Gary Gibbs

The moving parties, professional engineers and engineering firms involved in the design and construction of the Nipigon River Bridge, brought a motion to stay disciplinary proceedings against them on the basis of delay.

The Discipline Committee found that the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario (PEO) was responsible for approximately 36 months of inordinate delay in its investigation.

However, the Committee dismissed the motion, concluding that the moving parties failed to establish significant prejudice that would compromise hearing fairness or amount to an abuse of process.

The Committee further held that the public interest in holding a hearing on the merits regarding the failure of major public infrastructure outweighed any disrepute caused by the delay.

The plaintiff brought a motion for detailed particulars of the defendants' statement of defence, arguing they were necessary to file a reply.

The underlying action involved allegations of negligence and breach of contract regarding a severance application and home design.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested particulars were evidentiary in nature and should be elicited during examinations for discovery, rather than being necessary for the plaintiff to understand the issues or plead appropriately.

The Member and his engineering firm pled guilty to professional misconduct for signing and sealing deficient mechanical, electrical, and fire safety drawings for a proposed hotel and retail building.

The Discipline Committee accepted a joint submission on penalty, which included the revocation of the Member's licence and Certificate of Authorization, suspended on the condition that the Member resign, surrender his Certificate, and never reapply.

The Committee ordered the decision to be published with names, finding that the penalty amounted to a revocation triggering mandatory publication under the Professional Engineers Act, and that publication was in the public interest.

The member and his engineering firm faced discipline for professional misconduct related to the structural design and post-construction review of a post and beam house.

The member admitted to preparing deficient structural drawings that failed to comply with the Ontario Building Code and to issuing a false review letter stating that periodic site reviews had been conducted when they had not.

The Discipline Committee accepted an Agreed Statement of Facts and a Joint Submission as to Penalty, finding the member guilty of professional misconduct.

The panel ordered a reprimand, publication of the decision without names, and a requirement for the member to successfully complete the Professional Practice Examination within 14 months, failing which his licence would be suspended.

The moving party sought leave to amend its pleading in a construction deficiencies action arising from a condominium conversion project, including adding a structural engineering firm as a new defendant and pleading economic loss based on dangerous defects.

The court held that, even assuming a Bird-type pure economic loss claim was available, the proposed claim against the new defendant was discoverable at least by the time the original statement of claim was issued, and was therefore barred by the two-year limitation period under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The later expert report did not postpone discoverability, as certainty and a comprehensive understanding of the claim were not required.

Leave to add the proposed defendant was refused, while other unopposed or consented amendments were allowed.

A former director and investor brought a motion for summary judgment alleging negligent misrepresentation by corporate directors, the chief financial officer, and an engineering consultant arising from a private placement investment that later became worthless after the corporation entered receivership.

The plaintiff alleged misrepresentations concerning reserve reports, a bank borrowing base notice, and the intended use of proceeds of the financing.

The court held that many alleged representations were made to the plaintiff in his capacity as a director rather than as an investor, raising significant duty of care issues and rendering reliance problematic.

The court also found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether misrepresentations occurred, whether they were negligent, and whether reliance was established.

In addition, most claims were found to be statute‑barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed a Rule 21 motion decision that determined complex legal questions regarding contribution and indemnity under section 1 of the Negligence Act in the context of a contractual limitation of liability.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the motions judge's order, finding that the novel and complex legal issues required a full factual record and should not have been determined before trial.

The appellant appealed an order determining two questions of law on a Rule 21 motion before trial.

The underlying action involved a claim for $10,000,000 in damages for a failed roof at Terminal 3 of Pearson International Airport.

The respondents sought to determine whether a $250,000 limitation of liability clause in the architect's contract affected their claims for contribution and indemnity under the Negligence Act.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the legal issues were novel, complex, and required a full factual record, making them inappropriate for determination on a Rule 21 motion.