Gary Kuzyk

The builder sued the homeowners for unpaid amounts on a residential construction project.

The homeowners counterclaimed for construction deficiencies and incomplete work, and also sued the municipality for negligent building inspection.

The court found that the parties had an oral contract and that the builder did not breach it by leaving the project when the homeowners stopped paying.

The court dismissed the homeowners' claims for major structural deficiencies, finding the expert evidence of the builder more reliable.

The court also dismissed the negligence claim against the municipality, finding it met the standard of reasonable care.

The homeowners were ordered to pay the builder $558,095.52 for the unpaid balance of the contract and extras, less credits for incomplete work.

The plaintiffs in a construction defect action brought a mid-trial motion for leave to file additional and supplemental expert reports.

The plaintiffs sought to introduce a new structural engineering expert to address an allegation of bias raised against their original expert shortly before trial, and to file a supplemental report addressing newly discovered cracks.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that granting leave would cause undue delay and prejudice to the defendants, who would not have sufficient time to obtain responding reports before the trial resumed.

The court also noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking leave.

This costs endorsement followed a decision on two motions.

The respondent, Linda Jean Leliever, unsuccessfully moved to strike the applicant's claim for an accounting under Rule 14.09, which the court found was an inappropriate attempt to use a summary judgment procedure in an application.

The applicant, Paul Stephen Stefanchuk, successfully moved to amend pleadings, a motion that should have been consented to.

The applicant was entirely successful on both motions.

The court awarded the applicant partial indemnity costs, fixed at $20,095, payable by Linda Jean Leliever within 90 days, finding that while Leliever's motion was ill-advised, it was not improper enough to warrant full indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sought continuation of an ex parte interim injunction and a permanent injunction to prevent nearby blasting associated with residential construction, alleging vibrations would disrupt the alignment of satellite earth stations used for communications services.

The court applied the standard requiring a very strong probability of grave future harm before granting injunctive relief.

Expert evidence from the defendants indicated an extremely low probability of damage under the blasting plan, while the plaintiff’s evidence was largely speculative and lacked detailed technical analysis.

The court concluded the plaintiff failed to establish a strong probability of harm on the balance of probabilities.

The motion to continue the injunction was therefore dismissed.

The appellant operated an adult entertainment parlour.

The City of Hamilton revoked the appellant's licence for failing to actively carry on business within a reasonable time.

The appellant sought judicial review, arguing a denial of procedural fairness because the City failed to provide proper disclosure of the grounds for revocation as required by its own by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the City's failure to provide proper notice and disclosure tainted the hearing from the outset and denied the appellant its right to a fair hearing.

The revocation was quashed and the licence reinstated.

The appellant municipality appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent contractor damages for breach of contract related to a sewer construction project.

The appellant argued the contract required concrete casing and the respondent bid using steel at its peril.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the appellant had advised steel was acceptable and accepted the bid on that basis.

The respondent's cross-appeal for punitive damages was also dismissed.

The applicant union sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision regarding a job posting following municipal amalgamation.

The Divisional Court held that the arbitrator erred in interpreting s. 33(3) of the Public Sector Labour Relations Transition Act, 1997, as that section only applies after notice to bargain a first collective agreement has been given.

The court found that the incumbent was not a member of the bargaining unit and his employment was governed by his contract of employment.

The application for judicial review was granted, the arbitrator's decision was quashed, and the matter was remitted to a newly constituted board of arbitration.

The appellant appealed the judgment of the Superior Court of Justice.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error in the trial judge's reasons, evidentiary rulings, or costs orders, including the Sanderson order.

The appeal was dismissed with costs fixed at $25,000.

The City of Hamilton appealed a trial judgment regarding a sewer contract dispute.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to address the principal issue of the effect of exclusion clauses on the contractor's bid, given the timing of a representation made by the City's project engineer.

The Court also found the trial judge erred in awarding solicitor/client costs without hearing submissions.

The appeal was allowed, the judgment was set aside, and a new trial was ordered.

The appellant appealed an order striking portions of a defamation claim for failure to comply with the notice provisions of the Libel and Slander Act.

The court held that multiple newspaper articles cannot be treated as a single libel for notice purposes unless their defamatory meaning depends on other publications.

It further held that the candidate-for-public-office provision in s. 5(3) does not exempt a plaintiff from giving notice under s. 5(1), but only affects the retraction-related consequences in s. 5(2).

The appeal was dismissed and the motion judge’s order was upheld.

The appellant police officer appealed his convictions on two counts of neglect of duty and the resulting penalty of a reduction in rank for six months.

The convictions arose from his failure to conduct a proper investigation and failure to arrest a suspect for breach of recognizance during a domestic violence call.

The Ontario Civilian Police Commission dismissed the appeal, finding that the standard of proof is 'clear and convincing evidence' regardless of the penalty sought, and that the two counts did not violate the rule against multiple convictions.

The Commission upheld the penalty, noting the serious nature of the misconduct, the officer's prior disciplinary record, and his failure to acknowledge responsibility.