David Farace

The Plaintiffs, unit owners in a retirement home development, brought a motion to add additional parties as defendants and amend their Statement of Claim.

They alleged that the original defendant, Pensio Property Management Group Inc., defaulted on rental income guarantees and, along with proposed individual defendants and Rentalis Insurance Company, Inc., made fraudulent misrepresentations.

They also sought to add Tripemco Insurance Group Limited, the broker, for negligence.

The court granted the motion, finding that the proposed amendments properly pleaded causes of action and that joinder of all parties was appropriate, promoting the convenient administration of justice despite arguments of prematurity.

The plaintiff, 1778133 Ontario Inc. (RMI), brought a motion seeking leave to correct the defendant's name and amend its Statement of Claim to include allegations of improper backcharges, tender misrepresentations, and contractual interest on overdue amounts.

The defendant, Laurin Contracting Ltd., consented to the name correction but opposed the other amendments, arguing they introduced new causes of action outside the two-year limitation period.

The court granted leave to amend for the backcharges and misrepresentations, finding they merely clarified existing claims or provided further particulars based on the original factual matrix.

However, the amendment for contractual interest on overdue accounts was denied, as it constituted a new cause of action that was statute-barred, having been discovered outside the limitation period.

The plaintiff supplier brought a motion for summary judgment against the owner and the principal of the contractor for unpaid invoices.

The contractor had terminated its contract with the owner, and the owner signed a termination agreement promising to pay the contractor's outstanding obligations to specific suppliers, including the plaintiff.

The court found that the owner was directly liable to the plaintiff under the principled exception to the privity of contract doctrine.

The court also found that the principal's personal guarantee was not released because the release was contingent on the owner paying the invoices.

Summary judgment was granted against the owner and the principal.