John M. Gray

The plaintiff, a contractor, sued the defendant homeowner for unpaid contracting fees of $35,729.63 for building a log home.

The defendant counterclaimed against the contractor and the log home kit supplier for $124,203.30, alleging breach of contract due to delays and construction deficiencies.

The court found that the defendant homeowner, who acted as his own general contractor, was responsible for the delays and had wrongfully repudiated the contract by locking the contractor out of the site.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim for the unpaid balance and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement regarding the partition and sale of a jointly owned property.

The defendants refused to conclude the settlement, arguing they faced contingent tax liability because the non-resident plaintiff failed to obtain a clearance certificate under s. 116 of the Income Tax Act.

The court found that the defendants had discharged their tax liability by withholding and remitting 25% of the purchase price and rental income to the CRA, and therefore faced no contingent tax liability.

The motion to enforce the settlement was granted.

The moving party sought to set aside a default judgment entered after he failed to attend trial in a construction dispute involving unpaid subcontractor invoices and alleged breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court applied the established three‑part test for setting aside default judgments, considering whether there was a plausible excuse for failing to attend trial, whether the motion was brought promptly, and whether a defence on the merits existed.

The court found the moving party knew of the trial date, deliberately failed to attend, delayed unreasonably in seeking relief, and lacked a viable defence, including evidence that he exercised effective control over the corporation that breached the statutory trust.

The motion to set aside the judgment and related enforcement orders was dismissed, though the court directed steps toward examination in aid of execution and potential production of a mortgage discharge statement.

The plaintiff brought a motion under Rule 34.15 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking an order compelling the defendant and a related witness to re-attend cross‑examinations on affidavits and answer outstanding undertakings and refusals.

The issues arose in the context of a pending motion by the defendant to set aside a default judgment entered against him for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court held that the disputed questions and requested documents, including corporate records, financial statements, tax returns, and records relating to a successor company, were relevant to determining whether the defendant had a meritorious defence and whether he exercised control over the corporate defendant.

The court ordered the defendant and witness to re-attend to answer the questions and produce documents.

Costs were awarded against the defendant on a substantial indemnity basis.

The moving party sought an interim order for the recovery of commercial dishwashing equipment allegedly rented to a former tenant and located on premises owned by the responding parties, as well as an order transferring the action to the Small Claims Court.

Conflicting affidavit evidence raised issues regarding ownership of the equipment, alleged forgery of a landlord’s waiver, and whether the responding parties had sold the equipment to a subsequent tenant.

The court found that the evidentiary record disclosed serious factual disputes, including possible fraud, priority claims, and damages for lost rental income, none of which had been tested through cross-examination.

Given these unresolved issues, the court held that the matter required determination at trial.

The request for interim recovery and transfer to Small Claims Court was dismissed, and the action was permitted to continue under the simplified procedure.