In Krieser v. Seligman, 2024 ONCA 827, the case revolved around the construction of a luxury home in Forest Hill, Toronto, and a subsequent legal battle involving allegations of contract breaches, construction deficiencies, and claims of fiduciary duty.
In 2004, the plaintiffs contracted the defendant to build their home. While construction progressed, disputes emerged, leading the plaintiffs to withhold payments. Litigation ensued in 2007, with both parties asserting significant claims: the plaintiffs sought damages for alleged deficiencies, while defendant pursued payment for outstanding invoices. The case culminated in a trial in 2022-2023, where the trial court largely ruled against the plaintiffs.
The appeal focused on two primary issues: the alleged breach of contract and a claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs argued that the trial judge erred in finding their delayed payments constituted a breach that disentitled them from warranty claims. Additionally, they contended the judge failed to adequately address their deficiency claims and fiduciary duty allegations.
The appellate Court upheld the trial judge’s finding that the plaintiffs’ withholding of payments breached the contract, as it violated the explicit terms requiring prompt progress payments. While the court expressed doubt that such breaches would fully nullify warranty claims, it determined the trial judge’s decision rested on the plaintiffs’ failure to substantiate their deficiency claims.
The claim of fiduciary duty breach was similarly dismissed. The Court of Appeal noted that fiduciary obligations require a relationship of trust and reliance, typically involving one party acting in the other’s best interests. Here, the Court found that the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiffs was contractual, not fiduciary. The trial judge’s findings that both parties acted in self-interest and that the defendants’ actions did not amount to dishonesty or fraud further undermined this claim.
The decision in Krieser v. Seligman underscores the importance of meticulous record-keeping, clear contractual terms, and proactive dispute resolution. Deficiency claims should be supported by compelling evidence, including documentation linking issues to warranty periods or contractor obligations. Lastly, parties should consider seeking legal counsel to also avoid conflating fiduciary and contractual duties, as courts will scrutinize the nature of the relationship before imposing fiduciary standards.
At Gilbertson Davis LLP, our lawyers can assist you with matters involving Commercial and Contract Litigation, Civil Litigation, Commercial Litigation, Commercial Contracts, Real Estate and Property Litigation, and can aid in resolving your legal issues in a timely and cost-effective manner. Please contact Gilbertson Davis LLP to schedule a consultation with one of our lawyers.
Brief informational summaries about insurance litigation, commercial litigation and family law litigation matters in the courts of Ontario and Canada are periodically published on our website. Please note that our website content is for informational purposes only, and should not be construed or relied upon to provide legal advice. If you require legal advice, please request an initial consultation with Gilbertson Davis LLP using the Request Consultation Form on this webpage or by contacting our Intake Coordinator on (416) 979-2020, ext. 223 (both subject to the Terms of Use described on our Contact page).
Comments & Opinions by Gilbertson Davis LLP lawyers and staff on its Blog, or in media interviews, appearances or publications, or in professional publications, are personal to them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Firm or anyone at the Firm other than the individual expressing those comments or opinions.
About the Author
