Eric Andrew Francis Grigg

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.

At an unopposed trial arising from deficient residential renovation work, the court considered the effect of unanswered requests to admit and struck the statement of defence.

The court accepted deemed admissions to establish liability for breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation, while declining to decide oppression-remedy standing because it was unnecessary to the monetary result.

The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for proven damages of $1,046,438.14.

The court rejected the request for contractual 12% compound pre- and post-judgment interest and applied Courts of Justice Act interest rates.

The appellant Ministry of Transportation appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action against a contractor as statute-barred.

The parties' standard form construction contract required a notice of protest and alternative dispute resolution to be completed within two years of contract completion.

However, the referee's decision was not released until after this two-year period expired.

The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in interpreting the contract; it is commercially absurd to require a party to protest a decision before it is released.

Because the contractual limitation period could not apply, the statutory two-year limitation period governed, and the appellant's action was commenced in time.

The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment set aside.

The proposed intervenor, Keith Bannon, a former lawyer for the City of Windsor, sought leave under Rule 13.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to intervene as an added party in a pending motion.

This pending motion concerned the legal consequences of a prior decision that permanently stayed the City's counterclaim due to abuse of process related to undisclosed settlement agreements.

The court found that while Bannon might be adversely affected by the judgment due to potential professional negligence liability (satisfying Rule 13.01(1)(b)), his intervention would not offer a useful contribution and would cause undue delay and prejudice in what was an essentially private dispute.

The court emphasized that intervention in private lawsuits is granted "sparingly or rarely." Consequently, the motion for intervention was dismissed, and Bannon was ordered to pay costs to Southside Construction.

The court fixed costs following a successful motion by Southside Construction and the Architects to stay the City of Windsor's claims due to abuse of process.

The City had failed to immediately disclose complete terms of settlement agreements with third-party subtrades, which fundamentally altered the litigation landscape.

The court found the City's conduct egregious and awarded substantial indemnity costs to Southside and the Architects, emphasizing that such an elevated scale was appropriate to express judicial disapproval and deter similar future behaviour, though not egregious enough for full indemnity costs.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dated January 27, 2022.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The City of Windsor entered into confidential settlement agreements with eight third-party subcontractors, which included indemnities and assumption of liabilities, fundamentally altering the litigation landscape.

The City failed to immediately and fully disclose these agreements to the general contractor (Southside Construction) and the architects, despite multiple opportunities and court orders.

The court found this non-disclosure constituted an abuse of process, as it created a circularity in claims and prejudiced the non-settling parties by forcing them to incur significant costs to uncover the true nature of the agreements.

The appellant, Gordon Dunk Farms Ltd., appealed a summary judgment decision that found its action for negligence and breach of contract against the respondents (designers, contractors, and concrete workers) was statute-barred due to the expiration of the limitation period.

The action stemmed from the collapse of a hog barn.

The motion judge found that the appellant's principals knew or ought to have known the material facts constituting their claim by May 12, 2014, more than two years before the action was commenced on May 24, 2016.

The Court of Appeal affirmed that a "claim" under the Limitations Act, 2002, does not require knowledge of every specific act or omission, but rather sufficient facts to draw a plausible inference of liability.

The appeal was dismissed, confirming the action was statute-barred against all respondents.

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer questions refused or taken under advisement during examinations for discovery in a $20 million road construction dispute.

The central issue in the action is responsibility for excess rock excavation.

The court dismissed most of the defendants' requests, finding that questions about a 1994 litigation between the parties were irrelevant and that the plaintiffs' answers regarding their blasting subcontractor were sufficient and proportionate.

The plaintiffs were ordered to provide a written answer regarding how they would have bid the job differently only if their expert report provided sufficient data to do so.

A developer, 375 Lakeshore Developments Inc., sought a permanent injunction to enforce releases signed by homeowners (Tong Lin, Jing Ning, and Michael Watkinson) to prevent them from pursuing warranty claims with Tarion Warranty Corporation regarding cold temperatures on the ground floor of their new townhouses.

The homeowners had accepted a $1,200 cash settlement based on the developer's representation that the issue was an inadequate heating system.

Tarion later identified the problem as a major structural defect due to insufficient insulation, with estimated repair costs of $80,000-$100,000 per unit.

