Rainbow International Restoration of Halifax v. Chen, 2025 NSSM 28 (CanLII)
Reading Time: 3 minutes (approx.)
By: Fiona Costello (Articled Clerk)
The Small Claims Court of Nova Scotia considered a dispute arising from Hurricane Fiona, where the basement of a property owned by the Defendant had flooded. The Defendant’s insurance agent, Ryan Smith, contacted the Claimant, a remediation company, for urgent assistance. He did so without his client’s authority and knowing she was not planning to make an insurance claim. The Claimant then proceeded to do remediation work on the Defendant’s basement despite knowing there was no insurance claim and having no direct contact with the Defendant. The Defendant later refused to pay for the services provided.
With no contract, the Court examined whether the Defendant was unjustly enriched – that is, whether she received an unfair benefit from the work performed and therefore owed payment to the claimant. The Court answered this question in the affirmative. It was found that the Defendant received a benefit as her basement had been remediated, preventing further damage such as mold and bringing her property closer to a livable condition. The Claimant suffered a corresponding loss by expending time, money, and resources to perform the work. The court found there was no juristic reason to deny the Claimant recovery. As in, there was no relationship between the parties as a result of a contract or some other factor that would preclude the application of unjust enrichment.
The court noted that the Claimant acted properly in response to the natural disaster by responding promptly and performing the necessary remediation to limit further damage. In contrast, the Defendant did nothing to address the flooding or assume responsibility. The court found that the Defendant acted unreasonably by ignoring the problem and assuming that someone else would take care of the problem for her. It was concluded that she could not receive a “free ride,” as the work was inevitably required to bring the basement back to a livable condition.
In the end, the Claimant was entitled to be paid for the costs of remediating the Defendant’s basement from the effects of the flooding.
