A. Assuras

The plaintiff, an architectural design firm, sued the defendants for unpaid invoices relating to three construction projects.

The plaintiff alleged breach of contract and breach of trust under the Construction Act.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiff caused project delays by withholding final drawings and made misrepresentations to the municipality.

The court found the corporate defendants and their principal liable for breach of trust regarding the main project, and the principal personally liable for an oral contract on a referral project.

The counterclaim was dismissed as the defendants failed to prove the plaintiff was solely responsible for the delays or made any misrepresentations.

Judgment was granted to the plaintiff for $33,572.73.

The applicant, a 50% shareholder in two family-owned corporations, brought a motion for interim costs to fund an oppression application against her former spouse and the corporations.

The court applied the two-part test from Alles v. Maurice under s. 249(4) of the OBCA.

While the court found the applicant had established a case of sufficient merit based on the respondents' failure to provide financial statements, the motion was dismissed because the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of her financial circumstances to prove that pursuing the claim would unreasonably reduce her standard of living.

Following a lengthy contract dispute where the defendant was wholly successful, the defendant sought costs against the plaintiff.

The court found that the plaintiff had registered a grossly inflated construction lien, failed to make or accept reasonable settlement offers, refused to admit facts, and engaged in spoliation of evidence.

Applying the costs provisions of the Construction Lien Act and the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court awarded the defendant substantial indemnity costs of $135,000.

The court declined to hold the plaintiff's principal personally liable for costs as he was not a party to the proceeding and no finding of fraud was made against him.

The plaintiff subcontractor sued the defendant contractor for unpaid invoices and registered a construction lien regarding a school gymnasium project.

The defendant counterclaimed for back charges due to the plaintiff's delays and failure to complete the contracted steel fabrication and erection work.

The court found the plaintiff breached the contract by failing to perform the work on schedule, entitling the defendant to back charges.

The court awarded the plaintiff a reduced amount of $20,000, calculated as the remaining contract balance less the defendant's proven back charges.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claims for breach of a settlement agreement, defamation, wrongful interference, and oppression, while upholding a small claim for unpaid invoices.

The respondents cross-appealed the trial judge's failure to find an accord and satisfaction regarding the unpaid invoices.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding errors in the trial judge's assessment of the evidence or application of the law.

Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondents.

Following a wrongful dismissal trial where the plaintiff was awarded approximately $150,000 in damages, the court determined the costs of the action.

The plaintiff sought over $600,000 on a substantial indemnity basis, while the corporate defendants argued no costs should be awarded due to proportionality and settlement offers.

The court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $424,584.33, finding that the defendants' 'hardball' litigation tactics and pursuit of a baseless after-acquired cause defence unnecessarily prolonged the trial.

The court also denied costs to the successful individual defendant, finding her conduct was the fundamental reason the trial was necessary.

The plaintiff brought a motion to add Imad Rachid as a defendant and amend her statement of claim in an action arising from a residential construction contract with the corporate defendant.

The proposed defendant opposed being added, arguing there was no tenable basis for personal liability against him as a corporate officer.

The court granted leave to add the proposed defendant and make certain amendments related to breach of contract and negligence.

However, the court refused amendments alleging intentional interference with economic relations and negligent misrepresentation, finding the plaintiff failed to plead the necessary elements or allege that the proposed defendant acted outside his role as a directing mind of the corporation.

A defendant in a construction lien action moved to set aside a noting in default, alleging improper service of the statement of claim and lack of notice of the proceeding.

The court applied the test under the Construction Lien Act requiring a defendant to show a valid reason for default, a continuous intention to defend, and evidence of a meritorious defence.

The court found that service at the corporation’s publicly represented business address was valid and that the defendant failed to adequately explain its failure to respond.

The defendant also failed to provide any probative evidence supporting the alleged defences in its proposed pleading.

The motion to set aside the noting in default was therefore dismissed.

The moving party sought to set aside a noting in default in a construction lien action, arguing improper service of the statement of claim and lack of awareness of the proceeding.

The court held that service by mail was valid under the Rules of Civil Procedure after the process server attended at the corporation’s recorded address and could not effect personal service.

The moving party failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for failing to deliver a defence, failed to demonstrate a continuous intention to defend, and provided no evidence supporting a meritorious defence as required under the Construction Lien Act.

Bare denials in a proposed statement of defence were insufficient.

The court therefore declined to grant relief from default.

The defendant moved to set aside a noting in default in a construction lien action, arguing that the statement of claim had not been properly served and that it did not come to its attention before the deadline to deliver a defence.

The court held that service was valid under both the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Construction Lien Act because the claim was left with a person appearing to be in control of the registered business address and was also served by registered mail to the address listed in a registered lien document.

The court further found the defendant failed to demonstrate a reasonable explanation for not defending, failed to establish a continuous intention to defend, and failed to provide evidence of a meritorious defence as required by s. 54 of the Act.

Bare denials and unsupported allegations regarding lien preservation, perfection, and alleged accounting discrepancies were insufficient.

The motion to set aside the noting in default was dismissed.