Evan Ivkovic

The decision addresses a motion by Gowing Contractors Ltd. and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd. to strike the statement of defence of Walsh Construction Company Canada and Walsh Construction Co., and to stay related actions, on the basis that Walsh failed to immediately disclose a settlement with the City of Toronto in a related action.

The court found that the settlement did not entirely change the litigation landscape of the actions involving Gowing and Zurich, and therefore the immediate disclosure doctrine did not apply.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff, Northbridge General Insurance Company, a surety, brought a motion for default judgment against the defendants, PSA Construction Inc., PSA Holdings Inc., Paul Andrews, and Kimberly Andrews, who were indemnitors under indemnity agreements.

Northbridge had issued performance and labour and material bonds with PSA Construction as principal and made payments due to PSA's default on construction contracts.

The defendants failed to defend the proceeding and were noted in default.

The court granted judgment in favour of Northbridge, finding liability based on the deemed admissions in the Statement of Claim and awarding damages for past claims paid and for current and estimated future claims, including legal expenses, as per the indemnity agreements.

In a bankruptcy proposal proceeding, the fourth mortgagee brought a motion for a vesting order to purchase the debtor's property, while a competing purchaser brought a cross-motion to set aside a previous vesting order on the basis of lack of notice.

The court found that the competing purchaser had been unfairly deprived of notice and the opportunity to participate in the hearing.

The court terminated all previous agreements of purchase and sale and ordered a new confidential bidding process to ensure fairness.

The applicant sought an urgent interlocutory injunction or leave to issue a Certificate of Pending Litigation (CPL) to prevent the respondents from selling or encumbering a jointly owned commercial property.

The parties were in a joint venture that had deteriorated, leading to a mortgage default.

The respondents acquired the mortgage debt through a related company and intended to sell the property under power of sale.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the dispute was fundamentally about money and realizing on an investment, not a unique interest in land, and that damages would be an adequate remedy.