The Court held that a common question of contractual construction — whether 'days' in the schedule to standard-form building contracts meant calendar days or working days as defined — was appropriate for determination as a preliminary issue under CPRPA s 34 and RSC O 32 r 4, given it was a pure question of law resolvable within the four corners of the contracts, would be dispositive of approximately 5% of claims, and would assist settlement prospects. On the substantive construction issue, the Court held that the undefined term 'days' in the contract schedules bore its ordinary English meaning of calendar days, not the defined term 'Days' (meaning working days), finding that the inconsistent use of capitalisation throughout the contracts appeared random and that nothing in the text, context or purpose displaced the ordinary meaning. The Court applied the 'reasonable person' rather than 'reasonable businessperson' standard given the nature of the contracts as between professional builders and ordinary consumers.
The full text is available to signed-in members.