Brian Lewis Kuchar

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave to apply for judicial review under the Construction Act, the parties could not agree on costs.

The respondent sought $13,803.13, while the applicant argued for no costs or $1,500 to $2,000.

The court found the respondent's claimed time excessive given their argument that the motion was doomed to fail based on established case law.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The moving party sought leave to appeal the order of Gorman J. dated October 17, 2023.

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

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and ordered the moving parties to pay costs of $10,000 to the responding party.

This endorsement addresses the issue of costs following a motion where the defendants successfully obtained a reduction in the quantum of a lien claim, though the lien itself was not discharged.

Both the plaintiff and the defendants sought costs, claiming success.

The court found that there was divided success on the underlying motion and noted the parties' failure to make bona fide efforts to settle costs.

Considering the proportionality, complexity, and importance of the issues, as well as the excessive hours and rates claimed by both parties, the court determined that a fit and just costs order was for each side to bear its own costs.

This is a construction lien action where the Defendants/Moving Parties sought an order discharging the lien or, in the alternative, reducing the security posted by Greatwise Developments Ltd. The Plaintiff agreed to a reduction of $250,000 due to an overlooked payment.

The court found significant factual disputes regarding whether the contract was fixed-price or cost-plus, and whether the Plaintiff abandoned the project, deeming these triable issues.

However, based on admitted errors and non-lienable items identified by the Defendants, the court ordered a further reduction of the security posted.

The motion to discharge the lien was dismissed, but the security was reduced from an initial $8,058,101.79 to $6,551,681.65.

The defendants in a construction lien action sought leave under section 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion for partial summary judgment.

The proposed motion would determine whether the Consumer Protection Act applies to the cost-plus construction contract and whether the plaintiff overbilled by exceeding statutory estimates.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion was premature pending discovery.

The court granted leave, finding that determining the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act would likely expedite the resolution of the issues in dispute, even if some factual issues ultimately require a trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a status hearing to extend the deadline to set the action down for trial.

Shortly after the motion was filed, the Registrar mistakenly issued an Order Dismissing Action for Delay.

The court set aside the dismissal order because the motion was brought before the five-year deadline.

Applying the test for extending the trial deadline, the court found the plaintiff provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, citing the principal's mistaken belief that the action was settled alongside related actions, and the inadvertence of counsel.

The court also found the defendant would suffer no non-compensable prejudice, as documentary evidence was preserved and key witnesses were available.

The motion was granted and a timetable was set.

The defendant, York Condominium Corporation No. 129 (the "Owner"), sought partial indemnity costs for its unopposed motions to amend pleadings.

The plaintiff, Brook Restoration Ltd. ("Brook"), opposed the costs and sought its own costs for preparing responding submissions.

The Master found that Brook had no obligation to consent to the amendments and that the Owner unnecessarily incurred costs by preparing full motion materials despite Brook's indication of non-opposition.

The Master denied the Owner's request for costs and also denied Brook's request for costs due to its non-compliance with a timetable order.

Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.

The plaintiff sub-subcontractor moved for summary judgment on its construction lien claim against the defendant subcontractor.

The defendant cross-moved to withdraw a prior admission regarding the quantum of the lien and to amend its defence to claim set-offs for deficiencies alleged by the general contractor, as well as relying on a 'pay-when-paid' clause.

The court granted the defendant leave to withdraw the admission and amend its defence.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, fixing the quantum of the lien at $414,049.99, but directed a trial on the issue of whether the 'pay-when-paid' clause was agreed to and enforceable.