2 total
The court dismissed both a construction manager's lien claim and the homeowner's counterclaim for deficiencies due to mutual evidentiary failures.
A lien action concerning a residential construction project at 39 Craven Road, Toronto.
Village Homes Inc. was initially contracted to manage renovation work but the project expanded substantially beyond its original scope.
The parties disputed whether Village was a construction manager or general contractor, whether there was a fixed price contract change for extra work, and whether the contract was breached or repudiated.
The court found that Village abandoned the contract and failed to prove any amounts owing.
Ms. Connelly's counterclaim for deficiencies and completion costs was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
Both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed, and Village's lien was discharged.
A participant expert's evidence was partially struck where opinions on construction deficiencies were based on hearsay rather than personal observation.
This decision concerns a mid-trial motion in a construction lien action.
The plaintiff, Village Homes Inc., sought to strike portions of the affidavit and report of the defendant’s witness, Yu Ching Lai, regarding the presence of rebar and concrete in a disputed wall and observations of wall cracking.
The court found that Mr. Lai lacked personal knowledge regarding the rebar and concrete, as his evidence was based on hearsay from a video, and struck those portions.
However, the court allowed Mr. Lai to testify about his personal observations of wall cracking.
The ruling also addresses the parties’ discovery and production obligations, the scope of undertakings, and the admissibility of participant expert evidence.
