Construction Law

The plaintiff subcontractor sued the defendant general contractor for unpaid invoices and extra work performed on a municipal renovation project.

The defendant refused to pay, alleging the plaintiff mismanaged the project, caused significant delays, and performed deficient work, and brought a counterclaim for costs to complete and rectify the work.

The court found the defendant's principal witness lacked credibility and that the defendant had orally approved the extra work, establishing a quantum meruit claim.

The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding no evidence of deficient work and noting the defendant failed to provide contractual notices of default.

The plaintiff was awarded $188,514.62 and its construction lien was declared valid.

Three lien claimants brought a motion in a receivership proceeding to determine the proper interpretation of s. 78(2) of the Construction Act regarding priority over building mortgages.

The claimants argued they were entitled to priority for the holdback deficiency against each building mortgage individually, effectively multiplying their priority amount.

The court dismissed the motion, holding that the lien claimants' priority is limited to the extent of the single deficiency in the owner's holdback over all building mortgages combined, as multiplying the priority would be contrary to the statutory scheme and unfairly prejudice subsequent encumbrancers.

The moving party, a residential property owner, brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Lien Act to discharge two construction liens registered against her property by a subcontractor and an equipment rental company.

The moving party argued the liens were out of time under the 45-day preservation deadline of the old Construction Lien Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding triable issues regarding whether the old Act or the new Construction Act (with a 60-day deadline) applied, and when the lien claimants last supplied services and materials to the improvement.

The plaintiff sought costs following a seven-day trial in which she was substantially successful against the defendants for fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, and breach of contract.

The court found the individual defendant's conduct to be reprehensible, as he fraudulently induced the plaintiff to enter into a construction contract with a fictitious company and performed shoddy work.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01, the court awarded the plaintiff costs on a substantial indemnity basis in the amount of $286,250 plus disbursements.

The defendant moved for security for costs against the plaintiff, a Quebec holding company that acquired the claim via assignment from a bankrupt subcontractor.

Although the plaintiff demonstrated it had sufficient cash assets in Quebec (a reciprocating jurisdiction), the court ordered it to post $30,000 in security.

The court found that the overall justice of the case favoured an order because the plaintiff's assets were contingent on litigation success, the funds were essentially treated as the principal's personal property, and the plaintiff would suffer no prejudice from posting security.

The plaintiff contractor registered a construction lien for unpaid services and materials relating to the construction of a new residential home.

The defendant owner disputed the claim, arguing that the contractor abandoned the project, overcharged for extras that were part of the base contract, and left deficient work.

The court interpreted the fixed-price contract to determine the base scope of work, finding that some claimed extras were included in the base price while others were compensable.

After accounting for proven payments, loan credits, and a minor set-off for incomplete work, the court found the owner breached the contract by failing to pay.

The contractor was awarded a valid lien and judgment for $86,244.38 plus pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff, a developer, brought a motion under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to inspect and collect data from townhomes it previously built, which were subject to statutory warranty claims for heating issues.

The non-party respondent, Tarion Warranty Company, and the homeowners opposed the motion, arguing it would delay scheduled remediation work.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the inspection might be necessary, it would unreasonably delay the compensation and repair process for the homeowners, whose needs must take priority under consumer protection legislation.

The plaintiff successfully defeated the defendants' summary judgment motion in a condominium construction defect case.

The plaintiff had previously served an offer to settle the motion on terms more favourable than the outcome.

The court awarded the plaintiff substantial indemnity costs of $42,812.79, finding the time spent reasonable given the complexity and volume of materials.

The court ordered these costs to be set off against $26,879.89 the plaintiff owed the defendants from previous motions, resulting in a net payment of $15,932.90 to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion for answers to undertakings and refusals in the context of a construction lien action.

The motion was dismissed, and the parties submitted written arguments regarding costs.

The defendant, having been entirely successful, sought costs of $5,674.94 on a partial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the factors under section 131 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 57.01, reduced the defendant's attendance fee, and fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $5,074.94.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action for the unpaid balance of a metal roof installation contract, plus an alleged oral contract for extra work.

The defendant homeowner counterclaimed for damages, alleging extensive negligence and breach of contract in the roof's installation.

The court found the contractor substantially completed the work and dismissed the claim for the oral extra.

