F. Wong

The plaintiff structural steel subcontractor registered a construction lien and sued the general contractor and the owner for unpaid invoices and extras on a fixed-price contract.

The subcontractor had abandoned the project prior to completion due to non-payment.

The court found that the subcontractor breached the contract by walking away, as progress payments for the final phase were not yet due.

The subcontractor's claims for extras were largely dismissed because they were not approved in advance and lacked independent proof of value.

The owner's counterclaim for delay and inspection costs was partially allowed, while the general contractor's counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence.

The subcontractor and general contractor were found jointly and severally liable to the owner for delay and inspection costs, setting off the small amount allowed for one extra.

Following a trial under the Construction Lien Act, the successful lien claimant sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $107,000, or alternatively partial indemnity costs exceeding $71,000.

The court considered the factors under Rules 57.01, 49 and 1.04 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 86 of the Construction Lien Act, including the result achieved, proportionality, conduct of the parties, and reasonable expectations of the unsuccessful parties.

Although the successful party prevailed on most issues, the court found the time docketed and hourly rates claimed were excessive and disproportionate to the modest amounts in dispute.

The court also noted that the defendants’ conduct unnecessarily increased costs by pursuing trivial claims and taking unreasonable litigation positions.

Costs were fixed at a reduced partial indemnity amount reflecting fairness and proportionality.

A contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment for renovation and addition work performed on the defendants’ residence.

The owners counterclaimed for delay damages, alleged deficiencies, and damages for a grossly excessive lien under the Construction Lien Act, and also brought a third‑party claim against the contractor’s principal.

The court held that the contracting party was the plaintiff corporation despite the use of a different business name in the written contracts, and that the lien had been properly preserved and perfected.

The owners were found to have breached the contract by failing to pay the balance owing after completion of the work.

Although the owners established contractual delay damages, most alleged deficiencies were not proven or were outside the scope of the contract.

Judgment was granted to the contractor for the unpaid contract balance subject to a set‑off for delay.