Jason De Melo Botelho

The plaintiff brought a motion to quash the defendant's appeal of a judgment and costs order under the Construction Lien Act, arguing the notice of appeal was not served within the required 15-day period.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to extend the time for service.

The court found inadequate evidence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit and no real explanation for the delay, concluding the appeal was primarily directed at the costs endorsement.

The plaintiff's motion to quash was granted and the defendant's motion for an extension was dismissed, without prejudice to the defendant seeking leave to appeal the costs decision.

The plaintiff brought a motion to quash the defendant's appeal of a judgment for failing to serve the notice of appeal within the 15-day period required by the Construction Lien Act.

The defendant brought a cross-motion for an extension of time, arguing he was waiting for a costs endorsement to clarify an alleged error in the judgment.

The court granted the motion to quash and dismissed the motion for an extension, finding inadequate evidence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the relevant time period and noting that a costs judgment is a separate determination that does not extend the time to appeal the merits.

A construction lien action where a foundation contractor sought payment of an outstanding balance for work performed on a residential construction project.

The homeowner disputed the amount owed and advanced a set-off and counterclaim alleging deficient workmanship and breach of contract.

The court found the contractor had completed approximately 90 percent of the contracted work before being ordered off the job site following a design issue unrelated to the contractor.

The homeowner’s claims for remediation and damages were unsupported by reliable evidence and the contractor had not been given an opportunity to remedy alleged minor deficiencies.

Judgment was granted to the contractor for the invoiced amount, the lien was confirmed, and the counterclaim was dismissed.

The appellant was successful on an appeal from a judgment of the Small Claims Court and sought partial indemnity costs of $19,323.46.

The respondent argued for costs of $5,000 based on proportionality, noting the underlying claim was for $25,000.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01 and the principle of proportionality, finding the appellant's claimed costs were higher than what an unsuccessful party might reasonably expect to pay.

The court fixed costs payable to the appellant at $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision striking his claim against the respondent, his equal shareholder in a closely held corporation.

The appellant had sought damages under the oppression remedy (s. 248 of the Business Corporations Act) for the respondent's alleged misappropriation of corporate funds, which resulted in the appellant being held personally liable on a joint guarantee.

The Deputy Judge struck the claim, relying on the rule in Foss v. Harbottle, finding the wrongs were done to the corporation.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that an oppression action and a derivative action are not mutually exclusive, especially in closely held corporations, and that the appellant had disclosed a reasonable cause of action.

The moving party sought partial summary judgment rescinding a franchise agreement under s. 6(2) of the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000, alleging the franchisor failed to provide proper disclosure.

The respondent argued the transaction fell within the resale exemption under s. 5(7)(a)(iv), asserting the franchise was granted by an existing franchisee and not effected by or through the franchisor.

The court held that the franchisor was actively involved in effecting the grant by approving the franchisee, requiring training, structuring the lease and security arrangements, and setting the terms of the new franchise agreement.

Because the franchisor played a substantive role beyond merely consenting to the transfer, the disclosure exemption did not apply.

The franchise agreement was therefore rescinded pursuant to s. 6(2) of the Act.

In an ongoing human rights application alleging sex discrimination and family status discrimination, the respondent law firm brought a Request for Order seeking production of electronic metadata and original electronic copies of two documents submitted by the applicant.

The respondent sought this information to determine the authenticity of notes allegedly made on a specific date and an email allegedly sent to partners.

The Tribunal found the requested information arguably relevant to the authenticity and admissibility of the documents and ordered the applicant to produce the electronic information and unedited original files.

In an interim decision regarding a human rights application alleging employment discrimination, the Tribunal addressed three requests for orders.

The Tribunal granted the applicant's unopposed request to amend her application to seek additional compensation.

The Tribunal also ordered both parties to produce arguably relevant documents, including specific emails, meeting calendars, and redacted client work product, while clarifying that medical documentation need only be disclosed if the applicant intends to rely on it for her claim of injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect.

Homeowners sued a construction manager for breach of contract and negligence arising from defects in the construction of a custom waterfront home.

The court considered whether the builder failed to perform work in a good and workmanlike manner, focusing on water infiltration due to improper siding, masonry, flashing, and air‑barrier installation, as well as drywall and interior trim deficiencies.

Expert evidence established multiple violations of the Ontario Building Code and improper installation practices that compromised the rain‑screen system and voided the siding manufacturer’s warranty.

Claims relating to the deck and fascia were not proven, but the court accepted evidence that exterior wall systems, drywall, and portions of interior trim were defective.

Damages were awarded based largely on the plaintiff’s engineering expert’s remediation estimate, and the court rejected the defendant’s argument that damages should be reduced for betterment due to the plaintiffs’ years of use of the home.

A contractor brought a construction lien claim for unpaid amounts relating to tile installation in a newly constructed home, while the homeowners counterclaimed for damages arising from defective workmanship.

The court considered whether the contractor could continue the action under the Business Names Act, whether the work met the contractual requirement of being completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices, the proper measure of damages, and whether the lien was filed in time.

Leave to maintain the proceeding under the Business Names Act was refused due to failure to establish the statutory requirements and evidence that the defendants had been misled.

The court found portions of the tile installation defective, particularly the kitchen floor due to inadequate bonding, and awarded substantial damages on the counterclaim for full replacement of the floor and related components.

The lien was also found to have been filed outside the statutory time limit.