D. Schmuck

The plaintiff subcontractor sued the defendant general contractor for unpaid invoices and extra work performed on a municipal renovation project.

The defendant refused to pay, alleging the plaintiff mismanaged the project, caused significant delays, and performed deficient work, and brought a counterclaim for costs to complete and rectify the work.

The court found the defendant's principal witness lacked credibility and that the defendant had orally approved the extra work, establishing a quantum meruit claim.

The court dismissed the counterclaim, finding no evidence of deficient work and noting the defendant failed to provide contractual notices of default.

The plaintiff was awarded $188,514.62 and its construction lien was declared valid.

Following the dismissal of the applicants' claim regarding a failed real estate transaction, the court received written submissions on costs.

The applicants argued each party should bear their own costs, while the respondents sought costs, noting the applicants' failure to accept a generous settlement offer that would have returned their deposit.

The court found the applicants' approach to the litigation patently unreasonable and awarded costs to the respondents.

After scrutinizing the respondents' bill of costs for potential overlap, the court fixed costs payable by the applicants at $27,500 inclusive of disbursements.

Metrolinx, the owner of a construction project, moved to post the agreed basic and notice holdback amounts into court to vacate several subtrade liens and have the actions against it dismissed.

The subtrades consented to the posting but argued Metrolinx should also be required to post security for prejudgment interest and pay their costs.

The Master held that holdback is a retention obligation, not a payment obligation, and therefore does not attract prejudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

However, the Master awarded partial indemnity costs to the subtrades, finding that Metrolinx unnecessarily lengthened the proceedings by aggressively defending the entirety of the subtrade claims instead of posting the holdback early in the litigation.

The defendant municipality brought a motion under Rule 31.11 seeking to read in discovery evidence of subcontractors in a construction dispute involving lien claimants.

After issuing reasons dismissing the motion, the court issued a supplementary endorsement addressing reply submissions that had not initially come to the judge’s attention due to an administrative issue.

The moving party argued that s. 15 of the Ontario Evidence Act permitted the use of discovery evidence of non-adverse parties against both subcontractors and the general contractor.

The court rejected that interpretation, holding that it would undermine the wording of Rule 31.11 limiting read‑ins to evidence against the adverse party.

The court accepted the reasoning in Cain v. Peterson as governing authority and affirmed dismissal of the motion.

The defendant municipality brought a motion seeking leave under Rule 31.11(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to read into evidence at trial excerpts from examinations for discovery of subcontractor lien claimants.

The motion arose in the context of a construction dispute and lien action concerning termination of a construction contract.

The responding party argued that discovery evidence given by one party cannot be read in against a different party in a multi‑party action.

The court held that the wording of Rule 31.11(1), specifically the use of the term “the adverse party,” restricts read‑in evidence to use against the party who provided it on discovery.

The motion was dismissed.