Irwin Albert Duncan

Following the dismissal of their appeals regarding construction lien rights, the appellants and respondents made written submissions on costs.

The Divisional Court fixed the respondent Rumble's costs at $20,515.72 on a partial indemnity basis, payable by Cassidy and R & A. The court found the respondent Dana's claim for $41,024.52 excessive given the lack of novel arguments on appeal, and fixed Dana's costs at $15,800.00, payable by Kennedy.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment declaring that their claims for work done in assembling and installing a massive truck frame assembly line at the respondent's plant were not lienable under the Construction Lien Act.

The trial judge found that the assembly line was manufacturing equipment and not an 'improvement' to the land or building.

The Divisional Court majority upheld the trial judge's decision, finding no error in his application of the law to the facts.

A dissenting judge would have allowed the appeal, finding the assembly line was an improvement given its size, cost, and degree of attachment to the premises.

The parties, equal shareholders in a land development company, reached a deadlock.

The trial judge ordered the company wound up and gave the appellant the first right to buy the respondent's shares at fair market value.

After the parties failed to agree on a price, the trial judge fixed the share value and ordered a descending auction if the rights of refusal were not exercised.

The Divisional Court set aside this order and directed a public auction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred by abandoning the valuation mechanism without notice, and the Divisional Court erred by removing the appellant's right of first refusal.

The matter was remitted to the trial judge.

The appellant general contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent electrical subcontractor $45,000 for loss of profits due to breach of contract.

The appellant had carried the respondent's bid in its tender but later refused to use the respondent, demanding 100% performance bonds which the respondent could not obtain.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the trial judge's findings that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable objection to contracting with the respondent and was not entitled to demand 100% bonding when the prime contract only required 50%.

The appellant mortgagee appealed a trial judgment that declared its mortgage void and granted priority to construction lien claimants.

The trial judge found the mortgage contravened the financial assistance provisions of the OBCA, the Fraudulent Conveyances Act, and the Assignments and Preferences Act, as the mortgagor was insolvent and the mortgagee failed to conduct due diligence.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings or application of legal principles.

A cross-appeal by a lien claimant regarding trial costs was allowed, and its costs were increased.