Building BC one new home at a time: HPO licensed residential builder Tiwana creates a homeowner disaster in Surrey; uses drug addict for critical work; multiple building code violations; false records


Will the Homeowner

Protection Office

protect you?




Tiwana v. Shergill ,


2007 BCSC 458

Date: 20070330
Docket: S78073
Registry: New Westminster


Raj Tiwana and Goodwill Holdings Ltd.



Satnam Shergill and Jaginder Kaur Shergill


Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Crawford

Reasons for Judgment

Raj Tiwana:

Appearing on her own behalf, with
assistance of T. Nijjer

Counsel for the Defendants:

R.J. Morton and S. Charles

Date and Place of Hearing:

February 13 – 17, 20 – 24, 27 and 28, 2006 – March 1 – 3 and 6, 2006


New Westminster, B.C.

[1]                The plaintiff builder sued the defendant home owner for damages for breach of a residential house building contract.  The homeowner defendant alleged the builder failed to complete the house and sued for damages under a number of different headings. 

[2]                Appendix A to this judgment sets out the evidence that was given over the four weeks of trial.

[3]                Appendix B to this judgment is the interim findings and conclusions issued December 11, 2006. 

[4]                The findings result in judgment for the builder whose contract was terminated without notice by the owner.  However, the builder had great difficulty in establishing it’s damages.  On further reflection I find it likely some profit was lost, and I set that claim for lost profit at $10,000.

[5]                The owner proved there were deficiencies in the house, notably the foundation and the plumbing and heating systems.  I allowed $26,000 in damages for the cost of completion, $10,000 interest on monies borrowed for completion, and $100,000 in lost market value.

[6]                Two lien claims were established, one for A Class Doors, at $8,650, and one for New Century Tile in the amount $3,500.

[7]                The claims made by the defendant against the plaintiff for conversion of lumber or monies were not made out.

[8]                As to costs, I allowed the plaintiff’s costs at scale 4, which were to be offset by the defendant’s costs at scale 3 for 4 days.

“R. Crawford, J.”
The Honourable Mr. Justice R. Crawford


2007 BCSC 458 Tiwana v. Shergill