The court found minor functional and cosmetic deficiencies, awarding the homeowner $4,000 in damages to be set off against the $10,000 contract balance, resulting in a net payment of $6,000 to the contractor.

Following a summary trial regarding unpaid invoices under a construction contract, the plaintiff was awarded a principal judgment with a set-off granted to the defendant.

The court received written submissions on prejudgment interest and costs.

The court clarified that prejudgment interest would be awarded in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, as the plaintiff's Statement of Claim did not plead the 24% rate requested at trial.

On costs, the court found that success was divided both financially and contextually, and ordered that each side bear its own costs.

The moving party, an owner/contractor on a construction project, brought a motion under section 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act to dismiss the plaintiff's action against it.

The plaintiff's construction lien had previously been vacated by the posting of security by the general contractor.

The court held that once a lien is vacated by the posting of security, the owner is no longer a proper party to the lien action as there is no privity of contract.

Furthermore, the court applied binding appellate authority to hold that claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit cannot be joined in a lien action under section 55(1) of the Act.

The motion was granted and the action against the moving party was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved under Rule 37.14(1) to set aside an order dismissing its construction lien action.

The action had been dismissed after the plaintiff failed to attend a motion following the removal of its former counsel of record.

The court found that the plaintiff did not receive actual notice of the removal order and that its failure to attend the dismissal motion was due to an accident or mistake by its president, who mistakenly believed former counsel would attend.

The court set aside the dismissal order, finding the plaintiff moved forthwith, without unreasonable delay, and that the defendant would not be prejudiced.

Following a trial where both the plaintiffs' construction claim and the defendants' counterclaims were dismissed, the court determined the issue of costs.

The plaintiffs had claimed $100,000 for deficiencies and breach of contract, while the defendants counterclaimed for mental distress and injurious falsehood.

Despite divided success, the court found the plaintiffs should not have pursued their claim and that the defendants were entitled to costs for defending the main action.

Applying principles of proportionality and reasonableness, the court awarded the defendants $70,000 in all-inclusive costs.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant general contractor after its subcontract was terminated.

The general contractor counterclaimed for completion costs and back-charges.

The court found that the subcontractor had repudiated the contract through excessive payment demands, a production slowdown, and uncorrected deficiencies, justifying the termination.

The subcontractor's claims were dismissed, and it was ordered to pay the general contractor $516,458.18 in damages for back-charges.

A sub-subcontractor was awarded $84,002.92 in basic holdback from the general contractor.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff for unpaid construction work.

The court applied the five-factor test for setting aside a default judgment and found that the defendant did not move promptly, failed to provide a plausible excuse for the default, and lacked an arguable defence to the plaintiff's quantum meruit claim.

The court concluded that setting aside the judgment would prejudice the plaintiff and undermine the integrity of the administration of justice.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order requiring the defendants to respond to written requests for information pursuant to section 39 of the Construction Act.

The defendants argued that the requests were improperly served by fax and opposed costs.

The court validated the service by fax under Rule 16.08, finding the documents came to the defendants' notice, and ordered the defendants to provide the requested information and pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.

The defendant subcontractor brought a motion for partial summary judgment against the third-party general contractor for defence costs.

The general contractor had breached its contractual obligation to obtain a wrap-up insurance policy for the construction project.

The court found that had the policy been obtained, there was a mere possibility that the claims against the subcontractor for property damage would have been covered, triggering a duty to defend.

The court ordered the general contractor to reimburse past defence costs and to retain an independent lawyer to act as an adjuster to approve future defence costs.

The applicant subcontractor sought an order requiring the respondent general contractor to arbitrate a delay claim separately from the general contractor's delay claim against the owner.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the subcontract explicitly required disputes relating to the owner to be consolidated and disposed of in the same proceedings.

The court also found that the general contractor had used 'best efforts' to advance the global delay claim against the owner in accordance with the prime contract.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment.

Four days prior to the return date, the defendant's counsel obtained an order removing themselves as lawyer of record.

The defendant's president attended the motion and requested an adjournment to retain new counsel.

The plaintiff opposed the adjournment, arguing prejudice regarding its construction lien priority.

The court granted a brief adjournment on strict peremptory terms, noting the recent amendment to Rule 15.04 requiring service of removal motions on all parties, and cautioned that parties may need to attend such motions to protect their interests.