Harris Khan

The moving party, a terminated project manager, brought motions to dismiss or stay claims advanced against it in two related construction actions on grounds of abuse of process and multiplicity of proceedings.

The responding parties had advanced identical counterclaims for deficiencies and delay across multiple proceedings arising from the same construction project.

The court found the counterclaim in the simplified procedure action was duplicative and an abuse of process, but accepted the responding parties' discontinuance of that claim.

The court declined to dismiss the separate balcony deficiency action, finding the issues sufficiently distinct and the parties not identical, but ordered that it be heard together with or immediately after the lien action in the interests of judicial economy.

CentriLogic appealed a trial order requiring it to pay Infor Financial Inc. damages for a financing fee and trial costs.

The appeal centered on the interpretation of an engagement agreement, specifically whether Infor was entitled to the financing fee and if CentriLogic breached a confidentiality clause by sharing Infor's proprietary materials.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that CentriLogic breached the agreement and that Infor was entitled to the financing fee based on a commercially reasonable interpretation of the contract.

The court also affirmed the substantial costs award, finding no error in principle.

This endorsement determined the costs for two previous motions where the Defendants (Oakleigh and Aurelia) were successful.

The Plaintiff's request for further settlement disclosure was denied in the "undertakings motion," and the Defendants successfully obtained a reduction of their security bond in the "security motion." The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $15,000 for the undertakings motion.

For the security motion, the Defendants' requested costs of $258,901.81 were reduced to $174,522.94, primarily by applying the "least expensive course" principle under s. 86(2) of the Construction Act to significantly reduce consulting fees.

The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the fixed costs forthwith.

The plaintiff, Magil Construction Canada Inc., brought motions seeking to vary a previous order, amend a third-party claim due to corporate amalgamation, and join several proposed third parties under the Construction Act.

The court dismissed the motion to vary the previous order, finding it unnecessary and that the plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of Rule 59.06.

However, leave was granted to amend the third-party claim to reflect the amalgamation and to join Mattina Mechanical Limited, Sola Engineering Inc., and Innocon Inc. as third parties.

The joinder of IFAB Engineering Partners Ltd. was resolved by consent.

The court rejected Innocon's arguments that the third-party claim was a nullity and that the claim against it was statute-barred, finding no undue prejudice or delay would result from the joinder.