The plaintiff general contractor moved for summary judgment to dismiss the defendant City's set-off defences.
The City's counterclaim had previously been permanently stayed due to an abuse of process for failing to disclose settlement agreements with third-party subtrades.
The City subsequently amended its defence to plead both legal and equitable set-off based on the same allegations.
The court granted the motion, finding that legal set-off was unavailable because the City's claims were for unliquidated damages rather than debts.
The court also dismissed the equitable set-off defence, holding that it would be manifestly unjust to allow the City to resurrect claims through a set-off defence that had been permanently stayed for abuse of process.
