D. Melamed

The plaintiff architect brought a construction lien action for unpaid fees against the defendant developer of a high-rise condominium.

The developer counterclaimed for delay and impact damages, alleging the architect failed to coordinate consultant drawings and made design errors.

The court found the architect's coordination duty was limited to cooperating with other consultants, not managing them.

The architect met the professional standard of care and validly suspended services for non-payment.

The court awarded the architect $55,906.54 for agreed base services but dismissed claims for unapproved extras.

The developer's counterclaim was dismissed entirely.

The defendant, Great Lakes Nickel Limited (GLN), brought a motion to vary three previous orders and release $900,000 paid into court back to GLN.

GLN argued that following a partial summary judgment decision, it could no longer be found liable for damages.

The plaintiffs opposed, arguing the fraudulent conveyance action against GLN was still active and the funds were necessary to satisfy a potential judgment.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the foundation for the orders remained because the fraudulent conveyance claim was ongoing and the funds were GLN's only asset.

The moving party, Onespace Unlimited Inc., brought a motion to strike portions of a reply affidavit sworn by the responding party's principal witness in advance of a summary trial.

The moving party argued the impugned statements contained improper argument, opinion evidence from a lay witness, and legal conclusions.

The court granted the motion in part, striking statements that constituted improper argument or unqualified expert opinion, while retaining statements that were factual observations or inextricably tied to the witness's overall impressions.

On a motion to change a 2011 consent order governing custody, residence, and child support under the Children’s Law Reform Act and Family Law Act, the father alleged the mother acted in bad faith by interfering with his relationship with the children and sought sole custody with primary residence in Ontario.

The children had moved with the mother to California pursuant to the consent order while Ontario retained jurisdiction.

After an eight‑day trial, the court found no bad faith by the mother and concluded the father failed to establish that transferring the children’s residence was in their best interests.

However, material changes in circumstances justified revisiting decision‑making authority and financial arrangements.

The court awarded the mother sole custody while maintaining the existing residence and access schedule, reduced the father’s table child support based on income excluding certain capital gains, and imposed limits on section 7 expenses.