3 total
Unopposed construction dispute ended in joint liability for over $1 million damages.
At an unopposed trial arising from deficient residential renovation work, the court considered the effect of unanswered requests to admit and struck the statement of defence.
The court accepted deemed admissions to establish liability for breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraudulent misrepresentation, while declining to decide oppression-remedy standing because it was unnecessary to the monetary result.
The court held the defendants jointly and severally liable for proven damages of $1,046,438.14.
The court rejected the request for contractual 12% compound pre- and post-judgment interest and applied Courts of Justice Act interest rates.
Contractual limitation period for protesting a referee decision does not apply if the decision is released after the period expires.
The appellant Ministry of Transportation appealed a summary judgment dismissing its action against a contractor as statute-barred.
The parties' standard form construction contract required a notice of protest and alternative dispute resolution to be completed within two years of contract completion.
However, the referee's decision was not released until after this two-year period expired.
The Court of Appeal held that the motion judge erred in interpreting the contract; it is commercially absurd to require a party to protest a decision before it is released.
Because the contractual limitation period could not apply, the statutory two-year limitation period governed, and the appellant's action was commenced in time.
The appeal was allowed and the summary judgment set aside.
The court dismissed MTO's action for a refund of a referee's award because it missed the contractual limitation period.
The Minister of Transportation (MTO) sued J & P Leveque Bros.
Haulage Ltd. (Leveque) for approximately $1.8 million, representing a refund of a provisional award made by a Referee Panel under a construction contract.
Leveque brought a motion for summary judgment, arguing that MTO's claim was time-barred by a contractual limitation period within their business agreement, which supplanted the statutory limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.
The court agreed with Leveque, finding that the contractual limitation period was clear and applicable, and that MTO had failed to comply with its own contract's timelines.
The court dismissed MTO's arguments that Leveque caused the delay or that MTO should be granted relief from forfeiture.
