Karen Groulx

The moving party sought leave to appeal an ODACC adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and fixed the costs of the leave motion at $30,000, payable in the discretion of the panel deciding the application for judicial review.

The court also granted an interim stay of the impugned payment order pending a motion for an interlocutory stay or further direction from the case management judge.

The appellant appealed an order dismissing its motion opposing the confirmation of a report made by an Associate Judge following a consolidated construction lien action.

The Divisional Court found no error of law or palpable and overriding error of fact in the motions judge's decision.

The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondents.

The moving party, a subcontractor, brought a motion to oppose the confirmation of an Associate Justice's report arising from a 24-day consolidated construction lien trial.

The subcontractor argued that the Associate Justice erred in finding that the general contractor did not breach the payment terms, that the termination of the contract was justified, and that the general contractor did not breach the duty of good faith.

The Superior Court of Justice found no errors in principle or palpable and overriding errors of fact or mixed fact and law in the Associate Justice's findings.

The motion to oppose confirmation was denied and the report was confirmed.

This decision addresses costs and interest following a trial where ABCO One Corporation's claims were dismissed, and Pomerleau Inc. was awarded $516,458.18 against ABCO.

The court awarded Pomerleau $500,000 in costs against ABCO, considering ABCO's lack of success, its failure to make serious settlement attempts, and its conduct during trial.

Canada-Wide Reinforcing Steel Co. (CW) was awarded $37,000 in substantial indemnity costs against Pomerleau, due to Pomerleau's unreasonable insistence on CW re-proving its default judgment and a 'bullying' settlement offer.

Prejudgment interest on Pomerleau's judgment against ABCO was also calculated based on specific breach dates.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant general contractor after its subcontract was terminated.

The general contractor counterclaimed for completion costs and back-charges.

The court found that the subcontractor had repudiated the contract through excessive payment demands, a production slowdown, and uncorrected deficiencies, justifying the termination.

The subcontractor's claims were dismissed, and it was ordered to pay the general contractor $516,458.18 in damages for back-charges.

A sub-subcontractor was awarded $84,002.92 in basic holdback from the general contractor.

ABCO brought a motion for the production of documents from an ongoing arbitration involving Pomerleau and the TTC.

After the motion was adjourned, ABCO abandoned it, citing timing issues for the upcoming trial.

Pomerleau sought costs thrown away on a full indemnity basis.

The Master found that ABCO's motion was brought too late, lacked sufficient evidence of necessity, and appeared to be a fishing expedition.

Pomerleau was awarded $12,000 in costs.

The defendant, Pomerleau Inc., brought a motion to adjourn a scheduled 18-day trial on the basis that a pending contested bankruptcy motion against the plaintiff, ABCO One Corporation, would likely result in bankruptcy, rendering trial preparation a waste of money.

The court granted leave for the motion under the Construction Lien Act but dismissed the motion to adjourn.

The court relied on expert evidence that a bankruptcy judge would likely stay any bankruptcy order to allow the trial to proceed, and noted that adjourning the trial might improperly influence the bankruptcy judge.

The court awarded costs of $1,000 to the plaintiff, reduced because the matter could have been handled more efficiently via a case conference.

The appellant landlord appealed a decision of the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal finding that the respondents' homes were 'land lease homes' in a 'land lease community' under the Tenant Protection Act, 1997.

The respondents had purchased their homes and entered into 99-year land leases.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the respondents were 'owners' of their dwellings within the meaning of the Act, as the agreements shifted the primary obligations of ownership to them and explicitly stated the buildings remained their property during the lease term.

The court also confirmed that common use elements are not a prerequisite for a land lease community.