Associate Judge Charles G. T. Wiebe

The moving party, Cobra Power Inc., sought costs following its successful motion to refer the action to a Master and the responding party's abandonment of a stay motion.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs for the reference motion and full indemnity costs for the stay motion, finding that the responding party engaged in unreasonable delay tactics and made groundless, shrill allegations of professional misconduct against opposing counsel.

The moving party, a sub-subcontractor, brought a motion for further and better documentary production from the responding party contractor in a construction lien action.

The court ordered the responding party to produce all payment certificates related to the main contract, finding them relevant to the delay claims raised in the counterclaim.

The court also enforced an agreement between the parties to produce emails in their native PST format rather than 'near native' format, applying the Sedona Canada Principles.

Finally, the court ordered that affidavits of documents be provided in electronic format (Word or Excel) to ensure meaningful access to the voluminous productions.

On a motion under s. 56 of the Construction Lien Act, the contractor sought leave to add the owner as a third party in a subcontractor lien action for contribution and indemnity.

The owner argued contractual dispute resolution provisions and potential overlap with a broader contract claim would cause undue prejudice and complicate the summary lien proceeding.

The court held the proposed third party claim was confined to contribution and indemnity, found no undue prejudice or undue delay, and distinguished authority where arbitration had already been triggered.

Leave was granted because the owner was a necessary party to delay-related issues and denial could prejudice both the contractor and the subcontractor, including by possible limitation consequences.

The defendant, Metrolinx, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Unimac, in a construction lien action.

Metrolinx argued that Unimac had commenced multiple proceedings for the same relief and had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The Master granted leave under the Construction Lien Act to bring the motion, finding that Metrolinx met its initial onus on both grounds.

Unimac failed to prove it had sufficient assets or that the multiplicity of proceedings was justified.

The Master ordered Unimac to post $264,712.73 as security for costs, discounting the requested amount to account for Metrolinx's counterclaim.

In a construction lien action, the defendants sought costs after the plaintiff abandoned a proposed motion for leave to bring a summary judgment motion before serving motion materials.

The court held that, despite Rule 37.09(3) not being directly engaged, s. 86 of the Construction Lien Act conferred broad discretion to award costs in lien proceedings.

The court found it was reasonably foreseeable that the responding parties would begin preparing once the motion timetable was fixed, particularly given scheduling constraints and the state of the evidentiary record.

Recovery was limited to thrown away costs, but the court added a deterrence component because the plaintiff's conduct was found tantamount to abuse of process and fruitless litigation.

Costs of $7,500 were awarded, without prejudice to a further claim at trial.

Unsecured judgment creditors sought an order under s. 163(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to examine an individual in his personal capacity and as director of a related corporation regarding the administration of a bankrupt estate.

The court applied the low threshold test for examinations under the BIA, requiring evidence that the proposed examination may yield information relevant to the administration of the estate and that the proposed examinee likely possesses such information.

Evidence raised questions about whether accounts receivable belonging to the bankrupt were paid to the individual or transferred to a related corporation while the bankrupt was insolvent.

The court found sufficient cause to permit the examination and ordered document production.

Costs were awarded to the moving creditors.

The owner of a condominium construction project moved to reduce posted security and obtain summary judgment discharging or reducing a contractor’s construction lien claims.

The moving party argued the contractor’s liens should be eliminated or reduced because a subcontractor’s lien action had been dismissed, because contract prices allegedly contained PST eliminated by the introduction of HST, and because the owner paid $40,000 directly to a sub‑subcontractor.

The court held that dismissal of the subcontractor’s lien did not affect the contractor’s lien rights, as lien entitlement is based on the contract price between owner and contractor under the Construction Lien Act and not on the subcontractor’s separate claims.

The court also rejected the alleged PST credit due to insufficient evidence.

The motion succeeded only to the extent that the contractor’s liens and posted security were reduced by $40,000 corresponding to the direct payment to the sub‑subcontractor.

Following a construction lien trial in which the lien claim was declared expired but the plaintiff obtained a modest breach of contract judgment, the court determined issues of prejudgment interest and costs.

The court held that a contractual rate of 2% per month triggered s. 4 of the Interest Act, limiting recoverable interest to 5% per annum because the rate was expressed for a period shorter than a year.

On costs, the court considered Rule 49 settlement offers, proportionality, and the Construction Lien Act provisions governing cost awards.

Although the defendant succeeded on major issues at trial, the plaintiff had limited success and the settlement offers materially affected the analysis.

Weighing all factors, the court awarded the plaintiff partial indemnity costs of $2,000.

In a bankruptcy discharge proceeding, a creditor sought substantial indemnity costs for opposing the bankrupt’s discharge as well as recovery of the trustee’s legal fees and administrative expenses.

The court had previously denied the bankrupt’s discharge and was asked to determine the appropriate costs consequences.

Applying s. 197(2) of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the court held that costs normally follow the event on a partial indemnity basis.

While the creditor was successful in opposing the discharge, the court declined to award substantial indemnity costs and reduced the requested amount to $1,500 to avoid imposing an excessive financial burden that would undermine the debtor’s potential rehabilitation.

Determination of the trustee’s legal costs and expenses was deferred to the final discharge hearing and taxation of the trustee’s accounts.

A subcontractor sought payment under the Construction Lien Act for drilling and installing underground pipe and claimed extras relating to replacement of damaged pipe and investigation work.

The defendant contractor asserted a set-off, alleging the subcontractor negligently caused pipe damage during installation by continuing to pull the pipe despite encountering an obstruction.

The court held that the damage was reasonably foreseeable and that the subcontractor breached the subcontract by continuing the pull instead of investigating the obstruction.

The contractor did not waive its right of set-off by signing a repair extra, as the contract language did not clearly abrogate common law set-off rights.

