Charles G. T. Wiebe

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 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.

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.

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.