Stephen Blaney

The appellant developer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision ordering Tarion Warranty Corporation to pay $1,736,271.23 to the respondent condominium corporation for major structural defects in an underground parking garage.

The appellant argued the Tribunal erred in finding a major structural defect, improperly extended the seven-year warranty, failed to find the claims were released, and improperly awarded damages for portions of the garage owned by others.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the Tribunal's assessment of the expert evidence, contractual interpretation, or damages award, noting that the garage was a fully integrated structure requiring comprehensive repair.

The Kriesers appealed a trial judgment that dismissed their claims for construction deficiencies and breach of fiduciary duty, and granted judgment to the respondents for outstanding invoices.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's determination that the Kriesers breached the contract by withholding payments, which disentitled them to warranty claims, and that there was insufficient evidence for the remaining deficiency claims.

The court also upheld the finding that no fiduciary relationship existed between the parties, and affirmed the trial judge's cost award.

The appellant condominium corporation appealed a decision by Tarion Warranty Corporation denying its claim for major structural defect (MSD) warranty coverage for its underground parking garage.

The builder argued the claim was barred by previous settlement agreements.

The Tribunal found the previous agreements only applied to first and second-year warranty claims and did not release future MSD claims.

On the merits, the Tribunal preferred the evidence of the appellant's structural engineers and found that the builder's failure to install continuous expansion joints throughout the structure and the use of defective concrete resulting in delamination constituted a major structural defect under the function test.

The Tribunal ordered Tarion to pay the appellant $1,565,313.43 for the cost of repairs to the garage.

The Kriesers sued Gregory Evan Seligman and his companies (G.E.S. Construction Limited, Greenstone Gardens Inc., etc.) for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of good faith, punitive damages, trespass, and intimidation related to the construction of a luxury custom home.

The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid accounts.

The court found that the Kriesers breached the construction and landscaping contracts by failing to make timely and sufficient payments.

All claims brought by the Kriesers were dismissed, and the counterclaims by G.E.S. Construction Limited and Greenstone Gardens Inc. for outstanding amounts were granted.

The builder sued the homeowners for unpaid amounts on a residential construction project.

The homeowners counterclaimed for construction deficiencies and incomplete work, and also sued the municipality for negligent building inspection.

The court found that the parties had an oral contract and that the builder did not breach it by leaving the project when the homeowners stopped paying.

The court dismissed the homeowners' claims for major structural deficiencies, finding the expert evidence of the builder more reliable.

The court also dismissed the negligence claim against the municipality, finding it met the standard of reasonable care.

The homeowners were ordered to pay the builder $558,095.52 for the unpaid balance of the contract and extras, less credits for incomplete work.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment in an occupiers' liability claim arising from the plaintiff's fall at their shopping plaza.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding whether the defendants breached their duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act.

Expert evidence indicated the curb was ordinary, in good repair, clearly visible, and complied with applicable standards.

The court concluded that the curb did not pose an unreasonable risk and that the defendants had discharged their duty.

Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the plaintiff's action was dismissed.

Costs were awarded to the defendants on a partial indemnity basis.

Homeowners brought a claim against a swimming pool installer for breach of contract regarding the installation of a pool and concrete patio that developed significant cracks due to inadequate base material and insufficient control joints.

The court found the installer liable for breach of express and implied warranties, rejecting the installer's reliance on exclusion clauses because the onerous terms were not brought to the homeowners' attention.

Damages were awarded for patio replacement, driveway repair, and other deficiencies.

The installer's counterclaim for extras and its third-party claim against the concrete supplier were dismissed.

The plaintiff brought an action against his neighbour for nuisance, negligence, and strict liability, alleging that the neighbour's dumping of thousands of truckloads of fill, alteration of drainage, and failure to maintain a culvert caused extensive and continuous flooding on the plaintiff's property.

The court found the defendant liable under all three causes of action, noting the defendant's conduct was high-handed and reprehensible.

The court awarded the plaintiff $250,000 for loss of use and enjoyment, $15,000 for property damage, and $125,000 in punitive damages.

The court also issued a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to rectify the drainage issues and dismissed the defendant's counterclaims as utterly without merit.

A contractor sought payment for remedial road repairs following settlement of municipal sewer trench backfill completed under contract with a municipality.

The contractor alleged the work was extra to the contract and alternatively claimed compensation on a quantum meruit or unjust enrichment basis, asserting that native soil specified for backfill was too wet to compact properly.

The municipality maintained that settlement resulted from insufficient compaction at the lower levels of the trench and that the contractor was contractually responsible for remediation at no additional cost.

The court accepted expert evidence that settlement was caused by poorly compacted backfill and found the contractor failed to prove unsuitable soil or any oral agreement for additional compensation.

The court held the remedial work was required due to deficiencies in the contractor’s work.