Alvin W. Leung

The plaintiff, a trim carpenter, brought a construction lien and breach of contract action against the general contractor and the homeowner for unpaid work on a residential project.

The court found that the general contractor wrongfully repudiated the oral subcontract by failing to pay the plaintiff and denying him access to the site.

The court also found that the general contractor made a pre-contractual misrepresentation that formed a collateral warranty, causing the contract price to revert to its original higher amount when the condition was breached.

The plaintiff was awarded a lien of $16,225, for which both defendants were jointly and severally liable, and $7,200 in breach of contract damages against the general contractor.

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old commission salesperson with 19.5 months of service, was terminated without cause shortly before the COVID-19 pandemic.

He brought a motion seeking 10 months of reasonable notice, while the defendant employer argued for two months.

The court assessed the relevant factors, noting the plaintiff's short tenure, non-managerial role, and the lack of evidence that his age or the pandemic significantly hindered his job search during the applicable notice period.

The court awarded a reasonable notice period of 2.5 months.

The plaintiff, a 61-year-old finance manager with nine months of service, was terminated without cause.

He brought a motion for summary judgment to determine the appropriate period of reasonable notice.

The court applied the Bardal factors, noting the plaintiff's short service, performance-based compensation, and the robust job market prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that the pandemic, being a subsequent event, should not impact the notice period calculation and awarded two months' reasonable notice.

At a case conference regarding the plaintiff's motion for default judgment, the defendants indicated an intention to challenge the validity of service in Hong Kong under the Hague Convention.

The defendants' counsel appeared on a limited scope retainer solely to contest service.

The court held that it would be an abuse of process to allow the defendants to delay adjudication by retaining counsel incrementally.

The court scheduled the plaintiff's motion for default judgment and directed that any motions by the defendants to set aside service or lift the noting in default be heard at the same time.

The court issued a consent timetable for a one-day summary trial, setting deadlines for the exchange of affidavits and the filing of a joint book of documents.