3 total
Plaintiff awarded $145,878.62 in costs after successfully defeating defendant's complex summary judgment motion.
The defendant brought an unsuccessful motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's multi-million dollar construction delay claim.
The court determined that the summary judgment motion was a bold and risky tactical strategy in a complex case where a trial was inevitable.
The plaintiff was awarded partial indemnity costs for the main summary judgment motion and the related leave motion, while the defendant was awarded costs for a successful production motion, resulting in a net costs award of $145,878.62 payable to the plaintiff.
Summary judgment to dismiss a construction delay claim for lack of strict contractual notice was denied.
The defendant general contractor brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff subcontractor's $11.1 million delay claim, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide strict contractual notice of the delay.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant had actual notice and that strict compliance was not required given the surrounding circumstances.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues of notice, credibility regarding backdated letters, and the complex factual matrix of the construction delay raised genuine issues requiring a full trial.
The Master granted a general contractor leave under the Construction Lien Act to bring a partial summary judgment motion.
The general contractor, Brookfield, sought leave under section 67 of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion for partial summary judgment.
The motion aimed to strike the delay portion of the subcontractor Limen JV's lien claim, alleging failure to provide proper notice of delay as required by contract.
Limen JV opposed, arguing that complex factual and credibility issues necessitated a full trial and that a partial summary judgment motion would cause delay.
The Master granted leave, finding that the proposed motion would likely expedite the resolution of the dispute by narrowing the issues for trial, particularly regarding the notice of delay claim, and was consistent with the Hryniuk objectives for summary judgment.
