B. Zinman

The plaintiff contractor registered a construction lien and claimed payment for services and materials supplied to build a commercial addition for the defendant owner.

The project was delayed primarily due to issues relocating a hydro transformer, leading the owner to terminate the contract and claim set-off for completion costs and deficiencies.

The court found mutual breaches of contract but determined the owner owed the contractor $146,735.50 for unpaid certified work, subject to allowable backcharges of $54,917.95.

The court awarded the contractor the net balance of $91,817.55 plus prejudgment interest, while dismissing several of the owner's backcharge claims for lack of proof or failure to plead them.

The plaintiff tenant sought a declaration that a restrictive clause in its commercial lease prevented the landlord from leasing space in the plaza to a Tim Hortons franchise.

The court was tasked with interpreting the restrictive clause, specifically whether it should be construed statically (comparing to the tenant's business in 1991 when the clause was introduced) or dynamically (comparing to the current tenant's business).

The court adopted a static interpretation, finding that the proposed Tim Hortons business was not of a similar nature to the original "Corner Restaurant" in terms of menu and eat-in seating facilities.

Even under a dynamic interpretation, Tim Hortons was found not to be similar to the current "Wimpy's" restaurant.

The motion for the declaration was dismissed, and the defendant was awarded costs.