Jeffrey Aaron Armel

This decision addresses costs and pre-judgment interest following an eight-day trial involving two separate actions.

In the first action, Sjostrom Sheet Metal Ltd.'s lien and contract claims against Geo A. Kelson Company Limited were dismissed, leading to Kelson being awarded costs.

In the second action, A. Amar and Associates Ltd. successfully proved its contract claim against Kelson, resulting in Amar being awarded judgment and costs.

The court fixed Kelson's costs against Sjostrom at $123,270.92 and Amar's costs against Kelson at $173,025.17.

Pre-judgment interest for Amar was set from the date its statement of claim was issued, emphasizing that issues are framed by pleadings.

The decision applied principles of proportionality and offers to settle, awarding substantial indemnity costs from the date of relevant offers.

The appellant, a mortgagee, appealed a motion judge's decision that granted priority to construction lien claimants over his registered third mortgage.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the advances made by the mortgagee did not fall within the exceptions of s. 78(2) or s. 78(6) of the Construction Act.

The court held that advances must be "made in respect of" the mortgage and the intention to secure financing must operate prospectively to gain priority over liens.

The decision reinforces the general principle of priority for lien claimants and the onus on mortgagees to clearly fall within statutory exceptions.

This decision addresses costs arising from the dismissal of two actions by Nanak Homes Inc. for delay.

The court found Nanak's conduct reprehensible due to significant, unexplained delays and failure to advance litigation, which warranted substantial indemnity costs.

The court also granted Kamco an indemnity against Nanak for third-party costs, concluding that Kamco reasonably joined third parties given Nanak's unparticularized claims.

Claims for non-party costs against LawPRO were dismissed as neither the "person of straw" test nor abuse of process was established.

Various defendants and third parties were awarded costs against Nanak, totaling $139,155.24.

This motion, initiated by the Receiver, determined competing priorities under s.78 of the Construction Act between construction lien claimants (represented by Maxion Management Services Inc.) and a third-ranking mortgage held by Donald Dal Bianco.

The court found that Dal Bianco's mortgage, registered after the first lien arose and securing funds advanced between 2012 and 2015, did not qualify for priority as a "subsequent mortgage" under s.78(6) because the advances were not made "in respect of that mortgage." Furthermore, it was not a "building mortgage" under s.78(2) as it did not involve an intention to secure future financing.

The court emphasized the general priority of lien claimants and the mortgagee's burden to prove exceptions.

Consequently, the lien claimants were granted priority over the third mortgage.

Wolseley Canada Inc. sought summary judgment against Linda Scheffer-Côté for $64,517.33 based on an alleged personal guarantee of her husband's company's debt.

The guarantee document was lost.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as Wolseley failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that Ms. Scheffer-Côté signed a guarantee or its specific terms.

The motion for summary judgment was dismissed, and the action against Ms. Scheffer-Côté was dismissed.

The general contractor, Brookfield, sought leave under section 67 of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion for partial summary judgment.

The motion aimed to strike the delay portion of the subcontractor Limen JV's lien claim, alleging failure to provide proper notice of delay as required by contract.

Limen JV opposed, arguing that complex factual and credibility issues necessitated a full trial and that a partial summary judgment motion would cause delay.

The Master granted leave, finding that the proposed motion would likely expedite the resolution of the dispute by narrowing the issues for trial, particularly regarding the notice of delay claim, and was consistent with the Hryniuk objectives for summary judgment.

Limen Group Ltd. brought a motion to strike out lien claims registered by Aluma Systems Inc. and Scott Forest Products Ltd., alleging the liens were registered against the wrong premises.

Limen argued the improved lands were confined to PIN 21219-0161, while Aluma and Scott registered against adjacent PINS 21219-0159 and 21219-0160.

The court, treating the motion akin to summary judgment, found genuine issues of fact requiring a trial, including whether the adjacent PINS were part of the "improved premises" or "lands enjoyed therewith" under the Construction Lien Act.

The motion to discharge the lien claims was dismissed.

Following a successful construction lien trial in which the plaintiff recovered unpaid accounts and defeated the defendant’s set‑off and counterclaim, the court determined costs of the actions and reference under the Construction Lien Act.

The litigation had become complex due largely to the defendant’s conduct, including repeated procedural defaults, unsuccessful motions and appeals, and failure to comply with court orders, which significantly lengthened the proceeding.

The court considered the factors under Rule 57.01, the plaintiff’s Rule 49 offer to settle, proportionality, and the principle of indemnification.

Finding the defendant overwhelmingly responsible for the escalation of costs and noting that the plaintiff had recovered more than double its settlement offer, the court awarded partial indemnity costs up to the offer date and substantial indemnity costs thereafter.

Costs of $78,107.90 were fixed in favour of the plaintiff.

The moving party sought an order declaring that its construction lien was validly sheltering under other perfected liens pursuant to s. 36(4) of the Construction Lien Act, and also sought enforcement of an alleged settlement.

The responding landowner argued that insufficient evidence established that the work performed by the sheltering lien claimants related to the “same improvement.” The court held that the moving party’s evidence, including an affidavit stating that it supervised contractors working on the same renovation and construction project, established the required nexus between the work.

The lien was therefore found to be validly sheltered.

However, the court declined to enforce the alleged settlement due to insufficient documentary evidence of agreed settlement terms.