Aryan Yassavoli

The defendants brought a motion under s. 44 of the Construction Act for the return of monies deposited into court, relying on an adjudicator's interim determination that no monies were owed to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing that an interim adjudication decision alone is insufficient to warrant the release of security.

The court dismissed the defendants' motion, holding that an adjudicator's determination, while admissible, is an interim decision and not a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that the lien claim no longer requires security under s. 44(5) of the Act.

The court emphasized that releasing security based solely on an interim adjudication would undermine the Act's purpose of providing security for lien claimants.

The respondent brought a motion on the eve of trial to amend his answer to add a claim for an unequal division of net family property under s. 5(6) of the Family Law Act.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing it would cause prejudice.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the proposed amendment was untenable as it lacked factual particulars to meet the exceptionally high burden for unequal division.

Furthermore, the court held that allowing the amendment at such a late stage would cause disadvantage to the applicant that could not be compensated by an adjournment or costs, and undermined the case management objectives of the Family Law Rules.