Associate Judge Charles G. T. Wiebe

The defendants brought a motion seeking orders for the plaintiff to undergo two medical examinations—one by an orthopedic surgeon and one by a neurologist.

The court considered whether these examinations were necessary for trial fairness or duplicative of prior assessments.

The court found that the requested examinations were not duplicative and were necessary to ensure fairness, and ordered them to proceed.

The court declined to order the plaintiff to pay a cancellation fee for a missed appointment due to her chronic pain, but awarded the defendants costs of the motion.

This decision determines the costs of a successful motion brought by the defendant, 485 Logan Developments Inc., to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired.

The court found that the plaintiff had engaged in 'bootstrapping' by performing minor work solely to fabricate a new lien period after the original had expired.

Under section 86(1) of the Construction Act, such abusive conduct justified an award of substantial indemnity costs.

Consequently, the court ordered the plaintiff to pay the defendant $45,000 in substantial indemnity costs within 45 days.

The court considered a motion by 485 Logan Developments Inc. to declare a construction lien registered by Accurate General Contracting Ltd. expired for failure to preserve and perfect the lien in time.

The court found that Accurate’s alleged post-completion work did not extend the lien period, characterizing it as “bootstrapping.” The lien was declared expired, the action dismissed, and damages for the lien bond premium were awarded to Logan.

The decision addresses a motion by Gowing Contractors Ltd. and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. to strike the statement of defence of Walsh Construction Company Canada and Walsh Construction Co., and to stay related actions, on the basis that Walsh failed to immediately disclose a settlement with the City of Toronto in a related action.

The court found that the settlement did not entirely change the litigation landscape of the actions involving Gowing and Zurich, and therefore the immediate disclosure doctrine did not apply.

The motion was dismissed.

The defendant, 485 Logan Developments Inc., brought a motion under section 44(5)(b) of the Construction Act to reduce the security it posted for a claim for lien registered by the plaintiff, Maple Drywall Inc., relating to a stacked condominium project.

The court found a genuine issue of fact as to whether an "overage" amount was part of the contract price and thus properly included in the lien, but determined that 30% of the overage was not owed, requiring a reduction in posted security.

The court also awarded damages to Logan for excessive interest paid on the lien bond and partial indemnity costs to Maple, reflecting the parties' relative success and conduct.

The defendant, Mohammed Ghandehari, brought a motion for security for costs and for an order requiring the plaintiff, Gobinath Papiah, to attend an in-person defence medical examination in Toronto, with the plaintiff to pay his own travel and accommodation expenses.

The court dismissed the motion for security for costs due to the defendant's delay in bringing the motion and the fact that India is a reciprocating jurisdiction for costs orders.

The court ordered the in-person medical examination but required the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s reasonable costs of attending.

The plaintiff was awarded $1,500 in costs for the motion.

This decision concerns the allocation of costs and prejudgment interest following a construction lien action.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs to the plaintiff, Zagros Homes Development Inc., against Cando 1 Construction Inc., and substantial indemnity costs to the Owners (Ernest Mbenkum and Alliance Lipenja) against both Zagros and Cando.

The court also exercised its discretion to award prejudgment interest at 2.5% per annum, higher than the statutory rate, due to market conditions.

The decision clarifies the approach to costs where parties have not succeeded against all defendants and addresses the application of prejudgment interest rates in the post-pandemic context.

This costs decision follows a motion by Capitalplus Development Group Ltd. to discharge a claim for lien registered by 2698368 Ontario Inc. The court found that 269 did not have a lien and ordered the return of security posted by Capitalplus, but dismissed the remainder of the motion.

On costs, the court awarded Capitalplus $25,000 in substantial indemnity costs, to be paid jointly and severally by 269 and its principal, Yang Yu, within thirty days.

The court found Ms. Yang’s conduct in registering the lien to be reprehensible and determined that the corporate veil should be pierced to impose personal liability.

The court discounted the costs award due to Capitalplus’s partial lack of success on the motion.

The court considered a motion by Goldentrust Development Inc. for leave to have its principal, Peng Zhang, represent the corporation in ongoing litigation.

The motion was opposed by the defendants, Zhiming Chen and Yi Niao Li.

The court reviewed the history of the litigation, the requirements for corporate representation by non-lawyers, and the evidence of Goldentrust’s financial circumstances.

The court denied the motion, finding that Goldentrust failed to prove impecuniosity and that Mr. Zhang’s conduct and evidence did not support granting leave for non-lawyer representation.

The court also addressed costs and set a process for further submissions if the parties could not agree.

The defendant, Fancamp Exploration Ltd., brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of defence in a contract dispute with Fouad Kamaleddine and FFK Consulting Services Inc. The motion was opposed by the plaintiffs due to its lateness, being brought two weeks before the pretrial and eleven weeks before trial.

The court reviewed the proposed amendments and found that, except for a new unconscionability defence introduced at the last minute, the amendments would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the plaintiffs.

The court granted leave to amend except for the last sentence of new paragraph 39, which introduced the unconscionability defence.

No costs were awarded due to the defendant's delay and partial success.

The defendant, Capitalplus Development Group Ltd., brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act to discharge a claim for lien registered by 2698368 Ontario Inc. on the title to 105 Angus Drive, Toronto.