The court dismissed the application, finding the releases unenforceable under s. 13(6) of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, which prohibits contracting out of statutory warranties, and also rescinded the releases on the basis of innocent misrepresentation by the developer regarding the true cause and severity of the defect.

This appeal concerned the interpretation of complex, interrelated standard form agreements common in the road construction industry.

The Court of Appeal for Ontario affirmed the application judge's interpretation of these contractual provisions, finding no error in the lower court's reasoning.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

The court issued a procedural endorsement setting a timetable for the completion of pleadings, cross-examinations, and document production.

The court also scheduled a motion date to address issues including striking pleadings, duplicitous claims, and severing a third-party action.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion to transfer the plaintiff subcontractor's action from Toronto to Brampton.

The action related to a construction project in Mississauga, where both parties performed their work and where related actions were already being case managed.

The court found that the plaintiff's choice of Toronto had no meaningful connection to the dispute other than the location of plaintiff's counsel.

The motion was granted as Brampton was a significantly better and more reasonable venue.

In a derivative action, the defendants brought a motion seeking repayment of legal fees paid by the plaintiffs' representative, John Drake, and the establishment of a protocol for assessing future legal accounts.

The court dismissed the requests for repayment and the imposition of a trust, but established a detailed payment protocol requiring court approval for all future legal invoices rendered to the plaintiffs to ensure they are reasonably incurred.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff subcontractor's claim for the balance owing on a construction contract, while preserving their own counterclaim for delay damages.

The dispute arose from the construction of a water treatment plant, with the plaintiff alleging inaccurate schedules and specifications, and the defendants alleging the plaintiff failed to meet timelines.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that significant factual issues required determination at trial and it was inappropriate to decide the plaintiff's claim summarily while leaving the defendants' counterclaim for trial.

The applicant contractor sought judicial review of two decisions by the City of Toronto: a finding by the Fair Wage Office that it breached the Fair Wage Policy, and a subsequent City Council decision disqualifying it from City contracts for two years.

The Divisional Court granted the application and quashed both decisions, finding that the applicant was denied procedural fairness.

Specifically, the applicant was not provided with notice, disclosure, or the right to be heard before the Fair Wage Office made its breach determination.

The court declined to award damages, noting it lacked jurisdiction to do so on judicial review.

A non-party lawyer appealed an order requiring him to attend for examination as a witness in a motion pending before the Superior Court of Justice.

The lawyer was counsel of record for the City of Windsor.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the case management judge had properly applied the stringent test for ordering opposing counsel to be examined and had made no error warranting appellate intervention.

Rassaun Services Inc. (RSI) brought a motion to renew a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) against the Elgin Road property, which had been initially issued without notice.

The defendants opposed the renewal, arguing that RSI lacked a reasonable claim to an interest in the land.

The court found that RSI failed to establish a triable issue regarding its claim, as the evidence presented amounted to mere suspicion rather than proof of a proprietary interest or a statutory trust under the Construction Act.

The motion to renew the CPL was dismissed, and the CPL was discharged.

Costs were reserved to the motion judge presiding over the adjourned matter.

GF Machining Solutions LLC (GFMS) brought an application seeking judgment for unpaid invoices against Technicut Tool Inc. Technicut responded by commencing a separate action for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation, and then brought a motion to convert GFMS's application into an action and consolidate it with Technicut's claims as a counterclaim.

The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact and credibility requiring a trial, particularly concerning the scope of the service contracts, GFMS's performance, and Technicut's alleged damages and right of set-off.

The court granted Technicut's motion, converting GFMS's application into an action and directing Technicut's claims to proceed as a counterclaim within that newly constituted action, while staying Technicut's separate action.

The court also provided detailed procedural directions for the converted action.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff subcontractor in a construction dispute.

The plaintiff claimed $78,342.90 for unpaid work, while the defendant counterclaimed for $171,050.98 alleging deficient work and delay.

The court found there was good reason to believe the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay a costs award, as its financial evidence was outdated and all assets were encumbered by a general security agreement.

Applying a holistic approach, the court concluded it was just to order security for costs and directed the plaintiff to post $10,000 for steps up to the completion of discoveries.