Ann A. Hatsios

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss or stay the action, arguing that the Ontario court lacked jurisdiction or that Quebec was the more appropriate forum under the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*.

The plaintiff contended that Ontario had jurisdiction based on a forum selection clause in its invoices.

The court found that Ontario had presumptive jurisdiction due to the forum selection clause, which the defendant failed to rebut.

However, upon a *forum non conveniens* analysis, the court determined that Quebec was clearly the more appropriate forum, considering factors such as where the contract was negotiated, the defendant's location, the project's location, and the residence of most witnesses.

The Ontario action was permanently stayed.

The defendant brought a motion seeking a rehearing or variation of a previous endorsement by Murray J. concerning a settlement agreement, arguing that no final decision was made or that there was a misapprehension of evidence and denial of natural justice.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to carry Murray J.'s endorsement into operation and enforce the settlement agreement.

The court dismissed the defendant's motion, finding that Murray J.'s endorsement constituted a final "decision" under s. 123 of the Courts of Justice Act, precluding a rehearing.

The court also found that the defendant's lengthy and unexplained delay, coupled with a lack of new evidence, prevented relief under Rule 59.06.

The plaintiff's cross-motion to enforce Murray J.'s endorsement was granted.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a noting of default and default judgment obtained by the plaintiffs for unpaid accounting fees.

The court found the defendants did not provide a plausible explanation for the default and did not bring the motion promptly.

However, the court found the defendants had an arguable defence regarding joint and several liability and a potential limitation period defence for some invoices.

The court varied the default judgment to reflect the defendants' limited personal liability and set aside the noting in default to allow them to defend the remaining claims.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment and to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired.

The court refused to set aside the default judgment, finding that although service of the statement of claim was technically defective, it came to the defendant's attention in a timely manner.

Furthermore, the defendant failed to provide a plausible excuse for the default or credible evidence of an arguable defence on the merits.

However, the court granted the motion to declare the construction lien expired, as the plaintiff had failed to set the action down for trial within the two-year period required by section 37 of the Construction Lien Act, and a registrar's default judgment does not satisfy this requirement.

The plaintiff subcontractor, S&K Construction, registered a construction lien against the owner, NAMF, and the general contractor, Hussain, for unpaid work on a gym renovation project.

The central dispute involved the installation of a defective epoxy gym floor.

The court found that both the general contractor and the subcontractor breached their respective contracts by failing to deliver a floor that was smooth enough for gym use.

As a result, the subcontractor's lien claim for the floor work was dismissed.

The owner's claim for the full cost of a replacement pulastic floor was denied due to betterment, but the owner was awarded the cost of removing the defective epoxy.

The subcontractor was awarded a reduced lien amount for authorized non-floor work, and the general contractor was awarded payment for an HVAC unit.