Construction Law

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of two determinations made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The applicants sought to challenge Tarion Warranty Corporation's decision requiring security for potential 7-year warranty claims.

The applicants' registration had previously been revoked by a Consent Order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that Tarion's concern about the risk of major claims was justified and its discretion was exercised reasonably.

Costs were awarded to the respondent in the agreed amount of $22,319.98.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of P. Boucher J. dated June 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, no costs were awarded.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for unpaid flooring invoices on the basis that it was statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant argued the invoices were part of an ongoing construction contract and that the discoverability principle should apply.

The Divisional Court upheld the lower court's finding that there was no ongoing contract and that the invoices, which did not specify a payment date, were demand obligations.

The appeal was dismissed as the claim was commenced more than two years after the date of the last invoice.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to make an application for judicial review of an ODACC adjudicator's determination under the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion.

No costs were awarded as the responding party failed to provide a Costs Outline.

The moving party sought leave to appeal an interim determination made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal without prejudice to either party seeking leave for judicial review once a final determination is made.

The moving party was ordered to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellant contractor appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for additional costs incurred during a home cladding project and granting the respondent homeowner's counterclaim for trespass.

The appellant had significantly underestimated the materials required and sought to rely on a contractual adjustment clause and quantum meruit to recover the extra costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Judge's conclusions that the homeowner did not consent to the additional work, the adjustment clause only covered minor changes, and the valid contract precluded a quantum meruit claim.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and reserved the costs of the motion, fixed at $5,000, to the appeal panel.

The parties were directed to request a case conference to address the appeal schedule and a request for an interim stay.

The appellant contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent subcontractor $852,416.50 for dewatering services and extra work on a municipal roadworks project.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by admitting hearsay documents as business records and by inferring that the appellant had authorized the extra work by submitting the claims to the project owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge properly applied the business records exception under the Evidence Act and made factual findings supported by the voluminous record.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a conciliation decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation, which found that 14 construction items in a condominium's common elements breached statutory warranties and that the conciliation was chargeable to the builder.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and upheld Tarion's findings.

The court found that Tarion reasonably relied on its construction performance guidelines and the Building Code in assessing the defects, including water leakage in the garage roof slab and tenting of a waterproofing membrane.

The court also upheld Tarion's determination that the conciliation was chargeable, as the builder's settlement offers did not meet the requirements for an exception.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a decision by the warranty corporation requiring it to pay $45,688.71 for a retaining wall.

The corporation had initially determined the retaining wall was not a warranted defect, but later reversed its position based on new submissions from the homeowner, without providing the applicant notice or an opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the corporation breached procedural fairness.

The impugned finding was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh decision following a fair process.

The respondents brought a motion to quash the appellant's appeal from an associate judge's reasons on a construction lien reference, arguing the Divisional Court lacked jurisdiction under s. 71 of the Construction Lien Act.

After the respondents filed their motion materials, the appellant abandoned the appeal.

The respondents sought substantial indemnity costs of $15,000, noting they had warned the appellant of the jurisdictional issue and offered to settle on a no-costs basis if the appeal was discontinued.

The court rejected the appellant's argument that the respondents' warnings were misleading and awarded the respondents costs fixed at $7,500.

The appellant developer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering Tarion Warranty Corporation to pay $1,736,271.23 to the respondent condominium corporation for major structural defects in an underground parking garage.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in finding a major structural defect, improperly extended the seven-year warranty, failed to find the claims were released, and improperly awarded damages for portions of the garage owned by others.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's assessment of the expert evidence, contractual interpretation, or damages award, noting that the garage was a fully integrated structure requiring comprehensive repair.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to commence an application for judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment regarding a contractual dispute over the volume of soil delivered to a construction project.

The trial judge had largely dismissed the appellant's claim for unpaid invoices, finding that the respondent was only required to pay for the actual volume of soil delivered, not the volume stated on the delivery tickets.

On appeal, the Divisional Court upheld the trial judge's findings on contractual interpretation, the adequacy of reasons, the refusal to draw an adverse inference, and the exclusion of the appellant's non-compliant expert evidence.

However, the court found a palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's calculation of damages regarding soil compaction.

The appeal was allowed in part, and damages were increased from $15,433.45 to $61,198.

The moving parties sought leave to appeal a prior decision of the Superior Court.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs fixed at $5,000 to the responding party.

The court noted it considered the responding party's original factum and compendium but not the subsequently provided amended versions.

The moving party was successful on a motion to stay the discharge of its construction lien pending appeal and sought costs of $20,000.

The responding party argued costs should be reserved to the appeal panel or fixed at $5,000.

The Divisional Court fixed costs at $9,000 in favour of the moving party, finding its claimed costs disproportionate for a straightforward stay motion.

The payment of costs was stayed pending the determination of the appeal.

The appellants appealed a trial decision dismissing their claim for damages arising from the negligent design of their home's HVAC system.

The trial judge found the defendants negligent but dismissed the claim because damages and causation were not proven.

The Divisional Court quashed the appeal, finding it lacked jurisdiction under s. 19(1.1) of the Courts of Justice Act because the claim dismissed was for more than $25,000, and a dismissal for unproven damages is not equivalent to an 'award' of zero under s. 19(1.1)(d).

In the alternative, the court held it would have dismissed the appeal on the merits as the trial judge made no palpable and overriding errors.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of its claim against the individual defendant, the sole director and officer of the corporate defendant, for breach of trust under s. 13(1) of the Construction Lien Act.

The appellant argued that where there is a sole director, the onus shifts to that individual to disprove acquiescence in the corporation's breach of trust.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that s. 13(1) does not shift the onus and that actual acquiescence must be proven.

As there was no evidence of the individual defendant's active participation, the appeal was dismissed.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that their claims for work done in assembling and installing a massive truck frame assembly line at the respondent's plant were not lienable under the Construction Lien Act.

The trial judge found that the assembly line was manufacturing equipment and not an 'improvement' to the land or building.

The Divisional Court majority upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in his application of the law to the facts.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding the assembly line was an improvement given its size, cost, and degree of attachment to the premises.