On October 26th, 2016 in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, self-appointed reno contractor Yvan Haince of Chester, NS who claims to have filed 16 liens in his career, lost his bid to maintain an "improper" lien on a homeowner's property in Halifax, after a 16-month legal battle. At the same time, the court ordered Haince to immediately pay costs and to post another $1500 with the court as a kind of insurance called "security for costs." He had until January 5th, 2017 to come up with the $1500.
 
On October 28th, 2016 Haince appealed both these decisions - security for costs and vacating the lien. On December 15th, 2016 the appeals court dismissed the motion, and ordered Haince to immediately pay additional costs of $250. The judge said - among other things - "...I fail to see even a glimmer of merit in any of these proposed grounds."

January 5th came and went. Haince did not post security for costs as directed by the court.
 
On March 28th, 2017 Haince asked the court to let him pay the security for costs - which had been due January 5th, 2017 - in three installments of $500 each. Unaccountably, the court said OK, with the first payment due on May 1st, 2017. Equally unaccountably, Haince can miss any of these due dates as long as he has "a valid reason as determined by this court." History has shown that the court  sets the bar low in determining whether Haince's delay tactics are "valid."

Haince made his first payment of $500 on May 1st.
Haince made his 2nd payment on May 31st.
Haince made his 3rd payment on June 29th.
However, Haince continued to neglect his obligation to pay $250 in costs ordered by the court on December 15th 2016, finally settling his debt on June 29th, 2017 after some prodding.
 
Haince continues to pursue a "breach of contract" suit against the homeowner,  which will be heard on January 8th, 2018. The homeowner's counterclaim against Haince will be heard at the same time.

Over the course of these proceedings, the court ordered Haince to pay costs on at least four different occasions, in each case "forthwith." Haince did not make any of these payments until November 25th, 2016, when he finally paid the outstanding amount. The $250 payment ordered on December 15th was eventually paid on June 29th, 2017 - six-and-a-half months late, which is consistent with his sense of timeliness shown earlier when he pretended to be a reno contractor.
 
In September 2017, the clients offered Haince the option of transferring the final hearing to Small Claims Court. It recognized the probability that the clients would never collect anywhere close to the anticipated damage award (SCC has a limit of $25,000 on awards) nor would Haince be awarded more than $25,000 on his breach of contract claim, should he prevail. Legal costs would be lower and the hearing would be sooner. Haince expressed interest but brought up vague references to "requirements" relating to "emails, web sites and harassment" without further elaboration. The deadline for accepting the offer has passed, and along with it the opportunity for Haince to have all of his payments into the court - about $2500 - refunded to him.
 
On November 9th 2017, Haince announced that he wished to amend his Statement of Claim to include a claim for "quantum meruit", basically a claim that he should be paid for the work he did, regardless of any contract. This claim should be considered along with Haince's contribution to the project on which he worked, as summarized here.
 
The relationship between homeowners and contractors is often complicated and confrontational. For a discussion on this subject, click here.
Return to Main Page