Associate Judge Charles G. T. Wiebe

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing to prevent the dismissal of their action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The action arose from a failed real estate transaction where the defendant failed to close.

The court found that the plaintiffs had provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, citing the primary plaintiff's intense duties as a frontline medical worker during the COVID-19 pandemic and family issues.

The court also found that any prejudice to the defendant due to fading memories or lost documents was self-created by his own failure to take steps to move the action forward.

The motion was granted, the action was allowed to proceed, and the plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's construction lien action and discharge its lien after the plaintiff's lawyers were removed from the record and the plaintiff failed to appoint new counsel or comply with trial scheduling orders.

The plaintiff did not appear on the motion.

The court found the plaintiff had abandoned the action, dismissed the claim, discharged the lien, and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim without prejudice.

The court awarded the defendant $467,000 in actual costs, finding the plaintiff's conduct amounted to forcing litigation costs onto the defendant before abandoning the action on the eve of trial.

Following the dismissal of the Mortgagees' motion to discharge construction liens based on alleged mortgage priority, the successful Lien Claimants sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs of $15,435.02, finding that the Mortgagees acted unreasonably by proceeding with a deficient evidentiary record, changing the scope of the motion, and insisting on an urgent hearing despite the flaws in their case.

Following a trial in a construction lien and breach of contract action with a divided result, the court determined the costs and prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff was marginally successful but had its costs significantly reduced due to the divided result, an exaggerated lien claim, and a reasonable offer to settle by the defendant.

The plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in partial indemnity costs, including a portion of its expert's fees.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at 3% per annum from the date the primary invoice was due.

The moving party mortgagees brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act to discharge construction liens registered by the responding party lien claimants, arguing their mortgage had priority.

The court found the mortgage was not a collateral or building mortgage.

However, because earlier development work on the same improvement predated the mortgage registration, the mortgage was a subsequent mortgage under section 78(5) and (6).

The mortgagees failed to meet their onus of proving they did not receive written notice of a lien prior to the mortgage advance, as their only evidence was a bald hearsay statement from an assignee.

The motion to discharge the liens was dismissed.

The self-represented plaintiff requested a reconsideration of a costs decision after her motion to reinstate an action dismissed for delay was denied.

She argued she was forced to bring the motion, the defendants contributed to the delay, and opposing counsel owed her a duty to warn her about Rule 48.14.

The court rejected these arguments, finding she chose to bring the motion, the defendants' inaction did not excuse her delay, and opposing counsel owed her no duty to assist her against their clients' interests.

The original costs awards of $50,000 and $35,000 to the defendants were reaffirmed.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action for unpaid invoices and extras related to a balcony repair project.

The defendant owner counterclaimed for delay costs and defective workmanship, including undersized balconies and damaged railings.

The court dismissed both parties' delay claims due to a lack of expert evidence and failure to comply with contractual notice provisions.

The court awarded the plaintiff its unpaid invoice, holdback interest, and extras for slab replacement, while granting the defendant partial backcharges for the undersized balconies and damaged railings.

Ultimately, the plaintiff was awarded a net judgment of $44,999.19 and a valid lien.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion against the respondent, the respondent sought substantial indemnity costs.

The court found that the applicant's conduct in pursuing a disclosure motion based on baseless allegations of misrepresentation under oath, and persisting despite offers to settle on a without-costs basis, was reprehensible.

The court awarded the respondent substantial indemnity costs fixed at $37,000.

Following dismissal of the plaintiff's motion to set aside the Registrar's dismissal order, the court determined costs of the motion and the entire action.

One defendant was awarded full indemnity costs of $50,000 pursuant to a contractual provision in the Standard Charge Terms of the mortgage, which entitled the mortgagee to solicitor-and-client costs in proceedings taken to realize upon the security.

The other defendant was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $35,000 on account of the plaintiff's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud, dishonesty, criminal conduct, and conspiracy, which impugned the defendant's professional reputation as a lawyer and unduly complicated what was essentially a simple mortgage enforcement action.

The plaintiff's failure to participate in costs submissions was also taken into account.

Total costs of $85,000 were ordered payable within 60 days.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(a) and (e), seeking $116,380.50.

The court found the plaintiffs ordinarily reside in Alberta with no assets in Ontario, satisfying the threshold under Rule 56.01(1)(a).

However, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate impecuniosity or that their claim had a good chance of success, as there was no expert evidence on breach of the standard of care, no corroboration for the minor plaintiff's version of events, and no evidence of compensable mental trauma.

The court ordered $50,000 in staged security for costs, significantly reducing the amount sought due to the defendants' procedural failings, and awarded $5,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The moving party brought a motion seeking to compel the responding party to answer discovery questions and produce income tax and bank records, alleging that newly discovered evidence of dividend payments undermined a prior decision sustaining discovery refusals.

