J. MacLellan

The plaintiff general contractor brought a motion to refer its action against a performance bond surety to a Master, to be tried alongside a related construction lien action commenced by a subcontractor.

The defendant surety consented to the relief.

The court granted the motion, finding that a joint trial before the Master was the most efficient procedure and would prevent inconsistent findings.

The moving party sought an order that two related civil actions arising from the same construction project be tried together or sequentially with common documentary production and discoveries.

The court considered Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and found that the actions arose out of the same series of transactions and shared common questions of law and fact relating to subcontract obligations, valuation of work, entitlement to payment, and liability under a payment bond.

The court accepted that there would be significant overlap in witnesses and documentary evidence concerning the bridge project and the dealings among the subcontractor, contractor, owner, and surety.

The court also accepted that separate proceedings could risk inconsistent findings.

The motion was granted and the actions were ordered to proceed together or sequentially with coordinated disclosure and discovery.