Faren Hillary Bogach

The applicant sought to be relieved of its obligation to pay interest at the contract rate of 11.2% on a prompt payment determination, arguing that its payment of funds into court as security stayed the interest clock.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, finding that the payment into court was merely security and did not vary the terms of the determination.

The court affirmed its jurisdiction to calculate the balance owing and ordered the applicant to pay the remaining interest accrued, less the income earned on the funds held in court.

Following the dismissal of its application, the applicant sought to make further submissions regarding recent amendments to the definition of 'written notice of lien' under the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court declined the request, finding that the amendments, which came into effect after the applicant's payment obligations arose, did not apply retrospectively.

The court also declined to provide general guidance on the new amendments, noting that such guidance should be reserved for cases where the issue is material to the result.

The applicant owner sought judicial review of an adjudicator's determination ordering it to pay the respondent contractor $685,574.91 under the prompt payment regime of the Construction Act.

The owner argued the adjudicator erred by rejecting its set-off claim for delay, misinterpreting notice holdback obligations, and conducting a procedurally unfair hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the adjudicator reasonably concluded the contract did not support the delay claim and correctly held that actual notice of registered liens does not trigger notice holdback obligations.

The court also found no procedural unfairness or reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of two determinations made by an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave and ordered the moving party to pay costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The plaintiff brought an unopposed motion for default judgment.

The court found that the plaintiff had not sufficiently complied with a prior order regarding personal service of the motion record and statement of claim, nor had they provided adequate evidence of efforts to locate and serve the defendants (e.g., title search, license plate searches, skip tracer).

The motion was dismissed without prejudice, with revised dates for renewal upon compliance with the service requirements.

The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's prompt payment determination under the Construction Act.

The Divisional Court adjourned the application because the applicant failed to serve notice on the Attorney General as required by s. 9(4) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.

The court also directed the applicant to serve notice on the Ontario Dispute Adjudication for Construction Contracts (ODACC) due to issues concerning jurisdiction, process, and the public release of adjudication decisions.

The applicant moved for a stay of a prompt payment adjudication order under the Construction Act requiring it to pay approximately $685,000 to the respondent, pending an application for judicial review.

The respondent consented to the stay on the condition that the full amount be paid into court.

The applicant argued against this condition, citing irreparable harm and balance of convenience.

The Divisional Court found that the applicant failed to establish irreparable harm if the money was paid into court, and the balance of convenience strongly favoured requiring payment into court.

The stay was granted on the condition that the applicant pay $700,000 into court.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's determination.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave and directed the parties to schedule a case management teleconference to establish a schedule and fix the questions for review.

Costs of the leave motion were fixed at $5,000, payable in the discretion of the review panel.

The moving party brought a motion to strike portions of an affidavit tendered by the responding party in support of its motion for leave to appeal an adjudicator's decision.

The court noted that the typical practice is to have motions to strike heard at the same time as the primary motion.

The court dismissed the motion without prejudice, granted the responding party leave to amend its affidavit, and set a revised timetable for the leave motion, leaving any remaining disputes about the affidavit's content to the leave panel.

The applicants, Gowing Contractors Ltd. and Zurich Insurance Company Ltd., brought a motion seeking further and better production from the defendants Walsh Construction Company Canada and Walsh Construction Co., and leave to amend their pleadings.

The court found that Walsh had overproduced irrelevant documents and failed to produce relevant documents concerning harassment/discrimination allegations and Walsh's delay claim against the City.

The court ordered Walsh to provide a better affidavit of documents, disclose search terms, and produce relevant documents, including those related to its delay claim against the City and its settlement, subject to the City's right to challenge.

Leave to amend pleadings was granted for breach of contract claims but denied for negligence claims and damages related to unrelated projects.

The court also awarded costs thrown away to the applicants due to Walsh's deficient production and late disclosure.

The plaintiff demolition subcontractor brought a lien action for unpaid work, and the defendant general contractor counterclaimed for damages caused when the plaintiff severed an underground electrical duct bank, causing a power outage at a wastewater treatment plant.

The court found the plaintiff breached its subcontract and was negligent by failing to review drawings, obtain locates, and follow its own demolition plan.

However, the court also found the defendant 15% contributorily negligent for failing to communicate its knowledge of the duct bank to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's lien claim was offset against 85% of the defendant's damages, resulting in a net judgment payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

This endorsement addresses the costs arising from successful summary judgment motions brought by the defendants, Jeffrey Lehman et al. and the Corporation of the City of Barrie, against Correct Building Corporation and Correct Group Inc. The court awarded substantial indemnity costs to the individual defendants, finding the claims against them frivolous, baseless, and an abuse of process.