The court found that 2698368 Ontario Inc. was an "owner" within the meaning of the Act, not a contractor, and therefore could not claim a lien.

The court ordered the return of posted security to Capitalplus and dismissed the remainder of the motion, but allowed 2698368 Ontario Inc. to proceed with its breach of contract claim for renovation costs.

The court considered a claim for lien and breach of contract by Zagros Homes Development Inc. against the owners and construction manager/general contractor of a residential construction project.

The court found that Zagros had a valid subcontract with Cando 1 Construction Inc., that Cando breached the contract by terminating it and hiring the sub-subcontractor directly, and that Zagros was entitled to damages for unpaid work.

However, the court found that Zagros failed to prove the timeliness of its lien claim, and thus the lien was declared expired and vacated.

The plaintiff brought a motion to restore a motor vehicle accident lawsuit to the trial list, while the defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay.

The court found that although there was a significant delay of nearly ten years since the statement of claim was issued, the active delay was primarily caused by the defendants and court administration issues rather than the plaintiff.

Additionally, the court determined that the defendants failed to demonstrate any non-compensable prejudice that would prevent a fair trial.

Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action and dismissed the defendants' motion to dismiss for delay.

The defendant, Corey Sean Libfeld, brought a motion seeking a stay of the action or, alternatively, to prohibit the plaintiff, Pittsburgh Steel Group (PSG), from adducing certain evidence on the basis that PSG’s principal, Zoran Radonjic, violated the deemed undertaking rule by filing documents obtained in discovery with a complaint to the Professional Engineers Ontario (PEO).

The court found a violation of the rule but declined to stay the action, instead prohibiting PSG from adducing specific evidence and ordering costs as a deterrent.

The court considered a motion by the defendants (the Owners) for security for costs in a construction lien action.

The Owners argued that the plaintiff, Backyard XP Inc., was a shell company with insufficient assets to pay costs if unsuccessful.

The court found that the Owners met the threshold for security for costs and ordered Backyard to post $25,000, staggered in two tranches.

The court also addressed the impact of a counterclaim and apportioned the security accordingly.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the Owners, proportionate to their success.

The plaintiff, Continental Homes Inc., sought costs following a trial where it was awarded $23,279.50 in lien and breach of contract damages, and successfully defeated the defendants' $63,516.77 set-off and counterclaim.

The court considered the plaintiff's limited success (14% of claimed damages), the plaintiff's reasonable offers to settle, and the conduct of both parties, including the plaintiff's significant delay in filing costs outlines and the defendants' counsel's violation of page limits.

The court awarded the plaintiff $20,000 in partial indemnity costs and clarified the correct prejudgment interest rate and commencement date for the damages awarded.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for inordinate and inexcusable delay and non-compliance with court orders.

The action, stemming from a 2011 motor vehicle accident, had seen significant periods of inactivity and the plaintiff failed to comply with discovery undertakings and production orders.

Despite the plaintiff finally retaining counsel, the court found no adequate explanation for the 10-year delay and that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the defendant would not be prejudiced, especially in light of the recent Barbiero v. Pollack decision.

The motion to dismiss was granted.

This case involved a construction contract dispute where the plaintiff, Continental Homes Inc., sued the defendants, 2646576 Ontario Inc. (owner) and 8682470 Canada Inc. o/a Chang Xin Construction (general contractor), for breach of contract and a claim for lien.

The defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract.

The court found that an enforceable subcontract existed between Continental and Chang.

The court determined that Chang fundamentally breached the subcontract by failing to pay the required deposit and wrongfully terminating the contract.

The defendants' alleged delays by Continental were found to be the fault of the defendants due to delays in obtaining locates and surveys.

The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim and awarded Continental $23,279.50 in damages for breach of contract and confirmed its lien for the same amount, to be paid from the cash security.

Continental's claim for lost profit and business opportunities was denied due to lack of evidence.

The plaintiffs sought leave to amend their statement of claim to add a new defendant and, controversially, to add a claim of deceit against CBRE Limited, the vendor's agent.

The court granted the uncontested amendments but dismissed the proposed deceit claim against CBRE.

The court found the deceit claim was not properly pleaded, lacking the full particulars required by Rule 25.06(8) for allegations of fraud or misrepresentation.

The allegations were deemed insufficient to establish deceit without specific details of false representations, knowledge, intent, reliance, and resulting loss.

The court emphasized the seriousness of a deceit allegation, especially against a realtor, and the need for strict pleading standards.

Costs were awarded to CBRE Limited.

The court rendered a costs and interest decision following a trial where the plaintiff's (BBD) claim for lien was discharged and its action dismissed, while the defendants (TRN) were awarded damages on their counterclaim.

The court addressed the defendants' costs claim, their offer to settle under Rule 49, and prejudgment interest.

The court found the mandatory aspects of Rule 49.10 inapplicable due to the Construction Act's broad discretion on costs.

It also criticized the defendants' conduct regarding costs outlines and the landlord's (264) conduct regarding document production.

Ultimately, the court awarded TRN $25,000 in partial indemnity costs from BBD, and no costs between BBD and 264, along with prejudgment interest on the damages awarded to TRN.