Andrew Heal

The plaintiff brought an action in negligence, nuisance, and trespass against her neighbours and the City of Vaughan, alleging that construction activities on the neighbours' property altered the grading and caused water to flow onto her property, resulting in damages.

The claims against the municipal defendants were settled during trial.

The court dismissed the remaining claims against the neighbour, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove causation.

Expert evidence established that the water problems were actually caused by the plaintiff's own landscapers, who had flattened the common swale and altered the grading on her property, preventing proper drainage.

The court found no negligence or unreasonable interference by the neighbour.

The plaintiffs' home was flooded twice due to a cast iron water main breaking in front of their driveway.

They sued the City of Vaughan for negligence and nuisance.

The City argued its failure to replace the water main was a policy decision exempt from liability under the Municipal Act.

The court found the City's inaction was an operational decision, as it failed to follow its own internal barometer for replacing water mains with a history of breaks.

The City was found liable for negligence, and the plaintiffs were awarded agreed-upon damages of $480,000.

Following reasons on several construction lien motions relating to a subway station project, the successful lien claimant sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $82,000.

The responding parties challenged the amount as excessive and attempted to dissect the bill of costs without producing their own costs outlines as required under Rule 57.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court emphasized that costs fixing is not an item-by-item assessment and that reasonable expectation and indemnity principles govern the exercise.

The absence of a costs outline from the objecting party undermined its argument for reductions.

The court fixed costs largely as claimed, awarding partial indemnity costs plus additional costs for preparing submissions.

The defendant municipality appealed a master's order granting leave to amend a statement of claim to add additional plaintiffs and new causes of action relating to a municipal waste services tender process.

The municipality argued the proposed claims were statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002 because the discoverability date arose when the first tender was cancelled.

The court held that it was arguable the first and second tenders formed a single continuous procurement process, meaning the claim might not have been discoverable until the cancellation of the second tender.

Because the proposed amendments were not clearly statute-barred and therefore not plainly impossible of success, the master's decision permitting the amendments was upheld.

A subcontractor filed a construction lien arising from specialized grouting and monitoring work performed in connection with the Toronto-York subway extension beneath a university building.

The general contractor moved to discharge the lien, arguing the work occurred on a railway right-of-way and that the university was not an “owner” under the Construction Lien Act.

The court rejected these arguments, holding the university qualified as an owner because the work was requested, controlled, and directly benefitted its property.

The lien was therefore validly preserved by registration on title.

The court also held that the subcontract’s broad arbitration clause required the underlying payment dispute to proceed to arbitration and stayed the lien action while refusing to add the transit authority as a third party.

Following dismissal of the defendants’ Rule 21 motion to strike the claim, the court addressed the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs sought costs, arguing the motion was unreasonable and unsupported by authority, while the defendants contended the motion raised a novel legal issue and that no costs should be ordered.

Applying s.131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court considered proportionality, complexity, and the results achieved.

The court rejected the argument that the motion was patently unreasonable but held that the successful parties were entitled to costs.

Partial indemnity costs of $16,500 were awarded to the plaintiffs.

The defendants brought a Rule 21 motion seeking a determination before trial that the plaintiffs’ claim against a surety under a performance bond could not exceed the bond amount and requesting that the action be stayed or limited accordingly.

The dispute arose from a subcontract for compensation grouting work on the Toronto‑York Spadina Subway Extension project.

The plaintiffs alleged that the subcontractor’s breaches caused extensive delay damages and that the surety’s conduct, including alleged inaction and misrepresentation following default, exposed it to liability beyond the bond amount.

The court held that it was not plain and obvious that the plaintiffs’ claim had no reasonable prospect of success, particularly where the pleadings alleged conduct by the surety potentially giving rise to liability beyond the bond cap.

As the legal question was unsettled in Canadian jurisprudence and factual issues remained disputed, the motion was dismissed.