After applying deductions and set-offs, the court found a reduced amount payable to the subcontractor and declared the construction lien expired because repair work does not extend lien rights.

Following a trial in a construction lien matter, the court determined the issues of costs and the disposition of cash security posted to vacate the liens.

The court declined to award costs to either party due to divided success and the conduct of the parties, including the plaintiff's deliberate preservation of expired lien rights and exaggerated claims.

The court also dismissed the plaintiff's request to have the cash security paid into court as a 'specific fund' under Rule 45.02, finding no evidence that the balance of convenience favoured the order.

The cash security was ordered returned to the defendant MJR.

Two subcontractors asserted construction lien claims arising from demolition and abatement work performed on a condominium project.

The owner argued the liens had expired because a certificate of substantial performance had been published following a transition agreement that purported to terminate the original contract and trigger the lien period.

The court held the certificate of substantial performance was invalid because the statutory conditions for substantial performance under the Construction Lien Act were not met and the agreement was inconsistent with the Act’s holdback regime.

The court further held the equipment supplier’s lien was preserved in time, as its rental contract had not been terminated and the supplier had not received the contractual notice required to end supply.

Both lien claims therefore remained valid and recoverable against the statutory holdback.

Following a construction lien trial in which the plaintiff contractor’s lien claim was dismissed and the defendants succeeded on a counterclaim for overpayment, the court addressed the issue of costs under the Construction Lien Act.

The owners sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $83,000, including a significant expert witness disbursement.

The court applied the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered complexity, success at trial, and the parties’ conduct.

The contractor argued there had been divided success and challenged the necessity of certain legal work and disbursements, but the court rejected these submissions.

Concluding that the owners were the successful parties and that their claimed costs were reasonable within the expectations of the litigation, the court awarded partial indemnity costs with a reduction to one expert report.

The plaintiff framing contractor brought three construction lien actions against the defendants arising from a joint venture to purchase, sever, and redevelop residential lots.

The court found that the plaintiff was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act and was owed $70,400 for its contract scope of work plus $21,824.43 for conceded extras.

However, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims for site supervision and other extras, finding they were part of the plaintiff's principal's obligations to the joint venture.

The court also held that the plaintiff's lien rights had expired before registration, as the work allegedly done within the 45-day period was not performed by the plaintiff.

The claims for lien were discharged and judgment was granted for breach of contract.

Following a reference determining entitlement to contract funds under the Construction Lien Act, the court addressed costs between the parties.

An added party supplier who succeeded at the trial of an issue sought substantial indemnity costs against the plaintiff lien claimant.

The court found the claimant engaged in misleading and reprehensible conduct, including misrepresenting contractual arrangements, misappropriating deposit funds, and pursuing a lien claim despite alternative dispute mechanisms.

Substantial indemnity costs were awarded to the successful supplier and partial indemnity costs were awarded to the contractor defendant against the claimant.

The court also confirmed distribution of funds paid into court and declared the plaintiff’s construction lien invalid.

Following a trial judgment under the Construction Lien Act where the plaintiff contractor succeeded on its lien claim, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The court considered the discretionary framework under s. 86 of the Construction Lien Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Although the claim amount was modest, the court found the estate defendant’s intransigence and failure to critically assess and resolve the claim significantly lengthened the litigation.

Proportionality concerns were rejected, and the court concluded the successful plaintiff should recover substantial indemnity costs for most of the proceeding.

Costs of $29,000 were awarded against the estate defendant and $4,000 jointly against the defaulting defendants.

A contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment for renovation work performed on a residential property.

The homeowners disputed the claim and counterclaimed alleging overpayment, asserting the work was subject to a guaranteed maximum budget.

The court found no enforceable contract existed because the parties never agreed on the essential term of price.

The contractor was nevertheless entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis for the reasonable value of services and materials supplied.

Accepting expert quantity‑surveying evidence, the court determined the fair value of the work was less than the amount already paid, resulting in dismissal of the contractor’s claim and a small award to the homeowners on their counterclaim.

The plaintiff, operating as Neptun Light, registered a construction lien claiming entitlement to $147,776.60 owed by the defendant contractor for the supply of lighting fixtures.

An added party, Neptun Distributors, also claimed entitlement to the funds, asserting it was the true contracting party.

The court held a trial of an issue to determine who contracted with the defendant.

Applying an objective standard for contract formation, the court found that the contract was formed between the defendant and Neptun Distributors, and that the plaintiff acted as an agent for Neptun Distributors.

The court directed that the funds be paid to Neptun Distributors.

A subcontractor commenced an action under the Construction Lien Act seeking payment for labour and materials supplied during a residential renovation project.

The defendants disputed the identity of the contracting party, the quantum of work performed, the propriety of the charges, and alleged deficiencies and improper termination.

The court found that the subcontractor company, not the individual worker, contracted with the foreman’s company and performed the work as claimed.

Allegations of deficient work and contractual termination were rejected, and the court held that payments could properly be allocated to other outstanding accounts.

The defence that the contract was void under the doctrine of ex turpi causa due to a cash arrangement intended to avoid HST was rejected.

Judgment was granted for the subcontractor for the amount of the lien and against the defaulting defendants.

The defendant moved for security for costs against a corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d), alleging there was good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

Although the court found evidence suggesting financial instability and concluded the moving party met the initial threshold and obtained leave under the Construction Lien Act, the motion ultimately failed.

The court held that the plaintiff had not met the high evidentiary burden to prove impecuniosity that would defeat the motion.

However, the defendant’s unexplained delay in bringing the motion, breach of case management directions, and the existence of substantial counterclaims arising from the same facts rendered an award of security for costs unjust.

The motion was therefore dismissed.