The court dismissed the motion on the basis of issue estoppel, finding that the moving party's abandonment of its earlier appeal rendered the prior associate justice's decision final.

The court held that the new evidence of co-defendant dividend payments did not demonstrate that the responding party had received income from co-defendants or had misrepresented facts at discovery.

Costs submissions were reserved.

In a standalone costs decision following a partially successful stay motion in construction lien litigation, the court determined costs based on overall success rather than issue-by-issue outcomes.

The moving party obtained one of three requested stays and was found to have achieved the motion's primary objective of securing a stay.

The court considered proportionality, complexity, and reasonable litigation expectations in assessing quantum.

Although the successful party sought substantially higher partial indemnity costs, the award was reduced to reflect limited success on the more time-consuming stay arguments.

Partial indemnity costs of $12,000 were ordered payable within 30 days.

The self-represented plaintiff brought a motion to set aside a Registrar's order dismissing her action for delay under Rule 48.14.

The action, which alleged fraud and conspiracy against a private lender and his lawyer regarding a mortgage enforcement, had been dormant for nearly five years after the plaintiff's lawyer was removed from the record.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay, failed to prove she always intended to prosecute the action, delayed in bringing the motion to set aside, and failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants, whose witnesses had suffered memory loss.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment.

The court dismissed the motion regarding the corporate defendant, finding no plausible excuse for the default and no arguable defence to the unpaid invoices.

However, the court granted the motion regarding the individual defendant, finding an arguable defence as to whether he provided an enforceable personal guarantee under the Statute of Frauds.

Following a trial in a construction dispute, the court issued an addendum correcting a tabulation error, resulting in an increased damages award of $179,681.59 to the plaintiff.

On the issue of costs, the court found the defendant was substantially successful on liability but reduced its costs recovery because it failed to prove the majority of its claimed damages.

The court rejected the defendant's argument for full indemnity costs under the subcontract, awarding $415,000 in partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff was awarded prejudgment interest at 2% per annum from the date the project was substantially performed.

The moving parties, a developer and a construction manager, brought a motion under section 44(5) of the Construction Act to reduce the security posted to vacate claims for lien registered by the responding subcontractor.

The moving parties argued the subcontractor was not entitled to cost escalations due to lack of proper notice, a prior promise not to pursue such costs, and an inability to prove quantum.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that there was no reasonable basis for the lien amounts claimed.

The court held that the adequacy of notice, the binding nature of the promise, and the quantum of the claim all presented genuine issues requiring a trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add allegations of fraudulent conveyances and unjust preferences concerning a condominium unit in Toronto.

The plaintiff sought to establish that certain instruments and an underlying alter ego trust created between May and August 2024 were fraudulent conveyances designed to defeat creditors.

The plaintiff was enforcing three Greek judgments totaling approximately 700,000 euros against the defendants.

The court applied the three-part test for certificates of pending litigation and found that the plaintiff established a high probability of success on the underlying action, sufficient evidence of badges of fraud to create a triable issue, and that the balance of convenience favoured issuance of the certificate.

The court granted leave to amend and awarded costs to the plaintiff.

This is a costs decision following the dismissal of a motion by Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2890 (TSCC 2890) for summary judgment to end its involvement in a construction lien action.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the successful respondent, E-Tech Electrical Services Inc., finding that the motion lacked merit on its core issue regarding whether TSCC 2890 qualified as a "home buyer" under the Construction Act.

The court determined that the motion unreasonably delayed the conduct of the action and was brought without sufficient justification.

A construction lien dispute arising from the termination of a mechanical subcontract.

The plaintiff, a mechanical contractor, claimed a lien for unpaid work and damages for wrongful termination.

The defendant, the construction manager, terminated the subcontract citing multiple defaults including failure to provide adequate manpower, delays in completing critical work, and failure to correct deficiencies.

The court found the defendant properly exercised its contractual right to terminate based on the plaintiff's failure to properly and diligently perform the work, but awarded the plaintiff the net unpaid balance of the subcontract after deducting the defendant's completion costs and other back-charges.

The respondent condominium corporation brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to discharge a construction lien registered by the applicant electrical contractor on the basis that the respondent was a "home buyer" under the Construction Act and therefore not subject to lien, and alternatively that the respondent was not an "owner" as defined in the Act.

The court found that the respondent was not a "home buyer" because the occupancy permit issued was partial and excluded common elements appurtenant to the units, which form part of the statutory definition of "home." The court also found a genuine issue requiring trial as to whether the lien attached to the respondent's interest based on the unclear evidence regarding whether the respondent requested the work or benefited from it.

The motion was denied in its entirety.