If a Contractor Does Bad Work, Can Another Contractor Be Brought In to Fix the Bad Work?
When Quality of Work Is Below Contract Requirements or Below Trade Standards or Building Code Requirements, Work May Be Viewed As Defective. A Contractor, Generally, Must Be Provided With a Reasonable Opportunity to Correct Defective Work.
Understanding Various Issues Within the Law of Defective Workmanship Involving Construction or Renovation Projects
When a contractor, among others, including subcontractors or tradespeople, are hired to perform construction or renovation work, mistakes may occur resulting in flaws or defects. When such defects occur, the expense incurred to correct a defect as well as the delays in completing the project to completion, can be significant and sometimes results in a contentious lawsuit.
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.
With the above said, it remains notable that what actually does constitute as a defect is subjective. An excessively proud property owner may view the quality of work performed as defective while a less discerning property owner would be deeply satisfied. Additionally, an experienced tradesperson may deem the work of a general handyman as flawed despite the work of the handyman satisfying the local building inspector. With so many viewpoints, what actually is a defect can be highly confusing; however, a defect, legally, is any imperfection that fails to meet the contractual obligations of the project or the negligence standard known as a good and workmanlike manner. Sometimes a contractor will perceive, incorrectly, that simply meeting the local bylaw requirements and complying with the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, Chapter 23 is satisfactory. Of course, in the end, a defect is a defect if a judge says so. In the case of Scott v. Sarsfield Foods Ltd., 2000 CanLII 3533, how a defect is legally deemed as a defect was well explained whereas it was stated:
 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:
 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.