Associate Judge Charles G. T. Wiebe

Following a trial where the plaintiff successfully proved a construction lien and defeated the defendants' counterclaim, the court determined the costs and interest payable.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $225,504.45, while the defendants argued for $85,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $175,000 in substantial indemnity costs, citing the defendants' unreasonable conduct, misleading evidence, and failure to accept multiple generous offers to settle.

The court also awarded prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of 25%.

The moving party sought an order under Rule 39.03 to examine a non-party lawyer and accountant regarding an estate freeze transaction, and for the production of their files.

The responding parties opposed the examination and production of the lawyer's file on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that the responding parties implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading that they relied entirely on the moving party's misrepresentations when signing the estate freeze documents.

The motion was granted, and the non-parties were ordered to produce relevant documents and attend examinations.

The plaintiff demolition subcontractor brought a lien action for unpaid work, and the defendant general contractor counterclaimed for damages caused when the plaintiff severed an underground electrical duct bank, causing a power outage at a wastewater treatment plant.

The court found the plaintiff breached its subcontract and was negligent by failing to review drawings, obtain locates, and follow its own demolition plan.

However, the court also found the defendant 15% contributorily negligent for failing to communicate its knowledge of the duct bank to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's lien claim was offset against 85% of the defendant's damages, resulting in a net judgment payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the corporate plaintiff to post security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff conceded the defendants met their initial onus but argued it had sufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence of recent profits insufficient to prove it had exigible assets, noting its history of deficits and lack of hard assets.

The court granted the motion and ordered the plaintiff to post $50,000 in security for costs.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), arguing there was good reason to believe the plaintiff corporation had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The defendant relied on an unsatisfied foreign arbitral award and the plaintiff's delay in paying a previous costs order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the foreign award was likely statute-barred in Ontario and the payment of the previous costs order demonstrated an ability to pay, not an inability.

The court also noted the defendant's unexplained 28-month delay in bringing the motion would have been fatal regardless.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking $300,000 in total for the main action and a related counterclaim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had recently paid over $150,000 in outstanding costs orders, the related counterclaim did not seek the same relief, and the action was neither frivolous nor vexatious.

Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant homeowners for unpaid work and extras on a residential renovation project.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the project and performed defective work.

The court found that the defendants wrongfully repudiated the contract without justification, as the alleged deficiencies did not meet the high threshold required for termination.

The plaintiff was awarded $19,113.80 for the balance of the contract price and approved extras, less credits for unfinished work, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act to discharge a construction lien and dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff corporation registered a lien for emergency plumbing and water remediation work, but the evidence showed the defendants contracted with a differently named entity, not the plaintiff.

The court found no triable issue regarding the contract claim.

Furthermore, the court found the action was vexatious and an abuse of process, as the plaintiff's principal engaged in a pattern of deceptive tactics, including misrepresenting himself as capable of practicing law to pressure customers into paying excessive charges.

The claim for lien was discharged and the action dismissed.

Zurich, the surety for the insolvent general contractor Bondfield, brought a motion to intervene as a party in a construction lien reference.

Zurich sought to participate in a vetting committee for the distribution of the owner's holdback among the timely lien claimants.

The court granted the motion, finding that Zurich had a direct interest in the holdback because it had made significant holdback advances to the major electrical and mechanical trades and had taken partial assignments of their lien rights.

The court ordered the timely claimants to pay Zurich's costs of $30,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation on a pre-construction corner lot, claiming inadvertent cancellation of the purchase agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the plaintiff's claim to an interest in the land dubious, noting inordinate delay in bringing the motion, and concluding that the property was not unique and damages would be an adequate remedy.

The balance of convenience also favored the defendants, who had a pending sale to a third party.

The applicant corporation sought leave for its principal to represent it in a construction lien action, despite having legal counsel.

The respondents opposed, raising concerns about the principal's advocacy ability and seeking security for costs.

The court granted leave on the condition that the applicant post $56,000 as security for costs by a specified date.

The court found that while the principal's advocacy ability was a concern, it did not meet the "too high a threshold" for denial, but imposed the security for costs to "level the playing field" and ensure procedural fairness, given the existing security posted by the defendants in the construction lien context.

Failure to post the security would result in the claim and defence to counterclaim being stayed.

The defendants, Fowler Construction Company Limited and The Corporation of the City of Toronto, brought a motion under Rule 33.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to compel the plaintiff, Tennisha Pulford, to attend a defence neuropsychological examination.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion lacked evidence and sought to corroborate a deficient prior expert opinion.

