Master David H. Sandler

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's construction lien action for failure to pay a previous costs award.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to stay its own action and compel the defendant to participate in arbitration pursuant to their contract.

The court held that a master does not have jurisdiction to appoint an arbitrator under section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act, as that requires an application to a judge.

The court exercised its discretion under section 47 of the Construction Lien Act to dismiss the remaining contract action, noting it served no purpose after the lien was discharged.

The court also dismissed the action based on the plaintiff's failure to pay the prior costs award.

Following trial reasons in a construction contract dispute, the court determined costs and interest issues on written submissions.

Although the plaintiff recovered part of its claim and defeated most of the counterclaim, the court held success was divided and exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

The court rejected arguments that the proceeding should have been transferred to Small Claims Court, largely because of the size of the counterclaim and the complexity of the matter.

The court also confirmed the presumptive prejudgment interest rate of 3.3% under the Courts of Justice Act and declined to average quarterly rates downward.

Following a trial in a construction contract dispute where the plaintiff recovered approximately 33% of its claim, the parties made written submissions on costs and pre-judgment interest.

The plaintiff sought partial indemnity costs, while the defendant argued for no costs, asserting the matter should have been brought in Small Claims Court.

The Master confirmed the preliminary ruling of no order as to costs due to divided success, finding that the plaintiff could not have transferred the action to Small Claims Court because of the defendant's $50,000 counterclaim.

The Master also confirmed the pre-judgment interest rate at the presumptive statutory rate of 3.3%.

Following reasons disposing of a motion in a construction lien action, the court was required to quantify the costs payable by the unsuccessful lien claimant.

The moving parties sought partial indemnity costs after succeeding on a motion involving issues including whether the lien should be discharged under s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act.

Applying s. 86(1) of the Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the reasonableness of the claimed fees, disbursements, and settlement offer.

The court fixed costs at a reduced amount and declined to order personal liability for costs against individuals associated with the plaintiff corporation because the evidentiary record was insufficient at this stage to meet the legal test for non‑party costs.

The defendant homeowners brought a motion to discharge a construction lien and dismiss the action after the plaintiff's representative failed to meaningfully participate in two scheduled cross-examinations.

The court found significant issues regarding whether the plaintiff corporation was the actual contracting party, as the homeowners believed they contracted with an individual.

Given the abortive cross-examinations and the procedural complexities that would arise under the Construction Lien Act to resolve the corporate identity and counterclaim issues, the court exercised its discretion under s. 47(1) to discharge the lien and dismiss the entire action, without prejudice to the parties starting fresh non-lien actions.

Costs thrown away were awarded to the defendants.

A contractor sued a homeowner for the unpaid balance on a residential renovation contract, while the homeowner counterclaimed for disputed extras, incomplete work, and deficient workmanship.

The court, on a Rule 54 reference, held that the parties had agreed to progress payments tied to the value of work completed and that the homeowner fundamentally breached the contract by refusing any further payment and refusing to negotiate a reasonable compromise despite work having substantial value beyond amounts already paid.

The court conducted a detailed item-by-item review of disputed extras and credits, fixed the proper contract-plus-extras amount, and deducted credits for incomplete work and a further allowance for deficiencies.

Judgment was effectively awarded to the contractor for the net balance of $12,267.45 plus pre-judgment interest, with costs reserved and a preliminary view of no costs because of divided success.