3 total
The court dismissed both a construction manager's lien claim and the homeowner's counterclaim for deficiencies due to mutual evidentiary failures.
A lien action concerning a residential construction project at 39 Craven Road, Toronto.
Village Homes Inc. was initially contracted to manage renovation work but the project expanded substantially beyond its original scope.
The parties disputed whether Village was a construction manager or general contractor, whether there was a fixed price contract change for extra work, and whether the contract was breached or repudiated.
The court found that Village abandoned the contract and failed to prove any amounts owing.
Ms. Connelly's counterclaim for deficiencies and completion costs was dismissed due to insufficient evidence.
Both the claim and counterclaim were dismissed, and Village's lien was discharged.
Defendant was granted leave to call late-served witnesses but ordered to pay costs.
The decision addresses whether the defendant, Valerie Connelly, should be granted leave to call five disputed witnesses at trial in a construction lien action, despite failing to comply with a court-ordered deadline for serving trial evidence.
The court finds that while Ms. Connelly failed to adequately explain her breach, the interests of justice favour allowing her to call four of the five witnesses, with the breach compensable in costs.
The court also sets a revised timetable for trial steps, addresses costs thrown away, and fixes costs of the hearing, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders and balancing procedural fairness.
The application for judicial review of an interim arbitral production order was dismissed as premature.
The applicant employer sought judicial review to quash an arbitrator's interim order compelling it to produce documents for a full audit by the respondent union.
The union brought a cross-motion to dismiss the application as premature.
The court dismissed the employer's application for judicial review, agreeing with the union that the application was premature because the arbitrator's order was an interim award that did not resolve the grievance on its merits.
The court emphasized that judicial review of interim orders is only available in very narrow "exceptional circumstances" which were not met here, and found no significant harm to the employer from the ordered production and audit.