What constitutes reasonableness for delay in making the repairs?

I do not believe that the plaintiffs’ delay in making the repairs constituted a conduct which could be called unreasonable. The question of reasonableness was dealt with in Cann v. Patter (1980), 42 N.S.R.(2d) 682; 77 A.P.R. 682, and in Marriott v. Carson’s Construction Ltd. (1983), 56N.S.R.(2d) 665; 117 A.P.R. 665. In considering whether there was unreasonable delay in making the repairs, one has to take into account the fact that the damage was caused by the negligent actions of the defendant and the further fact that the plaintiffs should not be placed in the position where, in order to effect repairs, they must, from their own resources, pay the cost of those repairs prior to receiving any compensation for the consequences of inflation. The above remarks have, I believe, application to the facts of this case for I have found that the delay did not cause any appreciable increase in the “physical amount or quality of the work to be done” to effect the repairs.