3 total
Motion to add general contractor to Condominium Act application and consolidate proceedings dismissed.
The respondents, the declarant and project manager of a condominium, brought a motion to add the general contractor, Man-Shield, as a party to an application brought by the condominium corporation seeking as-built drawings under the Condominium Act, 1998.
Alternatively, the respondents sought to consolidate the application with a related construction deficiency action.
The court dismissed the motion to add the general contractor, finding no cause of action against it under the Act, which imposes obligations solely on the declarant.
The court also dismissed the motion to consolidate, finding the issues distinct and noting that consolidation would unnecessarily complicate the proceedings and prejudice other parties.
Motion to release construction lien security dismissed as premature pending conclusion of private arbitration.
The defendants moved for the release of cash posted into court as security to vacate a construction lien under s. 44 of the Construction Lien Act.
The parties were engaged in a private arbitration to resolve their disputes, and the arbitrator had issued a partial award but deferred the determination of costs and counterclaims until the conclusion of the arbitration.
The Superior Court dismissed the motion as premature, finding that competing claims against the security remained unresolved and that releasing funds before the arbitration concluded would be prejudicial.
Off-reserve bank accounts holding federal funding for Indian bands are not exempt from garnishment.
The appellant Indian band received federal funding under a Comprehensive Funding Arrangement (CFA), which was deposited into an off-reserve bank account.
The respondent creditor sought to garnish these funds to satisfy a consent judgment.
The band argued the funds were exempt from seizure under ss. 89 and 90(1)(b) of the Indian Act.
The Supreme Court of Canada held that the funds were not physically situated on a reserve under s. 89, rejecting a notional situs test.
Furthermore, the Court held that the word 'agreement' in s. 90(1)(b) is limited to agreements that flesh out treaty obligations.
Because the band failed to prove the CFA funds were ancillary to a treaty, the funds were not deemed to be situated on a reserve and were subject to garnishment.