The court granted the motion, emphasizing the principle of "trial fairness" and the need for "matching reports" from experts in the same specialty, particularly given the plaintiff's assertion of cognitive and neurological damage.

Despite a noted deficiency in the defendants' supporting evidence, the court found the need for the examination outweighed this, and that it would not delay the trial.

No costs were awarded due to the evidence deficiency.

The plaintiffs, a builder and his wife, claimed a construction lien and damages for breach of contract and delay against the defendant homeowners, who counterclaimed for deficiencies and uncompleted work.

The court found the construction contract was a fixed-price agreement, not cost-plus, and that the plaintiffs failed to prove entitlement to extras due to lack of written authorization as required by the contract.

The court allowed some of the defendants' back-charges for deficiencies and uncompleted work against a holdback.

It also found both parties equally responsible for project delays, awarding the plaintiffs a portion of their claimed delay damages.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs were awarded a net amount significantly less than their initial claim.

The defendants brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien, vacate the certificate of action, and dismiss the action.

The motion was based on four grounds: the oral contract was prohibited by the Statute of Frauds, lack of corroboration under the Evidence Act section 13, lack of certainty in the contract's essential elements, and no claim for unjust enrichment.

The court dismissed the motion, ruling that the Construction Act is a complete code for construction liens, allowing for oral contracts as an exception to the Statute of Frauds.

It also found that the Evidence Act section 13 did not apply as the action was not against the deceased's estate, the oral contract had sufficient certainty, and the unjust enrichment claim was an alternative remedy not subject to a section 47 motion.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to answer undertakings and refusals given during examinations in aid of execution, and to produce documents.

The court found that the plaintiff had established a sufficient connection between the individual defendants and various corporate entities and properties to justify the questions asked.

The court ordered the defendants to answer the outstanding questions, produce the requested documents, reattend examinations within 30 days, and pay costs for both the examinations and the motion.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the plaintiff corporation had insufficient assets in Ontario, resided outside Ontario, and brought a frivolous action.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendant failed to meet the initial onus of showing a good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets or resided outside the province.

The court also found the action was not obviously frivolous, as there was documentary evidence corroborating the plaintiff's claim of an oral profit-splitting agreement.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking to compel answers to discovery undertakings, leave to move on refusals after setting the action down for trial, leave to amend their statement of claim, and leave to serve a late jury notice.

The court denied leave to deliver a late jury notice, finding the delay of over two years unconscionable and that the defendants would be severely prejudiced, having conducted discoveries based on a judge-alone trial strategy.

The court also denied leave to bring motions after setting down for trial, finding no substantial or unexpected change in circumstances, but extended the set-down deadline.

Leave to amend the statement of claim was granted on the condition that it would not reopen pleadings for a jury notice.

The plaintiff, a trim carpenter, brought a construction lien and breach of contract action against the general contractor and the homeowner for unpaid work on a residential project.

The court found that the general contractor wrongfully repudiated the oral subcontract by failing to pay the plaintiff and denying him access to the site.

The court also found that the general contractor made a pre-contractual misrepresentation that formed a collateral warranty, causing the contract price to revert to its original higher amount when the condition was breached.

The plaintiff was awarded a lien of $16,225, for which both defendants were jointly and severally liable, and $7,200 in breach of contract damages against the general contractor.

This motion concerned compelling answers to outstanding undertakings, under advisements, and refusals from the defendants' discovery.

The applicants, Symtech and Kelson, sought documents related to delays caused by a bankrupt subcontractor (Blackrock), an insurance claim made by the defendants (Bird) on a "Subguard" policy, and acceleration change orders to other trades.

The defendants resisted on grounds of relevance and privilege.

The court ordered production of documents related to Blackrock delays, the Subguard claim, and acceleration change orders, finding them relevant.

However, the court upheld litigation and settlement privilege for Bird's internal assessments of Symtech and Kelson's claims, provided these privileged documents are itemized.

The lien claimant moved for default judgment in a lien action that included claims for breach of contract and breach of trust.

The motion was dismissed due to three primary reasons: improper joinder of the trust claim with the lien claim as per O. Reg. 302/18, section 3(2) of the Construction Act; lack of jurisdiction for an Associate Justice to declare the validity of a lien claim on a motion for default judgment without a judgment of reference; and insufficient evidence to support a personal judgment for breach of contract, as the statement of claim lacked particularity and the supporting affidavit lacked corroboration.

The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the motion to be brought back with further evidence or before a judge.