A service contract between a self-employed HVAC technician and a commercial property management company in Edmonton set in motion a chain of events that would raise nearly every question Canadian courts face when measuring and awarding tort damages. The technician, a 38-year-old sole proprietor who had operated his own heating and cooling business for 9 years, had contracted to perform seasonal maintenance on rooftop units across 4 commercial properties managed by the company. The arrangement was straightforward: the technician would attend each property quarterly, inspect and service the HVAC equipment, and invoice the management company on completion.

During a routine service call at a warehouse facility, the technician fell through a section of rooftop that had been weakened by water damage and inadequately repaired. The fall of approximately 12 feet resulted in fractures to his right leg and pelvis, a torn rotator cuff, and a traumatic brain injury that left him with persistent cognitive difficulties. His injuries required 2 surgical procedures, 14 weeks of inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, and ongoing physiotherapy that continued for more than 18 months after the incident. Medical records documented chronic pain, reduced mobility, and cognitive impairments affecting concentration, memory, and the capacity to perform complex technical work.

The property management company had received written notice from a building inspector 7 months earlier identifying the roof section as compromised and recommending immediate remediation. Internal emails subsequently obtained through discovery revealed that the company's operations manager had dismissed the repair estimate as excessive and directed maintenance staff to apply a cosmetic patch rather than undertake structural repairs. The manager's correspondence included dismissive remarks about the likelihood of anyone actually being injured and suggestions that the company could deny knowledge if anything went wrong.

The warehouse itself was owned by a numbered corporation that had delegated all maintenance responsibilities to the property management company under a comprehensive management agreement. A roofing subcontractor had performed the inadequate patch repair and had certified the work as structurally sound despite knowing otherwise. The technician himself had accessed the roof without the fall protection equipment specified in both his own safety protocols and provincial occupational health requirements, a fact the defendants raised in their statements of defence.

By the time the matter proceeded toward trial, the technician's business had collapsed. He had been unable to work for 11 months following the incident and, upon attempting to return, found himself unable to perform the physical and cognitive demands of HVAC service work. His accountant prepared projections showing pre-injury annual net earnings averaging $127,000 over the preceding 5 years. Care cost assessments estimated future attendant care and domestic assistance at between $8,000 and $14,000 annually for the remainder of his working life. The defence retained its own vocational expert who opined that the technician had unreasonably refused retraining programs that could have allowed him to transition into HVAC sales or consulting, roles that would have preserved substantial earning capacity.