Donald E. Short

The appellants, construction lien claimants, appealed a decision holding that the proceeds of a court-approved asset sale by a company under CCAA protection did not constitute trust funds under ss. 7 and 9 of the Construction Lien Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeals, finding that the statutory prerequisites for a trust were not met, as the sale proceeds were not 'received by' or 'in the hands of' the owner, but were instead paid to a court-appointed monitor and stood in substitution for the company's fully secured assets.

The appellant appealed a judgment of the Divisional Court regarding a matter under the Construction Lien Act.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, agreeing substantially with the reasons of the Divisional Court, and awarded costs of $8,000 to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a trial judgment granting specific performance with an abatement of the purchase price for an income property.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant had not accepted the respondent's request for an abatement as a repudiation of the contract.

The Court upheld the trial judge's findings that the property was unique, the abatement was properly valued at $281,000, and the error in expenses, which reduced the purchase price by 10%, constituted a breach of a condition.

The appellant appealed an order determining two questions of law on a Rule 21 motion before trial.

The underlying action involved a claim for $10,000,000 in damages for a failed roof at Terminal 3 of Pearson International Airport.

The respondents sought to determine whether a $250,000 limitation of liability clause in the architect's contract affected their claims for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the legal issues were novel, complex, and required a full factual record, making them inappropriate for determination on a Rule 21 motion.

The appellant appealed a Rule 21 motion decision that determined complex legal questions regarding contribution and indemnity under section 1 of the Negligence Act in the context of a contractual limitation of liability.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the motions judge's order, finding that the novel and complex legal issues required a full factual record and should not have been determined before trial.