C. Wiebe

The defendants brought motions under section 86(1)(b)(i) of the old Construction Act seeking costs against the plaintiff's former law firm, arguing the firm participated in preserving and perfecting a baseless construction lien.

The court held that liability under this section requires subjective actual knowledge, recklessness, or willful blindness regarding the baselessness of the lien, rather than mere negligence.

Finding no evidence that the law firm possessed such knowledge or acted with willful blindness at the time of preservation and perfection, the court dismissed the motions.

The defendants brought a motion seeking an order requiring the plaintiff to post $150,000 as security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(e).

The plaintiff's action claimed damages for an improvident sale of a mortgaged property and economic interference.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the defendants failed to meet their onus of proving the action was frivolous and vexatious, as there was evidence suggesting the mortgagee may have failed to take reasonable precautions to obtain true market value.

The plaintiff was awarded $15,000 in partial indemnity costs.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiff's construction lien claim and the granting of the defendants' counterclaim, the court determined costs and interest.

The court awarded the defendants substantial indemnity costs of $225,000, finding that the plaintiff's claim was without foundation and its conduct abusive.

The court pierced the corporate veil to hold the plaintiff's principal personally liable for the costs, as he dominated the corporation and used it for extortionary purposes.

Prejudgment interest was awarded at a rate of 2% per annum.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend the statement of claim to replace a 'Jane/John Doe' defendant with a named individual, Hadi Bahiraei, in an action concerning a fatal drug overdose at a mental health facility.

The defendants opposed the amendment, arguing there was an unexplained and inordinate delay of over two years in bringing the motion after the plaintiff learned the individual's identity.

The court granted the motion, finding that while the delay was significant and poorly explained, the amendment would not cause non-compensable prejudice to the defendants.

The plaintiff was ordered to pay $1,500 in costs thrown away.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action to perfect a construction lien for unpaid renovation and flood repair work.

The court found that while there was no enforceable contract due to a lack of agreement on scope and price, the plaintiff was entitled to recovery on a contractual quantum meruit basis because the defendant requested and accepted the work.

The court valued the work at $56,554.67 based on the plaintiff's actual costs and dismissed the defendant's claims of deficient work.

The plaintiff was granted damages and a valid lien in that amount.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's construction lien action for delay under section 47 of the Construction Act and Rule 24.

The action had been delayed for seven years, partly due to an ill-conceived and legally impossible attempt to transfer the lien action to the Small Claims Court.

The court found that despite the plaintiff's egregious delay, a fair trial was still possible as the issues were simple and the defendants' claimed prejudice was unrelated to the delay.

The motion was dismissed, but the court awarded $1,500 in costs to the unsuccessful defendants due to the plaintiff's failure to advance the claim.

The plaintiffs brought a motion to strike several paragraphs from the defendants' statement of defence and counterclaim under Rules 25.06(1) and 25.11.

The court struck portions that pleaded evidence rather than material facts, or were scandalous and vexatious.

However, the court retained paragraphs that properly pleaded material facts regarding consent and contributory negligence.

The plaintiffs were awarded costs of $4,500.

The plaintiff subcontractor failed to preserve and perfect a construction lien against the owner's property.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against the owner.

The owner brought a cross-motion to strike the claim against it under Rule 21.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted the owner's motion to strike, holding that the Construction Act is a complete code and a subcontractor who fails to preserve its lien rights has no equitable recourse against the owner.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding parties to provide information required under section 39 of the Construction Act.

The responding parties provided the requested information after the motion was served but before the hearing.

The moving party sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs to the moving party, finding that the responding parties caused the unnecessary motion by failing to respond to the section 39 demand within the statutory 21-day period and making no reasonable effort to resolve the motion costs.

The defendant brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's breach of contract action for delay under Rules 48.14(7)(a) and 24.01.

The court found that the plaintiff adequately explained the delay, which was largely due to the health issues and subsequent murder of the plaintiff's former counsel, as well as concurrent delays by the defendant.

The court also found no significant prejudice to the defendant.

The motion was dismissed, a new litigation schedule was imposed, and costs of $25,000 were awarded to the plaintiff.

