J. Frustaglio

The plaintiff registered a construction lien against the defendants' property and noted the defendants in default after they failed to deliver a statement of defence.

The defendants subsequently sought to bring a motion to discharge the lien on the basis that it had expired because the plaintiff failed to set the action down for trial within two years.

The court considered the preliminary issue of whether the defendants had standing to bring the motion despite being noted in default.

The court granted the defendants leave under section 5(2) of O. Reg 302/18 to bring the motion, finding there was evidence to support the defence that the lien had expired.

The defendant brought a summary judgment motion to vacate or discharge the plaintiff's claim for lien, or alternatively to reduce the amount of security posted.

The court found that there were genuine issues requiring a trial regarding the contract price and the date the plaintiff last performed work on the project.

The court held that the evidentiary record did not permit a fair and just determination of these issues without a trial, as there were serious credibility issues and conflicting evidence.

The motion was dismissed.

The plaintiff moved to correct a misnomer in his Statement of Claim by substituting 2090990 Ontario Inc. (Cezanne Homes) for the unnamed defendant 'XYZ Contracting Corporation'.

The plaintiff alleged that renovations at his neighbours' property caused structural damage to his own property.

The court found that the plaintiff intended to sue the contractor responsible for the renovations and that Cezanne Homes, upon reading the claim, would know it was the intended defendant.

The court allowed the substitution, finding no non-compensable prejudice to the proposed defendant.

The parties engaged in a dispute over the renovation of a residential property.

The plaintiff contractor claimed unpaid amounts for construction work, alleging an oral agreement for project management and general contracting.

The defendant homeowners alleged the project was a joint venture to flip the property and claimed damages for incomplete and deficient work, as well as unpaid loans.

The court found no enforceable contract or joint venture existed due to a lack of certainty of terms.

The court applied quantum meruit, valuing the work performed by the contractor and deducting the cost of proven deficiencies.

The court ordered the homeowners to pay the remaining balance to the contractor.

The parties engaged in a dispute over the renovation of a residential property.

The plaintiff contractor claimed unpaid amounts for construction work, alleging an oral agreement for project management and general contracting.

The defendant homeowners alleged the project was a joint venture to flip the property and claimed damages for incomplete and deficient work, as well as unpaid loans.

The court found no enforceable contract or joint venture existed due to a lack of certainty of terms.

The court applied quantum meruit, valuing the work performed by the contractor and deducting the cost of proven deficiencies.

The court ordered the homeowners to pay the remaining balance to the contractor.

The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment of over $467,000 entered against her in an action for unpaid construction materials.

The defendant claimed she was unknowingly made a director of her son's construction company and had no involvement in its operations.

Applying the five-factor test under Rule 19.08, the court found she had an arguable defence and a plausible explanation for her default, having relied on her son's assurances.

Despite significant delay in bringing the motion, the court balanced the factors and set aside the default judgment, ordering the defendant to pay $2,000 in costs thrown away to the plaintiffs.