J. Goode

The plaintiff construction manager brought a preliminary motion for the production of settlement documents between the defendant owners and a sub-trade.

The defendants had made a direct payment to the sub-trade and sought to reduce the security posted to vacate the plaintiff's lien.

The plaintiff argued the settlement documents were relevant to the security reduction motion and fell under exceptions to settlement privilege.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the settlement details irrelevant to the summary nature of the security motion and noting the merits of the counterclaim were not at issue at this stage.

Following a successful trial in a construction lien and breach of contract action, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The court reviewed the plaintiff's claimed fees and disbursements, making minor reductions for excessive time and undocumented expenses, but allowing the full cost of the plaintiff's damages expert.

The court awarded substantial indemnity costs, finding that the defendant's aggressive litigation strategy—including advancing and later abandoning a large counterclaim and unfounded allegations of dishonesty—amounted to commercial bullying that unnecessarily complicated and prolonged the proceedings.

The plaintiff excavation company entered into an hourly-rate contract with the defendant builder to perform excavation and grading work for a 354-home residential development.

After the plaintiff completed work on the first 261 lots, the defendant paused the project and subsequently demanded the plaintiff agree to a fixed-price contract for the remaining 93 lots.

When the plaintiff refused, the defendant hired a replacement subcontractor without providing written notice as required by the contract.

The court found that the defendant breached the contract by failing to permit the plaintiff to finish the work.

The court awarded the plaintiff its unpaid invoices of $66,213.30 and lost profit damages of $199,000.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff's construction lien had expired before registration and an order for its discharge.

The defendants argued the contract was abandoned on July 27, 2016, more than 45 days before the lien was registered on September 23, 2016.

The court reviewed the correspondence between the parties and found insufficient evidence to conclude the contract was unequivocally terminated or abandoned on that date.

The motion was dismissed as the defendants failed to prove there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the date of abandonment.

Following a successful motion for security for costs, the moving party sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $51,000.

The responding party argued that no costs should be awarded or that costs should be reserved pending judicial review of the motion decision.

The court assessed the relevant Rule 57.01 factors including partial success on the motion, the complexity of the issues, the parties’ conduct, and the reasonableness of the time claimed in the costs outline.

While the moving party was the successful party, some claimed time was excessive and the security order represented only about 65% of what had been sought.

The court fixed partial indemnity costs at $25,000 inclusive of tax.

The defendant, Metrolinx, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Unimac, in a construction lien action.

Metrolinx argued that Unimac had commenced multiple proceedings for the same relief and had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The Master granted leave under the Construction Lien Act to bring the motion, finding that Metrolinx met its initial onus on both grounds.

Unimac failed to prove it had sufficient assets or that the multiplicity of proceedings was justified.

The Master ordered Unimac to post $264,712.73 as security for costs, discounting the requested amount to account for Metrolinx's counterclaim.

Following dismissal of a motion for partial summary judgment, the successful defendant sought costs on a partial indemnity basis.

The plaintiff opposed costs or alternatively argued that any award should be proportional given the simplified procedure context and the modest amount in issue.

The court applied the general rule that costs follow the event and considered proportionality and Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The court reduced the amount sought and awarded a reasonable partial indemnity costs amount.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for partial summary judgment against a surety insurer under labour and material payment bonds after obtaining default judgments against the general contractor in Small Claims Court.

The insurer opposed the motion, arguing that multiple factual issues required determination at trial, including whether the bonds provided coverage, whether notice requirements were met, and whether limitation defences applied.

Applying the post‑amendment summary judgment framework and the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch, the court held that the competing affidavits revealed significant factual disputes requiring credibility assessments.

The court concluded that the “full appreciation test” could not be satisfied on the motion record.

The motion for partial summary judgment was dismissed and the matter was directed to proceed by summary trial under Rule 76.