Fabio Soccol

The moving defendants brought motions to enforce settlement agreements dismissing two construction-related actions without costs.

The plaintiff opposed the motions, arguing the settlements were entered into due to misrepresentations, unconscionability, and misapprehension, and brought a cross-motion to join the actions to separate ongoing litigation.

The court found that a valid settlement was reached and rejected the plaintiff's arguments, noting that the alleged misrepresentations were based on double hearsay and the plaintiff was represented by capable counsel.

The court granted the motions to enforce the settlements and dismissed the cross-motion.

The defendant brought a motion seeking declarations that a 1999 construction lien judgment was unenforceable or satisfied.

The plaintiff had obtained a judgment and writ of possession for an environmentally contaminated property but never sold it.

Twenty years later, the defendant sold the property and sought to vacate the lien.

The court held that under the Limitations Act, 2002, there is no limitation period to enforce a court order, so the judgment remained valid.

However, the court found that the lien did not secure post-judgment interest, meaning the defendant had paid sufficient funds into court to vacate the lien.

The court also held that while the plaintiff was not required to sell the property, it had an obligation to account for any benefits received while in possession.

The defendant's claim for equitable set-off required a trial with viva voce evidence, and the doctrine of laches did not apply.

The parties brought cross-motions in a construction lien action.

The plaintiff moved to strike paragraphs of the defendant's Statement of Defence and Counterclaim as frivolous and vexatious, arguing they pleaded irrelevant and prejudicial facts regarding a failure to assist in obtaining financing.

The defendant moved to compel answers to refused questions and production of documents from a section 40 cross-examination, and sought costs thrown away.

The Master dismissed the motion to strike, finding the pleaded facts were material to the alleged breach of contract.

The Master ordered the plaintiff to produce the requested costing documents, as the nature of the contract (fixed price vs. cost-plus) was in dispute, making the documents potentially relevant.

The request for costs thrown away was denied.

The moving parties, construction lien creditors of the Mady Group of Companies, brought a motion seeking to lift a CCAA stay of proceedings, amend their statements of claim, and obtain a Mareva injunction against several individuals and corporations.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the moving parties failed to make full and fair disclosure, failed to establish a strong prima facie case of fraud or breach of trust, and provided no evidence of a risk of dissipation or removal of assets from the jurisdiction.