Douglas Loucks

The parties resolved a motion regarding a late response to a Request to Admit on consent, leaving only the issue of costs to be decided.

The plaintiff had refused to consent to a short extension of time after the defendants' counsel inadvertently missed the deadline.

The court found that the plaintiff's refusal to consent to a reasonable extension request unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings, especially since the plaintiff had failed to obtain the required leave under the Construction Lien Act before serving the Request to Admit.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

Following a summary judgment decision awarding damages for conversion, the plaintiff requested clarification regarding unresolved claims for unjust enrichment and punitive damages.

The court held that the unjust enrichment claim had been pleaded only as an alternative to conversion and therefore did not require adjudication once conversion was established.

The court acknowledged that the prior reasons failed to address the punitive damages claim and considered it in this supplementary endorsement.

It concluded that the defendants’ conduct did not meet the exceptional threshold required for punitive damages.

The claim for punitive damages was therefore dismissed.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant property owner and new general contractor for the tort of conversion.

After the original general contractor became insolvent, the plaintiff sought to remove its custom-built equipment from the construction site.

The defendants refused access, claiming the equipment had been paid for under the original contract.

The court found that title to the equipment never passed to the defendants and their refusal to allow the plaintiff to retrieve it constituted conversion.

Summary judgment was granted and damages were awarded based on the defendants' previous counter-offer to purchase the equipment.

The applicants obtained a $1.5 million judgment against the respondent and sought to enforce a $350,000 mortgage he had placed on a property to secure the debt.

The respondent held the property as an estate trustee for his mother's estate, with himself and his two brothers as equal beneficiaries.

One brother brought a counter-application claiming sole ownership of the property based on an oral agreement with their late mother.

The court dismissed the counter-application, finding the oral agreement void under the Statute of Frauds and that the property interests had vested in the three brothers.

The court held the mortgage was valid but only enforceable against the respondent's one-third interest in the property, and granted the applicants the right to seek partition and sale.