E. Bisceglia

In two related actions arising from a construction dispute, the Concord Parties moved to stay the Varone Parties' breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act upon payment into court of the admitted claim amount.

The Varone Parties brought a cross-motion to withhold disclosure and production of certain documents until a threshold issue regarding the nature of the services agreement was determined.

The court granted the stay, finding that the trust claims would be moot once fully secured by the payment into court, and that a stay would result in material efficiencies without causing injustice.

The court dismissed the discovery motion, concluding that the threshold issue was not clearly severable from the other claims, including fraud and conspiracy, and that the Varone Parties would not suffer serious prejudice from full disclosure.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to refusals arising from cross-examinations on affidavits filed by the defendant in support of her pending anti-SLAPP motion.

The underlying action involves claims of defamation and misfeasance in public office against a municipal councillor.

The court applied the test for relevance on a motion, balancing the scope of the anti-SLAPP motion with the principle of proportionality.

The court ordered the defendant to answer certain narrowed questions regarding her communications with third parties and the police, but dismissed overbroad requests and upheld solicitor-client privilege regarding a non-party lawyer's communications.

The parties entered into Minutes of Settlement secured by a consent to judgment for $39,000.

The defendant defaulted after paying $1,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion for judgment on the consent.

The court granted the motion, ordering judgment for the remaining $38,000 plus $320 in costs.

The plaintiff brought a motion to remove the defendants' law firm from the record due to a conflict of interest.

The law firm had previously represented the plaintiff in labour and employment matters, during which it received confidential information relevant to the current litigation involving alleged employee poaching by the defendants.

The court found that the law firm received relevant confidential information, the matters were sufficiently related, and the confidentiality screens implemented were inadequate.

The motion to remove the law firm was granted to preserve public confidence in the administration of justice.

Following a trial and supplementary motion where the respondent was substantially successful, the court determined the quantum and scale of costs.

The respondent had made a Rule 49 offer to settle that was more favourable than the judgment obtained.

Applying the principles of Rule 49 and the Boucher factors, the court awarded the respondent costs on a partial indemnity basis up to the date of the offer, and on a substantial indemnity basis thereafter, fixed at $108,348.46 inclusive of HST and disbursements.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duty and misrepresentation related to a failed real estate development project.

The plaintiff sought rescission of the contract and recovery of his $500,000 investment.

The defendants argued that the claims were statute-barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, and raised genuine issues regarding the existence of a fiduciary duty, the cause of the project's failure, and the calculation of damages.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that there were multiple genuine issues requiring a trial, including the nature of the relationship between the parties, the state of the defendants' knowledge, and the limitation period.

Following the successful dismissal of a motion to approve a settlement agreement in CCAA proceedings, the successful lien claimants sought costs against the applicants, Tarion, and the applicants' shareholder.

The court declined to award costs against Tarion because the lien claimants failed to provide adequate prior notice of their intention to seek costs against it.

However, the court awarded costs against the applicants' estate, reasoning that the estate and its creditors benefited from the lien claimants' successful opposition, which preserved security funds.

Costs were fixed at $35,000 total on a partial indemnity basis, payable only to the extent the applicants actually receive the benefit of the security.

Following an 11-week construction lien trial where the plaintiff recovered $254,464 after set-off, the plaintiff sought over $1.2 million in costs and disbursements.

The plaintiff had made a Rule 49 offer to settle for $217,000, which the defendants rejected.

The court assessed the reasonableness and proportionality of the costs, noting that while the costs far exceeded the recovery, applying a strict results-based proportionality would be unfair given the defendants' refusal to settle and the consequences of Rule 49.

The court reduced several expert disbursements but awarded the plaintiff total costs of $758,421.20.

A subcontractor brought a construction lien action and breach of contract claim against the general contractor arising from delays and termination on a warehouse construction project.

The court found the project experienced substantial delay caused by permitting issues, weather, design problems, owner‑driven restrictions on consultant access, and sequencing failures not attributable to the subcontractor.

The general contractor terminated the subcontractor after it temporarily demobilized while awaiting workable site conditions; the court held the termination was unlawful and did not constitute abandonment or repudiation.

The subcontractor was entitled to unpaid contract funds and compensation for delay‑related labour overruns and overhead costs, while the contractor received limited credits for specific deficiencies including conduit remediation and wire replacement.

The contractor’s counterclaim for completion costs largely failed because the termination prevented the subcontractor from finishing its work.

At a commercial list case conference in complex multi-party litigation involving disputed financial transactions, the court addressed case management issues relating to discovery planning.

The parties agreed to a joint litigation and discovery plan aimed at identifying disputed transactions and clarifying the parties’ positions.

The court ordered that all undertakings arising from examinations for discovery be answered within 60 days and expressed reluctance to schedule refusals motions, noting they often add little value and that adverse inferences may be drawn at trial where proper questions are refused.

The matter was scheduled for a further case conference to assess the potential for mediation and estimate trial length.

The moving defendants sought an order striking portions of the plaintiffs’ responses to a demand for particulars and requiring further particulars of negligence allegations pleaded in the statement of claim.

The court held that the original pleading of negligence was bald and inadequate, but the plaintiffs’ subsequent responses to the demand for particulars provided sufficient detail to allow the defendants to plead and proceed to discovery.

While the responses used open-ended language that could potentially permit additional allegations, the court found that this risk could be managed through discovery and case management directions.

The court declined to strike the pleading or require further particulars, emphasizing the need to move the long-standing action forward.

The plaintiff drywall contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant homeowner for unpaid work and extras on a custom home project.

The parties disputed the contract price, whether certain work constituted extras, alleged cash payments, and back-charges for incomplete work and mold remediation.

The court found the defendant fundamentally breached the contract by failing to pay and denying the plaintiff access to the site.

The court awarded the plaintiff $78,262.50 plus partial GST, allowing some claims for extras while crediting the defendant for incomplete work, and dismissed the defendant's claims regarding cash payments and mold remediation.

Following a motion and cross-motion that resulted in mixed success for both parties, the court invited written costs submissions.

The moving party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $11,000, while the responding party sought approximately $8,800 or alternatively no order as to costs.

The court observed that the motion prompted the parties to moderate their positions and engage in compromise.

Taking into account the mixed success and proportionality considerations, the court exercised its discretion to fix a lump sum costs award payable to the moving party.

The plaintiff brought a productions motion in a contractual dispute concerning a 2007 central financing agreement.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant breached the agreement due to pressure from GM dealers and sought production of documents relating to a proposed Consillium financing structure, GM dealer meeting records, internal credit policies, and redacted communications.

The court found several categories of documents relevant to the pleaded theory and ordered production of documents concerning the creation of Consillium and internal policy materials, including menus of credit policy titles.

The defendant was also required to request relevant records from a dealers’ association and provide sufficient descriptions for documents claimed as privileged.

The motion and cross‑motion resulted in mixed success, with further costs submissions invited.