Pelican Woodcliff

Insite Construction Management Inc. (applicant) brought a motion to compel Ambient Mechanical Ltd. (respondent) to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, arguing that Ambient had refused to produce documents relevant to project costing in a lien action.

Ambient contended that all relevant documents had been disclosed, the requested documents were irrelevant based on the pleadings, and the request was overly broad.

The court dismissed Insite's motion, finding that the project costs were not relevant given the current pleadings, which primarily focused on whether Insite performed any work at all.

The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Insite to revisit the production request if relevance is established through examinations for discovery.

Ambient was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiffs sued the defendant architectural firm for negligent misrepresentation regarding the construction costs of a stacked townhouse project.

The defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the 'entire agreement' exclusion clause in their contract precluded the plaintiffs from suing based on pre-contractual representations.

The court found that the exclusion clause applied to the alleged misrepresentations and that it was not unconscionable to enforce it.

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the action.