Associate Judge Charles G. T. Wiebe

The self-represented plaintiff moved for leave to amend his statement of claim to add several new causes of action and for further documentary production from the defendant bank.

The court denied most of the proposed amendments, finding them to be statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, or untenable based on prior court rulings.

However, the court allowed amendments related to bad faith referencing, intentional interference with economic relations, breach of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The court also ordered the defendant to produce certain documents related to the allowed claims, while denying production of other requested documents.

No costs were awarded due to divided success.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action for unpaid invoices relating to the installation of epoxy flooring at a commercial property.

The defendant owner counterclaimed for the cost of replacing the floor, alleging the contractor installed the wrong product and left deficiencies.

The court found that the owner fundamentally breached the contract by unilaterally ordering a stop to the work and hiring a replacement contractor without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to correct deficiencies.

Although the plaintiff had installed an unspecified, inferior epoxy product, this breach was rendered immaterial by the owner's prior repudiation.

The court awarded the plaintiff its unpaid invoices and extras, subject to a quantum meruit set-off for the cost difference between the specified and installed epoxy products.

The owner's counterclaim was dismissed.

The defendants brought a renewed motion for security for costs against the plaintiff corporation.

The court found that the plaintiff's financial statements, which showed consistent deficits and a lack of assets, provided good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay a potential costs award.

The court ordered the plaintiff to post $95,000 in security for costs, applying a rough justice apportionment to account for the defendants' counterclaim.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement after the defendant failed to pay the required interest on the settlement amount.

The settlement included a provision that failure to cure a default within 10 days would result in a consent judgment for the full original lien claim of $611,061.10, less any principal paid.

The defendant argued for relief from forfeiture, claiming the penalty was unconscionable.

The court rejected this argument, finding the consent judgment was not disproportionate to the original claim and that the defendant had not been taken advantage of.

The motion was granted, and judgment was ordered for the net amount of $286,061.10.

Following the dismissal of Multiplex's motions for a sealing order and pleading amendments, and the granting of its motion to examine a non-party under Rule 31.10, the court determined the costs of the motions.

The court awarded PGH $11,000 in partial indemnity costs for the dismissed motions, finding Multiplex's conduct was not reprehensible or wholly devoid of merit to justify substantial indemnity costs.

The court deferred the costs of the successful Rule 31.10 motion, ruling that the non-party's costs would be determined if he seeks reimbursement, and PGH's liability for Multiplex's costs would be determined in the cause of the underlying fraud allegations.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant general contractor after its subcontract was terminated.

The general contractor counterclaimed for completion costs and back-charges.

The court found that the subcontractor had repudiated the contract through excessive payment demands, a production slowdown, and uncorrected deficiencies, justifying the termination.

The subcontractor's claims were dismissed, and it was ordered to pay the general contractor $516,458.18 in damages for back-charges.

A sub-subcontractor was awarded $84,002.92 in basic holdback from the general contractor.

The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order requiring the defendants to respond to written requests for information pursuant to section 39 of the Construction Act.

The defendants argued that the requests were improperly served by fax and opposed costs.

The court validated the service by fax under Rule 16.08, finding the documents came to the defendants' notice, and ordered the defendants to provide the requested information and pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion.

The parties brought cross-motions in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff moved to strike paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim as frivolous and vexatious, arguing they pleaded irrelevant and prejudicial facts regarding a failure to assist in obtaining financing.

The defendant moved to compel answers to refused questions and production of documents from a section 40 cross-examination, and sought costs thrown away.

The Master dismissed the motion to strike, finding the pleaded facts were material to the alleged breach of contract.

The Master ordered the plaintiff to produce the requested costing documents, as the nature of the contract (fixed price vs. cost-plus) was in dispute, making the documents potentially relevant.

The request for costs thrown away was denied.

Multiplex Construction Canada Limited brought motions for a sealing order concerning fraud allegations made against it and its officers, and alternatively, to strike references to its officers from the respondent's amended pleading.

Multiplex also sought a Rule 31.10 examination for discovery of a non-party, George Colk.

The court denied the sealing order, finding that the commercial and reputational interests cited did not meet the public interest requirement of the necessity test.

The motion to strike parts of the pleading was also denied, as it improperly attacked the evidentiary basis rather than the pleading's sufficiency.

The Rule 31.10 examination of Mr. Colk was granted, with specific terms for its conduct, but his request for upfront costs was denied, to be determined post-examination.

The plaintiff, Johnvale Contracting Ltd., was awarded costs following a trial where it obtained judgment for $21,903.58 on a lien claim.

The court found the defendant, Zonte Investments Inc., did not act reasonably in response to offers to settle, particularly given the trial evidence.

Zonte's offers were consistently below the judgment amount, while Johnvale's lowest offer was only slightly above Zonte's last offer.

The court also considered Zonte's unsubstantiated allegations of fraud against Johnvale, which attract substantial indemnity costs.

Despite the costs exceeding the judgment amount, the court declined to reduce the award on proportionality grounds, emphasizing that a plaintiff should not be undercompensated for legitimately incurred costs.

The court adjusted the hourly rate for trial costs to be more reasonable.

The Defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the Plaintiff corporation, The Gatti Group Corp. (GGC), to post $124,913 as security for costs, pursuant to Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, alleging GGC lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

The court applied the two-step test for security for costs motions, focusing on the initial onus on the moving party to establish "good reason to believe" asset insufficiency beyond mere conjecture.

The court found that the Defendants failed to provide adequate evidence of GGC's asset insufficiency, as their arguments primarily focused on the merits of the case or presented dubious and outdated information.

Consequently, the motion for security for costs was denied without prejudice, allowing it to be brought again with further evidence.

A companion motion for undertakings and refusals was adjourned.

The Master rendered a costs decision following a trial in which the plaintiff, Almos Dezsi, had his claim dismissed, and the defendants, Angela Walker, Peter Walker, and Bank of Montreal, succeeded on their counterclaim for a significantly reduced amount.

The court considered factors such as self-representation, proportionality of success, offers to settle, complexity, reasonable expectations, and the conduct of both parties.

Despite being the successful party, the defendants were awarded $7,500 in partial indemnity costs, reflecting their modest recovery on the counterclaim (8.7% of the amount claimed) and their failure to make reasonable settlement offers.

The plaintiff contractor registered a construction lien and brought an action for unpaid invoices totaling $24,327.43 relating to a condominium renovation.

The defendant owner disputed the amount, claiming 19 specific discounts and back-charges for alleged deficiencies, unapproved extras, and incomplete work.

Following a summary trial, the court preferred the plaintiff's evidence, supported by contemporaneous logs, over the defendant's testimony.

The court allowed minor deductions totaling $2,423.85 (including HST) for unperformed electrical work, door changes, and code violations, but dismissed the majority of the defendant's claims.

The plaintiff was awarded $21,903.58.

Johnvale Contractors Ltd. brought an action to perfect a construction lien against Zonte Investments Inc. for renovation work on a condominium unit.

Zonte disputed the final invoice amount, claiming various discounts and back-charges.

The court conducted a summary trial, assessing the credibility of the principals of both parties and analyzing each disputed item.

The court largely sided with Johnvale, denying most of Zonte's claimed discounts, but allowed some credits and a back-charge for electrical code violations.

Johnvale's claim was reduced from $24,327.43 to $21,903.58.

A framing contractor, Almos Dezsi, brought an action to perfect a construction lien against homeowners Angela and Peter Walker for unpaid work.

The Walkers counterclaimed for damages due to alleged construction deficiencies, primarily excessive floor squeaking, and project delays.

The court found that the contractor fundamentally breached the contract by improperly installing joist hangers, causing significant floor squeaking, and by refusing to correct deficiencies without full payment.

While the contractor's lien claim was dismissed, the homeowners' damages were substantially reduced due to their failure to reasonably mitigate losses by not completing all necessary repairs when the house was still under construction.

The homeowners were awarded limited damages for specific deficiencies and interest on their posted security.

Powerline Plus Ltd. brought a motion for an order requiring Platinum Infrastructure Inc. to post security for Powerline's costs in the amount of $202,000.

Platinum opposed, arguing impecuniosity and merit.

The court granted leave for the motion under the Construction Act, finding Powerline established good reason to believe Platinum had insufficient assets, citing indicia of insolvency.

Platinum failed to prove impecuniosity or sufficient assets.

While Platinum showed a good chance of proving Powerline breached the subcontract, its claim quantum was inconsistent, and Powerline's set-off defence had some merit, though lacking cost evidence.

Considering Platinum's litigation conduct, which included unfair practices, the court ordered Platinum to post $100,000 in security for costs, payable in two installments.

The plaintiff, a law firm, moved for leave to amend its statement of claim to add a defendant and claims for a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) regarding a property.

The CPL was sought on the basis that a second mortgage granted by the defendant to her brother-in-law was a fraudulent conveyance or an unjust preference.

The court granted leave to amend the claim but denied the motion for a CPL, finding that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a "high probability" of fraudulent intent or unjust preference, as required when judgment has not yet been obtained.

The court found sufficient consideration for the mortgage and no clear evidence of insolvency or intent to defraud.

Vipond Inc. successfully moved for summary judgment and subsequently sought costs and interest.

The court determined that Bondfield Construction Company Limited and Fortis Electric Ltd. were jointly liable for partial indemnity non-motion costs, with Bondfield solely liable for substantial indemnity motion costs due to its unreasonable conduct and failure to accept a reasonable settlement offer.

The court also awarded prejudgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate of 0.8% and post-judgment interest at 3%, rejecting higher contractual rates due to lack of evidence.

ABCO brought a motion for the production of documents from an ongoing arbitration involving Pomerleau and the TTC.

After the motion was adjourned, ABCO abandoned it, citing timing issues for the upcoming trial.

Pomerleau sought costs thrown away on a full indemnity basis.

The Master found that ABCO's motion was brought too late, lacked sufficient evidence of necessity, and appeared to be a fishing expedition.

Pomerleau was awarded $12,000 in costs.

The plaintiffs sought leave to register a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) on a property, claiming an equitable interest based on resulting trust or an oral trust agreement.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no triable issue regarding the plaintiffs' claim to an interest in the property and that the equities did not favour granting the CPL.

The court found insufficient credible evidence to support either a gratuitous transfer for a resulting trust or the alleged oral trust agreement, noting inconsistencies in the plaintiffs' evidence and an adverse inference drawn from refusal to disclose electronic files.