Jordan Routliff

The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 39.02(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for leave to deliver a supplemental expert report after cross-examinations had been completed for an upcoming summary judgment motion.

The plaintiffs discovered alleged structural defects in a sunroom addition after delivering their responding motion record but before cross-examinations.

The court applied the four-part test for granting leave, finding the evidence relevant, responsive to matters raised on cross-examination, and not causing non-compensable prejudice.

The court granted leave to file the supplemental report and dismissed the plaintiffs' request to strike a statement produced by the defendants in response to an undertaking.

The applicant builder sought judicial review of a decision by the warranty corporation requiring it to pay $45,688.71 for a retaining wall.

The corporation had initially determined the retaining wall was not a warranted defect, but later reversed its position based on new submissions from the homeowner, without providing the applicant notice or an opportunity to respond.

The Divisional Court allowed the application, finding that the corporation breached procedural fairness.

The impugned finding was quashed and the matter remitted for a fresh decision following a fair process.

The creditor brought a motion for an order compelling the garnishee to pay the outstanding judgment amount, arguing strict liability under Rule 60.08(17) due to the garnishee's failure to file a garnishee's statement and make full payment.

The garnishee contended that Rule 60.08(17) remained discretionary and asserted a right to set-off against the debtors due to alleged overpayment on another project and the debtors' insolvency.

The court found Rule 60.08(17) to be discretionary, ordered the immediate payment of a portion of the holdback funds ($35,006), and suspended the payment of the remaining judgment balance ($131,949) pending a determination in a related construction lien proceeding.

Following the dismissal of the applicant's motion for leave to apply for judicial review under the Construction Act, the parties could not agree on costs.

The respondent sought $13,803.13, while the applicant argued for no costs or $1,500 to $2,000.

The court found the respondent's claimed time excessive given their argument that the motion was doomed to fail based on established case law.

Applying the principles from Boucher, the court fixed costs payable by the applicant to the respondent at $5,000 inclusive of fees, disbursements, and HST.

The defendant subcontractor moved to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired and to discharge the lien.

At the time the plaintiff preserved and perfected its lien, the plaintiff corporation had been dissolved for failure to pay a fee, though it was later revived.

The court held that because the corporation was dissolved at the relevant time, it was not a legal entity entitled to preserve or perfect a lien.

The court found it had no equitable discretion to validate the lien retroactively, and even if it did, it would not exercise it in these circumstances.

The motion was granted, the lien discharged, and the security ordered returned.

The plaintiff homeowners sued the defendant contractors for breach of contract regarding a backyard renovation project, alleging fundamental breach due to delays, defective workmanship, and misplaced helical piles.

The court found no fundamental breach by the defendants, noting that the deficiencies were either corrected or easily remediable, and that the delays were largely due to the permit process.

Instead, the court held that the plaintiffs breached the contract by refusing to allow the defendants to return to the site to complete the work and fix the deficiencies.

The plaintiffs' action was dismissed, the defendants were awarded damages for the unpaid balance of the contract, and the corporate veil was not pierced.

The self-represented applicant brought an application for judicial review of a Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario decision dismissing his complaint against PayPal Canada.

At a case management conference, the court found the Notice of Application defective on its face for failing to name PayPal as a party, failing to specify the alleged legal errors, and improperly claiming freestanding damages.

The court struck the Notice of Application but granted the applicant leave to deliver a fresh amended Notice of Application.

The moving party brought an urgent motion to set aside a default judgment and discharge a writ of seizure and sale registered against her property.

The motion was brought during the COVID-19 suspension of Small Claims Court operations, as the property sale was scheduled to close immediately.

The Superior Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to lift the writ on the condition that sufficient funds be held in trust to protect the judgment, while adjourning the motion to set aside the default judgment to the Small Claims Court once operations resume.