Following a trial where the plaintiff successfully proved a construction lien and defeated the defendants' counterclaim, the court determined the costs and interest payable.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of $225,504.45, while the defendants argued for $85,000.

The court awarded the plaintiff $175,000 in substantial indemnity costs, citing the defendants' unreasonable conduct, misleading evidence, and failure to accept multiple generous offers to settle.

The court also awarded prejudgment interest at the contractual rate of 25%.

The moving party sought an order under Rule 39.03 to examine a non-party lawyer and accountant regarding an estate freeze transaction, and for the production of their files.

The responding parties opposed the examination and production of the lawyer's file on the basis of solicitor-client privilege.

The court held that the responding parties implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege by pleading that they relied entirely on the moving party's misrepresentations when signing the estate freeze documents.

The motion was granted, and the non-parties were ordered to produce relevant documents and attend examinations.

The plaintiff demolition subcontractor brought a lien action for unpaid work, and the defendant general contractor counterclaimed for damages caused when the plaintiff severed an underground electrical duct bank, causing a power outage at a wastewater treatment plant.

The court found the plaintiff breached its subcontract and was negligent by failing to review drawings, obtain locates, and follow its own demolition plan.

However, the court also found the defendant 15% contributorily negligent for failing to communicate its knowledge of the duct bank to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's lien claim was offset against 85% of the defendant's damages, resulting in a net judgment payable by the plaintiff to the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for an order requiring the corporate plaintiff to post security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff conceded the defendants met their initial onus but argued it had sufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence of recent profits insufficient to prove it had exigible assets, noting its history of deficits and lack of hard assets.

The court granted the motion and ordered the plaintiff to post $50,000 in security for costs.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1)(d), arguing there was good reason to believe the plaintiff corporation had insufficient assets in Ontario.

The defendant relied on an unsatisfied foreign arbitral award and the plaintiff's delay in paying a previous costs order.

The court dismissed the motion, finding the foreign award was likely statute-barred in Ontario and the payment of the previous costs order demonstrated an ability to pay, not an inability.

The court also noted the defendant's unexplained 28-month delay in bringing the motion would have been fatal regardless.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs under Rule 56.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking $300,000 in total for the main action and a related counterclaim.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiffs had recently paid over $150,000 in outstanding costs orders, the related counterclaim did not seek the same relief, and the action was neither frivolous nor vexatious.

Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish that the plaintiffs had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant homeowners for unpaid work and extras on a residential renovation project.

The defendants counterclaimed for damages, alleging the plaintiff abandoned the project and performed defective work.

The court found that the defendants wrongfully repudiated the contract without justification, as the alleged deficiencies did not meet the high threshold required for termination.

The plaintiff was awarded $19,113.80 for the balance of the contract price and approved extras, less credits for unfinished work, and the defendants' counterclaim was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion under section 47 of the Construction Act to discharge a construction lien and dismiss the plaintiff's action.

The plaintiff corporation registered a lien for emergency plumbing and water remediation work, but the evidence showed the defendants contracted with a differently named entity, not the plaintiff.

The court found no triable issue regarding the contract claim.

Furthermore, the court found the action was vexatious and an abuse of process, as the plaintiff's principal engaged in a pattern of deceptive tactics, including misrepresenting himself as capable of practicing law to pressure customers into paying excessive charges.

The claim for lien was discharged and the action dismissed.

Zurich, the surety for the insolvent general contractor Bondfield, brought a motion to intervene as a party in a construction lien reference.

Zurich sought to participate in a vetting committee for the distribution of the owner's holdback among the timely lien claimants.

The court granted the motion, finding that Zurich had a direct interest in the holdback because it had made significant holdback advances to the major electrical and mechanical trades and had taken partial assignments of their lien rights.

The court ordered the timely claimants to pay Zurich's costs of $30,000.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel the defendants to answer undertakings and refusals given during examinations in aid of execution, and to produce documents.

The court found that the plaintiff had established a sufficient connection between the individual defendants and various corporate entities and properties to justify the questions asked.

The court ordered the defendants to answer the outstanding questions, produce the requested documents, reattend examinations within 30 days, and pay costs for both the examinations and the motion.