C. Tan

The defendants brought a motion under Rule 56.01(1)(d) seeking an order that the plaintiff, a not-for-profit family health team, post $500,000 as security for costs.

The plaintiff opposed the motion on the basis of impecuniosity, having ceased operations after its sole source of funding was terminated.

The court found that the plaintiff was impecunious and that its claim for misappropriation of funds was not devoid of merit, relying on two forensic audit reports.

The court concluded it would be unjust to order security for costs and dismissed the motion, awarding costs to the plaintiff.

The defendant was substantially successful on a motion to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien and dismiss the primary causes of action.

The defendant sought substantial indemnity costs of $31,817.06, arguing a pre-motion letter constituted an offer to settle.

The court found the letter was merely a demand, not an offer to settle, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

After considering the divided success on some arguments and the complexity of the motion, the court fixed costs payable by the plaintiff to the defendant at $20,000 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The defendant moved to discharge the plaintiff's construction lien, vacate registrations, and dismiss the action, or alternatively for security for costs.

The plaintiff claimed it was the general contractor via an unwritten equitable assignment from the original contractor.

The court found no triable issue regarding the validity of the assignment, meaning the plaintiff was a subcontractor whose lien rights had expired.

The court discharged the lien and dismissed the breach of contract and breach of trust claims, but allowed the unjust enrichment and quantum meruit claims to proceed.

The motion for security for costs was dismissed as the defendant failed to prove the plaintiff lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion to compel the defendant general contractor to answer questions refused and provide further answers to undertakings given during an examination for discovery.

The underlying action involved a construction dispute over project delays and the termination of the plaintiff's subcontract.

The court first struck several paragraphs from the plaintiff's supporting affidavit for containing improper legal argument.

On the substantive discovery issues, the court ordered the defendant to answer the majority of the outstanding undertakings and refusals, including producing unredacted copies of requests for information (RFI) logs and progress certificates, finding them relevant to the issues of delay and payment.