David Yehudy Dwoskin

The defendants brought a motion seeking a reduction of security paid into court under the Construction Lien Act.

Although the moving party sought a substantial reduction from approximately $2.69 million to about $347,000, the court found that the alleged over‑security was not demonstrated to that extent and reduced the security only to $1,931,227.

The motion therefore resulted in partial success for the defendants.

In determining costs, the court considered s. 86 of the Construction Lien Act together with Rule 57 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and noted the parties had collectively incurred over $120,000 in motion costs.

The court held that while the moving party was reasonably successful and entitled to costs, the scale should remain partial indemnity and fixed costs at $15,000 payable by the plaintiff.

The defendant owner brought a motion under s. 44(5) of the Construction Lien Act seeking to reduce the amount of security posted to vacate a construction lien.

The lien claimant had registered a lien exceeding $2.6 million, largely based on delay-related claims including additional labour, overtime, and extended duration costs.

The court held that security may be reduced where it is demonstrated that the maximum possible recovery under the lien is less than the registered amount, applying a test analogous to summary judgment but without determining contested factual disputes.

The court found portions of the delay claim either non‑lienable or clearly overstated and recalculated the amounts that could plausibly be recovered as lienable claims.

The security was reduced accordingly while preserving sufficient protection for potentially valid lien components.

Multiple motions arose in more than 45 construction lien actions concerning five related solar farm projects across Eastern Ontario.

The plaintiff sought transfer and consolidation of numerous lien actions, while the general contractor sought reduction of security posted to vacate liens under the Construction Lien Act.

The court declined full consolidation, instead designating “main actions” for each project and implementing procedural directions to coordinate litigation efficiently while avoiding administrative burdens associated with transferring and merging dozens of proceedings.

The court partially granted the motion to reduce security where duplicate or inflated lien claims were conceded, while adjourning the balance pending further negotiations and analysis of holdback exposure and overlapping claims.

During a telephone case conference, the court addressed scheduling and procedural matters relating to an upcoming motion and cross‑motion between multiple plaintiffs and a defendant acting in trust.

The court established timelines for confirming counsel’s availability, serving the defendant’s cross‑motion materials, and exchanging factums.

It also scheduled tentative hearing dates for the motion and cross‑motion and directed that argument be completed within one day.

The endorsement functions purely as a case management order facilitating the efficient progression of the litigation.

The defendant lawyer brought a summary judgment motion dismissing a negligence action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The plaintiffs alleged they intended to acquire a 50 percent ownership interest in a corporation but instead obtained only 49 percent, and argued the limitation period was delayed because they believed the lawyer would resolve the issue.

The court held the claim was discovered when the plaintiff became aware of the altered share structure and contemplated legal action, as evidenced by contemporaneous emails.

Statements discouraging litigation or attempts to resolve the matter did not prevent the limitation period from running.

The action commenced more than two years later was therefore barred.

The plaintiffs brought a motion seeking leave to amend their statement of claim, approval of a discovery plan, and an order permitting inspection of condominium units for expert examination under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court adjourned the request to amend the statement of claim to permit further revisions.

Although Rule 29.1 obligates parties to agree upon a discovery plan without court intervention, the court imposed a discovery plan due to longstanding acrimony, extensive delay, and the absence of completed discoveries in an action commenced in 2001.

The court also granted the plaintiffs authority under Rule 32.01 to have an expert inspect specified condominium units for by-law contraventions and changes of use.

No costs were awarded due to both parties’ failure to cooperate in establishing a discovery plan.