Forefront Electric v. Dutchies
FOREFRONT ELECTRIC INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Bell Temple LLP
Lawyer(s)

Trevor J. Buckley

MICHAEL RENKEMA O/A DUTCHIES FRESH FOOD MARKET
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

DUT GATEWAY INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

DUTCHIES FRESH FOOD MARKET
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

DUTCHIES FRESH FOOD MARKET
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

DUTCHIE’S GATEWAY INC. O/A DUTCHIES FRESH FOOD MARKET
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

DUT GATEWAY INC. O/A DUTCHIE’S FRESH FOOD MARKET
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

2287862 ONTARIO INC. O/A DUTCHIES FRESH MARKET LIMITED
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

DUTCHIES FRESH MARKET LIMITED
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

DUTHIE’S FRESH MARKET
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

DUTHIE’S FRESH MARKET LIMITED
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

DUTCHIS FRESH FOOD MARKET
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

MICHAEL RENKEMA
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

BEACONRIDGE DEVELOPMENTS INC.
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

JOHN DOE CORPORATION
Law Firm / Organization
Not Specified
Lawyer(s)

Richard Campbell

·  Background:

  • Forefront Electric was contracted by Michael Renkema to install an electrical system at a grocery store.
  • A contract was signed between Forefront and "Dutchies Fresh Food Market," though this entity did not exist legally.
  • Forefront provided services but claimed it was unpaid for $207,102.97 in time and materials.
  • Defendants admitted some amount was owed but contested the total, asserting various set-offs.

·  Key Legal Issues:

  • Contract Validity: Defendants argued the contract was null due to incorrect parties. However, the court found Renkema personally liable for signing on behalf of a non-existent entity, applying contra proferentem.
  • Breach of Contract: The court ruled that the defendants breached the contract by failing to pay for the services rendered.

·  Court’s Findings:

  • The plaintiff was entitled to the full amount of unpaid invoices, as defendants failed to provide evidence to challenge the accuracy of claims.
  • No punitive damages were awarded, as the defendants’ conduct was not deemed malicious or oppressive.

·  Outcome:

  • Judgment in favor of Forefront for $207,102.87 plus interest, with Renkema personally liable alongside his companies.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
CV-22-390
Corporate & commercial law
$ 207,103
Plaintiff