Last Updated: August 23 2026
When is workmanship considered defective under a construction contract in Ontario?
In Ontario, workmanship is usually considered defective when it does not meet the contractual standard, the usual standard of the trade, or the relevant building code standard if the contract is silent, and compliance with minimum code rules alone may still leave a breach if the contract requires a higher level; a defect is ultimately determined as a question of fact based on the contract terms and evidence (often including expert evidence), and acceptances do not automatically eliminate the right to claim damages unless defects were expressly approved or approval is inferred from conduct; for a clear review of your contract and potential breach and negligence claims, Olson Craig Legal can help Ontario homeowners and contractors with lawyer & paralegal support, call (226) 886-2001.
Add this website to Google Preferred Sources
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.
Note: Please contact Olson Craig Legal by phone at: (226) 886-2001 to discuss any specific questions that you may have.
The Law
When Does Poor Work Legally Become a Defect?
Workmanship that fails to meet the standard required of the work is defective. The required legal standard may be of posh temple type quality, of the usual standards of the trade, of the basic minimum requirements of local bylaws and the applicable building code, or other requirements somewhere in between.
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
Deeper Information About Defective Workmanship Litigation - Part 1...
Here are links to six (6) other webpages:
NOTE: A significant number of online searches for “lawyers near me” or “best lawyer in” typically highlight a desire for prompt and effective legal support rather than a particular title. In Ontario, “licensed paralegals” are supervised by the same Law Society that governs lawyers and are permitted to represent clients in specific litigation issues. Skills such as advocacy, legal analysis, and procedural expertise are fundamental to this position. Olson Craig Legal provides legal representation within its licensed framework, focusing on strategic positioning, evidentiary preparation, and persuasive advocacy designed to secure efficient and advantageous outcomes for clients.
