Angelo D’Ascanio

Burnco Manufacturing Inc. was successful on a motion to have two actions tried together and sought partial indemnity costs of $37,248.71.

Ellisdon Corporation and E.S. Fox Limited, who had opposed the underlying motion and conducted cross-examinations, argued the amount sought was excessive.

The Master, applying principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality, and considering factors such as the motion's complexity, counsel's seniority, and actions that prolonged the motion, reduced Burnco's costs.

The final award was $20,000, inclusive of fees, HST, and disbursements, to be shared equally by Ellisdon and Fox.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion under Rule 6.01 to have its action against the general contractor tried together with or immediately following a companion action brought against it by its sub-subcontractor.

Both actions arose from delays and scope changes on the same construction project.

The court applied the Master Dash factors and concluded that the actions shared interwoven issues regarding project changes and delays, creating a risk of inconsistent findings if tried separately.

The motion was granted, and the court ordered the actions to be tried consecutively, with the plaintiff's action proceeding first.

Developers of two condominium projects alleged that a concrete forming contractor breached fixed‑price agreements by refusing to commence work when directed.

The plaintiffs argued that start dates were not essential terms of the August 18, 2005 handwritten agreement and that the contractor was required to begin work whenever the sites were ready.

The defendant maintained that predetermined start dates were essential to its pricing and that no binding contract existed once the projects were significantly delayed.

The court found that the parties had contemplated mid‑ to late‑October 2005 start dates and that these dates were an essential contractual term tied to price and scheduling.

There was no agreement allowing the plaintiffs to dictate start dates based solely on site readiness and no waiver of the start‑date requirement during subsequent contract negotiations.

The action was dismissed.