3 total
Construction liens vacated as untimely; transition provisions dictated application of the Old Act's 45-day deadline.
The plaintiff subcontractor registered construction liens for foundation work performed on a cottage following flood damage.
The court had to determine whether the liens were timely, which required deciding whether the Old Act or New Act applied based on the transition provisions.
The court found that the flood repair work constituted a new contract entered into before July 1, 2018, meaning the Old Act's 45-day preservation deadline applied.
Because the liens were registered more than 45 days after the last supply of materials, they were declared expired and vacated.
The plaintiff's alternative claim in quantum meruit and the defendant's claim for breach of contract were both dismissed.
Negligent breach of publication ban justified damages for psychological injury.
The plaintiff sued a newspaper publisher after it published her real name despite a Criminal Code publication ban protecting the identity of complainants and witnesses in a sexual assault retrial.
The court held that breach of the order did not create automatic civil liability, but the publisher owed a duty of care in negligence because the order created sufficient proximity and the risk of physical or psychological harm from disclosure was foreseeable.
Applying the standard of a reasonably prudent reporter, the court found the newspaper failed to preserve and verify the scope of the order before reporting.
The plaintiff proved serious and prolonged psychological injury, including a social anxiety disorder, caused in fact and in law by the breach, but failed to prove future care costs or entitlement to punitive damages.
Judgment was granted against the corporate defendant for $40,000 plus interest, and the action was dismissed against the individual reporter.
Newspaper found liable in negligence for $40,000 after breaching a publication ban protecting a witness's identity.
The plaintiff, a witness in a sexual assault re-trial, sued a newspaper and its reporter for negligence after her identity was published in breach of a court-ordered publication ban.
The court found that while breach of a publication ban does not automatically result in civil liability, the newspaper owed a duty of care to the plaintiff.
The reporter breached the standard of care of a reasonably prudent journalist by failing to verify the scope of the publication ban.
The court concluded that the publication caused the plaintiff to suffer compensable psychological injury, including social anxiety disorder and agoraphobia, and awarded $40,000 in general damages against the newspaper.
The action against the reporter personally was dismissed on consent.
