J. Thomas

The plaintiff brought an action for constructive dismissal alleging a hostile work environment.

The defendants applied to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Appeals Tribunal (WSIAT) for a determination of whether the action is barred by the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, and brought a motion to stay the civil action pending the WSIAT decision.

Following a case conference, the court scheduled the motion for a stay and established a timetable for the exchange of materials.

The landlord brought a motion for summary judgment seeking unpaid rent, damages, and dismissal of the tenant’s counterclaim following termination of a commercial lease for alleged rental arrears.

The tenant denied arrears, disputed the landlord’s calculations, and brought a cross‑motion for summary judgment claiming the termination was wrongful and seeking damages.

The court applied the summary judgment framework from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch and found numerous factual disputes concerning rent calculations, alleged credits, additional charges, and whether the landlord had the right to terminate the lease.

Because a full appreciation of the evidence could not be achieved on the motion record, the matter required a trial.

Both parties’ motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

The landlord brought a motion for summary judgment seeking unpaid rent, damages, and dismissal of the tenant’s counterclaim following termination of a commercial lease for alleged rental arrears.

The tenant denied arrears, disputed the landlord’s calculations, and brought a cross‑motion for summary judgment claiming the termination was wrongful and seeking damages.

The court applied the summary judgment framework from Combined Air Mechanical Services Inc. v. Flesch and found numerous factual disputes concerning rent calculations, alleged credits, additional charges, and whether the landlord had the right to terminate the lease.

Because a full appreciation of the evidence could not be achieved on the motion record, the matter required a trial.

Both parties’ motions for summary judgment were dismissed.

The moving defendant brought motions seeking declarations that the plaintiff’s construction lien claims were not preserved within the statutory 45‑day period and requesting payment out of security posted in lieu of the lands, dismissal of the actions, or alternatively a reduction of security on the basis that certain amounts claimed for site supervision were not lienable services.

The court considered whether work invoiced after the alleged completion date constituted an extra under the original agreement or a separate contract, which would affect the timeliness of the liens under the Construction Lien Act.

The evidence raised a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding whether the additional work extended the completion date of the contract.

The court also held that a request for a driveway quotation could not support a lien claim, but found that the site supervision issue likewise raised a genuine issue for trial.

The motions were therefore dismissed.