Partial indemnity costs were awarded to the City of Barrie, with a reduction for an abandoned counterclaim and an unrecoverable disbursement for an unproduced expert report.

The total costs awarded were $1,066,412.62.

The defendants, Walsh Construction Company Canada and WCC Construction Canada, ULC o/a Walsh Canada, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Gowing Contractors Ltd., under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing Gowing lacked sufficient assets in Ontario.

Gowing opposed, asserting that significant unpaid holdback funds from completed subcontract work constituted sufficient assets.

The court dismissed Walsh's motion, finding that Walsh failed to meet the threshold onus of demonstrating Gowing's lack of assets.

The Associate Justice held that the holdback funds, even subject to Walsh's set-off claims, were properly considered an asset of Gowing, especially since Walsh had not sufficiently particularized or quantified their alleged set-offs beyond a certain amount, leaving an excess holdback amount that exceeded the requested security for costs.

The defendants brought a motion to compel answers to questions refused during the cross-examination of the plaintiff's principal on her affidavit, in advance of a pending security for costs motion.

The court granted leave for the refusals motion, finding it necessary to ensure procedural rights.

The court ordered the plaintiff to answer questions regarding its cessation of operations and the principal's relationship with a former employee, as these matters were raised in the affidavit.

However, the court dismissed the requests to compel answers regarding the plaintiff's assets, liabilities, banking records, the defendants' bill of costs, and human rights claims, finding them irrelevant or improper.

The plaintiff, a general contractor, commenced an action against the defendant mechanical subcontractor regarding a construction project.

The defendant had previously commenced a construction lien action which was referred to a Master for trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion on consent to refer this action to the same Master to be tried with or immediately following the lien action, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and inconsistent findings.

The court granted the consent order.

The plaintiff general contractor brought a motion to refer its action against a performance bond surety to a Master, to be tried alongside a related construction lien action commenced by a subcontractor.

The defendant surety consented to the relief.

The court granted the motion, finding that a joint trial before the Master was the most efficient procedure and would prevent inconsistent findings.

Schindler Elevator Corporation brought an action to perfect a construction lien for unpaid services and materials supplied for the installation of elevators at the Women's College Hospital redevelopment project.

The general contractor, Walsh Construction/Bondfield Partnership (WBP), counterclaimed for delay impact losses, liquidated damages, and indemnification for penalties, alleging Schindler's delayed performance critically impacted the project schedule.

The court found that while Schindler breached the subcontract by delayed performance, WBP failed to prove that Schindler's delays impacted the critical path of the project or caused the majority of the claimed damages.

Schindler was awarded judgment for the unpaid subcontract balance, less minor set-offs for direct impacts, and WBP's claims against Schindler and its surety, Zurich, were dismissed.

This decision addresses pre-trial motions brought by both Schindler Elevator Corporation and Walsh Construction Company of Canada, Bondfield Construction Company Limited, and Walsh Construction/Bondfield Partnership (collectively, WBP) concerning the admissibility of substantial affidavit evidence-in-chief tendered for trial.

Both parties raised numerous objections to statements in each other's affidavits, primarily on grounds of unqualified opinion, argument, legal conclusions, hearsay, speculation, and witness competency.

The Master ruled on these objections, striking various paragraphs or portions thereof and admitting others subject to weight, emphasizing that trial evidence must strictly comply with the rules of evidence, unlike evidence on motions or applications.

In a pre-trial motion regarding the admissibility of trial affidavit evidence, the moving party sought to strike the entirety of an affidavit.

The moving party argued the affidavit contained inadmissible, irrelevant, and opinion evidence without proper foundation.

The Master found that while the affiant had personal knowledge of certain communications, substantial portions of the affidavit lacked foundational knowledge or contained improper legal interpretation and argument.

The Master ordered specific paragraphs struck but admitted the remainder of the affidavit.

This decision addresses pre-trial motions brought by both Schindler Elevator Corporation and Walsh Construction Company of Canada, Bondfield Construction Company Limited, and Walsh Construction/Bondfield Partnership (collectively, WBP) concerning the admissibility of substantial affidavit evidence-in-chief tendered for trial.

Both parties raised numerous objections to statements in each other's affidavits, primarily on grounds of unqualified opinion, argument, legal conclusions, hearsay, speculation, and witness competency.

The Master ruled on these objections, striking various paragraphs or portions thereof and admitting others subject to weight, emphasizing that trial evidence must strictly comply with the rules of evidence, unlike evidence on motions or applications.