Ciara L. Pittam

The creditor brought a motion for an order compelling the garnishee to pay the outstanding judgment amount, arguing strict liability under Rule 60.08(17) due to the garnishee's failure to file a garnishee's statement and make full payment.

The garnishee contended that Rule 60.08(17) remained discretionary and asserted a right to set-off against the debtors due to alleged overpayment on another project and the debtors' insolvency.

The court found Rule 60.08(17) to be discretionary, ordered the immediate payment of a portion of the holdback funds ($35,006), and suspended the payment of the remaining judgment balance ($131,949) pending a determination in a related construction lien proceeding.

The Crown sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario from a judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice concerning findings on due diligence and penalty reduction in regulatory offence charges under the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The motion for leave was dismissed as the proposed grounds of appeal did not meet the high bar under s. 131 of the Provincial Offences Act.

The court found that the alleged errors involved the misapplication of well-established legal principles rather than issues requiring the Court of Appeal's guidance on statutory interpretation or general legal principles.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of "energized exposed parts of electrical equipment" under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.

O.1, specifically O. Reg. 213/91, ss. 184(1) and 190(4), following a worker's arc flash injury on a construction project.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario found that the appeal judge erred in her interpretation of s. 190(4), concluding that the actus reus for that offence was established, as the provision applies when work entails exposing ordinarily energized parts.

However, the Court upheld the acquittals for s. 184(1), finding the Crown failed to prove the temporal link between exposed parts and uncontrolled room access.

The Court also accepted a concession regarding the s. 187 due diligence defence.

The matter was remitted for determination of due diligence and sentence appeals for ss. 190(4) and 187.

Following a trial regarding a construction lien for a roof installation, the plaintiff sought $47,167.40 in partial indemnity costs.

The defendant argued for no costs or a nominal amount due to divided success.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and section 86 of the Construction Lien Act, noting the disproportionate legal fees incurred by both sides relative to the $6,000 net judgment.

Balancing the plaintiff's overall success against the defendant's success on the counterclaim and the principle of proportionality, the court awarded the plaintiff $18,000 in all-inclusive partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action for the unpaid balance of a metal roof installation contract, plus an alleged oral contract for extra work.

The defendant homeowner counterclaimed for damages, alleging extensive negligence and breach of contract in the roof's installation.

The court found the contractor substantially completed the work and dismissed the claim for the oral extra.

The court found minor functional and cosmetic deficiencies, awarding the homeowner $4,000 in damages to be set off against the $10,000 contract balance, resulting in a net payment of $6,000 to the contractor.