The appellant appealed an order reducing the amount of security the respondent was required to pay into court to vacate a construction lien.
The appellant argued the motion judge erred in law by providing deficient reasons that prevented meaningful appellate review.
The Divisional Court agreed, finding the motion judge's five-paragraph endorsement lacked sufficient explanation for reducing the security and failed to address the conflicting evidence regarding the contract price.
The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for redetermination by a different judge.
