Julia A. Toso

The applicant, a 1% tenant in common and co-mortgagor, brought an application for the partition and sale of a residential property.

The applicant had agreed to co-sign the mortgage to assist the respondent in closing the purchase, on the condition that the respondent would promptly refinance or sell the property.

After 13 months of inaction by the respondent, the applicant's own financial circumstances were severely compromised.

The court denied the respondent's late request for an adjournment and granted the application, ordering the sale of the property under the Partition Act and directing a reference to an associate judge.

Following a summary judgment in favour of the plaintiff subcontractor against the defendant general contractor, the court determined the costs of the motion.

The plaintiff had made a settlement offer that it beat at the hearing, entitling it to substantial indemnity costs from the date of the offer.

The court rejected the defendant's argument that the simplified procedure costs cap applied, noting the parties had engaged in a hybrid process outside of Rule 76.

The plaintiff was awarded total costs of $62,659.28.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for unpaid invoices totaling $103,650.53 and for breach of trust under the Construction Act.

The court granted summary judgment for the outstanding debt, rejecting the defendant's argument that a 'pay when paid' progressive payment model applied, as the contract clearly stated payment was due 30 days after invoicing.

The court adjourned the breach of trust claim to a case conference, noting the plaintiff could not establish the absence of a genuine issue for trial because the defendant had failed to provide a full accounting of trust funds.