G. Hemsworth

The applicants sought a declaration that a 2001 easement and restrictive covenant registered on title to a former golf course prohibited the respondent from developing the lands for residential use.

The respondent argued the covenant only protected storm water management access and did not prevent development.

The court applied contract interpretation principles and found the plain language of the restrictive covenant, read in context, constituted a complete prohibition on building structures on the golf course lands.

By operation of the Land Titles Act, the covenant was deemed to expire 40 years after registration, prohibiting residential development until 2041.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to exclude the defendants from each other's examinations for discovery and to prevent the sharing of discovery transcripts and information among them.

The underlying action alleged fraudulent transfers of funds and land to thwart the collection of previous judgments.

Applying the Lazar principles, the court found sufficient evidence of deceit and improper conduct to justify the orders to prevent collusion and ensure the integrity of the discovery process.

The motion was granted, and the plaintiffs were awarded partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff sub-subcontractor moved for summary judgment on its construction lien claim against the defendant subcontractor.

The defendant cross-moved to withdraw a prior admission regarding the quantum of the lien and to amend its defence to claim set-offs for deficiencies alleged by the general contractor, as well as relying on a 'pay-when-paid' clause.

The court granted the defendant leave to withdraw the admission and amend its defence.

The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, fixing the quantum of the lien at $414,049.99, but directed a trial on the issue of whether the 'pay-when-paid' clause was agreed to and enforceable.

The plaintiff contractor sued the defendant homeowners for over $523,000 allegedly owing on a custom home construction project, claiming the project evolved without a fixed price.

The defendants argued they had an all-inclusive contract for $540,000, which they had fully paid, and counterclaimed for construction deficiencies.

The court found the plaintiff's principal deliberately lied, fabricated documents, and created false paper trails.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim entirely, ordered the construction lien discharged, and allowed the defendants' counterclaim for $65,112.86 to repair deficiencies.