The plaintiffs brought a motion relating to the implementation and costs of a court-ordered construction project designed to remedy drainage and property impacts caused by alterations to neighbouring land.
The court reviewed affidavits from engineers addressing cost increases associated with implementing the approved design plan.
It accepted evidence that increased costs arose primarily from unforeseen soil conditions and confirmed that construction costs had been properly segregated from litigation costs as previously ordered.
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated the reasons for the cost overruns and that the project had been completed despite interference by the defendant.
The motion was granted as requested, with payment directed to be held in trust for the contractor and engineer.
