Aleksandar Jovanovic

The defendant 35 Mercer Limited brought a motion to reduce the construction lien of the plaintiff Urban Electrical Contractors (UEC) by $4,333,708.96.

Prior to the hearing, Mercer, UEC, and Urban Integrated Group Inc. (UIG) settled the motion on terms reducing UEC's lien security by $3,231,464.75.

Subsequently, Mercer and UEC reached a separate settlement to fully discharge UEC's lien and return all security.

However, UIG opposed the full return of security because UIG's own liens had been vacated with reduced security that accounted for UEC's lien security already posted.

The court held that security for one lien cannot be returned without considering other lien claimants affected by that return, and ordered reduction only to the extent of UIG's consent.

The court also declined to award costs, finding the parties had settled the motion without judicial intervention on the merits.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal the decision of Kimmel J. dated June 18, 2024.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff subcontractor entered into a fixed-price contract with the defendant general contractor to install high-pressure concrete watermains at a pumping station.

The installed pipes repeatedly failed pressure tests.

The plaintiff stopped work, claiming non-payment of invoices, and the defendant subsequently terminated the contract.

In this first phase of a bifurcated trial to determine liability, the court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the pipes failed due to the defendant's failure to provide a stable subgrade or install a concrete beam.

The court also found the plaintiff was not owed the claimed funds under the contract's payment terms when it stopped work.

Consequently, the court concluded the plaintiff breached the contract by abandoning the project.

The court issued a costs endorsement following motions for a stay of proceedings, a certificate of pending litigation (CPL), and the appointment of an arbitrator.

The defendants had sought a stay, which was granted permanently for one defendant and temporarily for the other, while the plaintiff successfully obtained a CPL.

Finding divided success on the stay motion, the court ordered each party to bear its own costs for that motion.

However, as the plaintiff was successful on the CPL motion, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs fixed at $35,000 all-inclusive.

The plaintiff, Valleywoods Rentals Inc., brought an action against Yukon Construction Inc. for alleged deficiencies in the construction of exterior entrance stairs, claiming the work failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code and industry standards.

The defendant denied the deficiencies, asserting the work was performed according to the contract and had been approved by relevant authorities.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, finding that Valleywoods failed to meet its burden of proof regarding the alleged deficiencies.

The court gave significant weight to the approvals by the Construction Manager, Project Architect, and the City of Toronto (granting occupancy), and found the plaintiff's expert and hearsay evidence unreliable.

Costs were awarded to the defendant.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Myers J. The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the moving party.

The court issued a procedural endorsement setting a timetable for the completion of pleadings, cross-examinations, and document production.

The court also scheduled a motion date to address issues including striking pleadings, duplicitous claims, and severing a third-party action.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff subcontractor's action from Toronto to Brampton.

The action related to a construction project in Mississauga, where both parties performed their work and where related actions were already being case managed.

The court found that the plaintiff's choice of Toronto had no meaningful connection to the dispute other than the location of plaintiff's counsel.

The motion was granted as Brampton was a significantly better and more reasonable venue.

The defendant brought a motion for an order requiring the plaintiff to produce certain documents for inspection and to provide particulars of its statement of claim regarding an equipment lease for a helicopter.

The Master partially granted the motion, ordering the plaintiff to produce written demands for payment if they exist, and to provide particulars of the date and price of the helicopter's sale to allow the defendant to plead a defence of set-off.

The balance of the requests were dismissed as they sought non-specific documents or evidence rather than material facts necessary for pleading.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of his civil action seeking damages against his former spouse and her parents for alleged fraudulent concealment of assets.

The motion judge dismissed the action as an abuse of process, finding that the appellant's claim for damages was premised on an alleged entitlement to an equalization payment governed by the Family Law Act, which can only be pursued in family law proceedings.

The Court of Appeal upheld the dismissal, noting that while the appellant's equalization claim was time-barred under the Family Law Act, he was not necessarily without recourse if he could satisfy the criteria for an extension of time and pursue the matter through family law proceedings.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's civil action as an abuse of process, arguing it improperly sought to litigate family law issues (equalization and spousal support) outside the Family Law Act framework.

The court found the action was an attempt to circumvent the FLA and its limitation periods, and that such claims must be pursued directly under the applicable family law scheme.

The action was dismissed as an abuse of process.

The applicants sought oppression relief arising from a 2005 plan of arrangement converting a corporation into an income trust structure and a 2009 restructuring of participating notes that later impeded redemption of preference shares.

The respondents raised a preliminary limitations defence under ss. 4 and 5 of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The court held that the alleged damage occurred when the impugned corporate steps were taken, and that the applicants knew or ought to have known the material facts underlying the oppression claim well before the two-year period preceding commencement of the application.

The application was therefore dismissed as statute-barred.