Jeremy A. Forrest

The applicant, Prosperity Homes Limited (the "Builder"), brought an Application seeking a declaration and an order compelling the respondent, 756949 Ontario Inc. (the "Developer"), to provide a written letter of approval for construction plans.

The Builder argued entitlement based on a prior agreement and the Developer's implied duty of good faith, while the Developer asserted discretionary authority.

The court expressed concerns about the appropriateness of proceeding by application due to factual disputes and the nature of the specific performance remedy sought.

The parties subsequently reached a resolution where the Developer agreed to provide the approval letters, and both parties reserved their rights to claim damages and costs in future proceedings.

The Application was adjourned sine die.

The applicants sought specific performance after the respondent developer terminated an agreement of purchase and sale for a new build condominium.

The parties initially agreed to a consent order restraining the sale of the property.

The respondent subsequently discovered the applicants had purchased another property shortly after entering the agreement and brought a motion to set aside the consent order and convert the application into an action.

The court found the non-disclosure relevant to the consent order and varied it to continue only pending a formal motion for a certificate of pending litigation.

The court also converted the application into an action, finding material facts in dispute and credibility issues regarding the uniqueness of the property and the parties' intentions that required a trial.

The applicant, GolfNorth Properties Inc., sought declarations that its June 14 Offer to purchase shares/LPUs was not a "Permitted Offer" under the relevant agreements, thereby invalidating Mill-Gate Holdings Inc.'s exercise of a right of first refusal.

The respondents argued GolfNorth Properties lacked standing and that the June 14 Offer was a Permitted Offer.

The court found that GolfNorth Properties, as a non-party to the agreements, lacked standing due to privity of contract.

Alternatively, the court determined that the definition of "Permitted Offer" was ambiguous and, considering the parties' subsequent conduct, concluded that the June 14 Offer was indeed a Permitted Offer, which validly triggered Mill-Gate's right of first refusal.

The application was dismissed.

Following a prior endorsement, the parties were unable to agree on costs.

The plaintiff submitted a Costs Outline, which the defendant/plaintiffs by counterclaim did not dispute.

The court ordered the defendant/plaintiffs by counterclaim to pay the plaintiff costs on a partial indemnity basis, totaling $4,778.03, to be paid within 30 days.

The plaintiff, London Eco-Roof Manufacturing Inc., brought a motion to strike the statement of defence and dismiss the counterclaim of South River Developments Ltd. and Les Holdway due to their repeated failure to comply with court orders, specifically an order to deliver an affidavit of documents.

The court considered the balance between resolving disputes on their merits and ensuring timely and efficient administration of justice.

While acknowledging the defendants' non-compliance, the court found it was not contumelious and that the affidavit of documents had been sworn, albeit late, due to counsel's error.

The motion to strike was dismissed, but the defendants were granted a "last chance order" with new peremptory deadlines for discovery, undertakings, and a pre-trial, and were ordered to pay costs.

The court issued a costs endorsement following a one-day trial of two construction lien actions.

The lien claimants, Hogg Fuel & Supply Limited and Absolute Electric, obtained modest judgments against Home Trust Company and larger judgments against the owners and general contractor.

Claims against Centurion Mortgage Capital Corporation were dismissed.

The court applied Rule 49.10(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that Home Trust Company's settlement offers were more favourable than the judgments obtained by the lien claimants.

Consequently, Hogg Fuel and Absolute Electric were awarded partial indemnity costs from Home Trust up to the date of the offers, and Home Trust was awarded partial indemnity costs from them thereafter.

Centurion was awarded partial indemnity costs from Hogg Fuel and Absolute Electric for the entire action.

The court rejected the request for substantial indemnity costs, reiterating that such awards require either Rule 49.10 conditions or a clear finding of reprehensible conduct, neither of which was present.

Costs against the non-participating owners and general contractor were also fixed.

This trial involved two consolidated construction lien actions concerning the priority of lien claimants (Hogg Fuel & Supply Limited and Absolute Electric) against mortgagees (Home Trust Company and Centurion Mortgage Capital Corporation) due to a deficiency in the statutory holdback.

The owners and general contractor failed to retain the required holdback.

The court determined that the lien claimants' entitlement to priority for the basic holdback expired because their liens were not preserved within 45 days of the Certificate of Completion's publication.

Consequently, the lien claimants were granted priority over the Home Trust mortgage only for the deficiency in the finishing holdback (10% of their claims).

The Centurion mortgage was deemed not a construction mortgage, thus no priority applied against it.

Full judgment for the lien amounts was awarded against the non-appearing owners and general contractor.

The applicant and respondent, brothers and co-estate trustees, attended mediation to resolve disputes regarding their mother's estate.

They executed minutes of settlement, but the respondent later refused to comply, alleging he signed under duress and coercion from his own counsel and the mediator.

The applicant brought an application to enforce the settlement.

The court found the language of the minutes clear and unambiguous, with no evidence supporting the respondent's late allegations of duress.

The court held the minutes of settlement constituted a binding contract and ordered judgment in accordance with their terms.

The plaintiff subcontractor moved for partial summary judgment against the contractor for funds received from the Ministry of Transportation under a highway paving project.

The contractor had admitted in its pleadings that, after specified deductions, $297,710.82 from a $450,000 payment was owed to the plaintiff but later sought to withhold payment pending determination of counterclaims and other related proceedings.

Applying the summary judgment framework and the “full appreciation test” from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court held the issue was document‑driven and that the admissions in the pleadings established the debt.

The defendant failed to demonstrate a genuine issue requiring a trial and had not properly pleaded a set‑off.

Partial summary judgment was granted for the admitted amount with prejudgment interest, while the request to have additional funds paid into court was denied.

The defendant subcontractor brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff general contractor’s action as statute‑barred under the Limitations Act.

The defendant argued the limitation period began when the plaintiff first learned of a roof leak after construction.

The court held that mere knowledge of damage was insufficient to trigger discoverability because the plaintiff did not yet know the cause or which subcontractor was responsible.

Given the need for investigation and conflicting expert reports regarding responsibility for the leakage, the court found the limitation period had not necessarily commenced on the date the defect was first reported.

The motion to dismiss the action as out of time was therefore denied.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment seeking payment allegedly owed by the defendant general contractor on several construction projects and also sought an order requiring the defendant, as plaintiff by counterclaim, to post security for costs.

The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary burden required on a summary judgment motion.

The affidavit evidence provided only conclusory assertions regarding amounts owed and failed to set out the contractual framework, the work performed, or proof supporting the claimed entitlement to payment.

Applying the principles governing summary judgment motions, the court found the plaintiff had not put its best foot forward and had not provided a record capable of permitting adjudication on the merits.

The request for security for costs was also denied due to the absence of a factual foundation.