63 items identified as being incomplete and by the 25
additional items identified by Mr. Hobson as being outside the Contract 3 scope and by the 5 items
conceded by Mr. McElhinny as being extra and by the 5 items showing no cost, produces a total of
40 items. Of these Mr. McElhinny described 26 items in his report simply as follows without any
particularity: “work is deficient.” These were items 40, 46, 50, 55, 56, 59, 60, 62, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82,
83, 84, 88, 92, 97, 102, 103, 105, 123, 124, 125, 126, and 127. In cross-examination, he gave no
further evidence as to the degree of deficiency in each case other than to say that the deficiency “had
to be obvious.”
[85]
I assessed the importance of the items by the defendants’ alleged corrections costs. In the
Scott Schedule the defendants assigned costs of correction to each item. There were only 4 items out
of the above noted 26 that exceeded $1,000 in alleged costs of correction. The largest is item 62 for
drywall taping, plastering and repair. The assigned cost is $4,800. Mr. McElhinny in his report gave
no indication of the degree of this alleged deficiency. The defendants stated that all the drywall had
to be redone. In his report and in cross-examination, Mr. McElhinny did not make it clear as to
whether he shared this opinion. He also conceded that he relied on photographs taken by the
defendants, which makes sense as he first got to see the work only in August, 2017, namely after
BAC had been working for 2.5 months. From photographs it would be hard to determine whether
all of the drywall had to be replaced.
[86]
The next allegedly costliest item was item 81 for $2,800, which is described as reworking of
plumbing in kitchen sinks and the master ensuite. In the Scott Schedule the defendants said that the
plumbing had to be redone in these areas to accommodate wall-mounted vanities when the
plumbing was installed for floor-mounted vanities. In his report, Mr. McElhinny did not indicate
whether he agreed with that view and, if he did, why. Item 80 concerned replacement of nosing,
which was assigned a cost of $1,800. The defendants simply described this work as “poorly
installed.” Mr. McElhinny did not clarify how the nosing was poorly installed. Finally, item 83
concerns alleged use of wrong material in the shower and tub. The assigned cost is $2,200. Again,
Mr. McElhinny did not indicate in his report whether he agreed with that view and, if so, why.
[87]
Of the 40 items there were 14 items for which Mr. McElhinny in his report gave more
particularity. These were items 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 18, 22, 53 and 74. These 14 items had
assigned costs of correction totaling only $19,130, namely less than 8% of the contract price. They
concerned the following alleged deficiencies: an uneven bulkhead; uneven kitchen cabinets and
countertop; reframing of rear windows; leveling closet ceiling; reframing interior doors; relocating
peninsula in the kitchen; relocating the toilet supply line; and relocating floor registers. Two items
involved the opinion of Mr. Seymour. Mr. McElhinny conceded in cross-examination that none of
the issues he raised in his report concerned the structural integrity of the house or engaged the
15