D. Meirovici

Competing motions were brought to vary a Mareva injunction to permit access to frozen funds for legal expenses.

The plaintiffs sought $1.5 million from a frozen bank account in their name, while the defendants sought $534,000 from other frozen assets.

The court reviewed the legal test governing access to funds subject to a Mareva injunction and held that the test for defendants seeking release of funds did not apply in the same way when plaintiffs sought access to funds they claimed to own.

The court found the plaintiffs had established a sufficient proprietary interest in the account but exercised discretion to limit access due to credibility concerns and the procedural history of multiple collateral proceedings.

Partial funding was granted to both sides to permit fair participation in the litigation.

Competing motions were brought to vary a Mareva injunction to permit access to frozen funds for legal expenses.

The plaintiffs sought $1.5 million from a frozen bank account in their name, while the defendants sought $534,000 from other frozen assets.

The court reviewed the legal test governing access to funds subject to a Mareva injunction and held that the test for defendants seeking release of funds did not apply in the same way when plaintiffs sought access to funds they claimed to own.

The court found the plaintiffs had established a sufficient proprietary interest in the account but exercised discretion to limit access due to credibility concerns and the procedural history of multiple collateral proceedings.

Partial funding was granted to both sides to permit fair participation in the litigation.

Following a trial under the Construction Lien Act, the successful contractor sought substantial indemnity costs after obtaining judgment for unpaid construction work and successfully defending a counterclaim.

The court considered factors under Rules 49 and 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, including settlement offers, proportionality, the complexity of the proceeding, and litigation conduct.

The contractor did not achieve a result better than its Rule 49 offer to settle and therefore was not entitled to substantial indemnity costs.

The court nevertheless found the contractor overwhelmingly successful and awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale.

Costs were fixed at $108,943.67 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

A contractor commenced an action to recover payment under a fixed-price construction contract after leaving a renovation project when the owner refused to pay a milestone invoice.

The owner counterclaimed for completion costs, deficiencies, delay, and lost rental income.

The court held that the owner’s design changes altered the sequence of work and made the contractual milestone conditions impossible to satisfy, giving rise to an obligation to renegotiate milestone payments in good faith.

By refusing to negotiate or make any interim payment after the contractor completed the mezzanine stage, the owner repudiated the contract.

The contractor was entitled to quantum meruit compensation for services and materials supplied, allowable extras, overhead and profit, and lost profit on the remaining contract work.

Claims for delay, lost rental income, and most deficiencies were rejected, and the construction lien was held to have been preserved and perfected in time.