Karey Anne Dhirani

The appellant, a plumbing subcontractor, registered a general lien against all lots in two subdivisions after the general contractor made an assignment in bankruptcy.

The owners had written contracts with the general contractor specifying that liens would arise and expire on a lot-by-lot basis.

The Divisional Court upheld the motions judge's decision to discharge the general liens, finding that section 20(2) of the Construction Lien Act extinguishes general lien rights for both contractors and subcontractors when the primary contract contains a lot-by-lot provision.

The court also dismissed the appellant's attempt to continue the action for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, and refused leave to appeal costs.

Following a successful summary judgment dismissing an action concerning enforcement of an alleged agreement of purchase and sale for vacant land, the court determined costs.

The defendants sought full indemnity or alternatively substantial indemnity costs, relying partly on an earlier offer to settle.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted absent misconduct or other exceptional circumstances, and declined to apply Rule 49 consequences where the plaintiffs recovered no judgment.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis and reduced the defendants’ claimed fees after reviewing the hours spent.

Total costs were awarded against the plaintiffs.

The appellants challenged the motion judge's conclusion that no binding agreement had been formed following negotiations, an offer, and a time-limited counter-offer.

The court held that the counter-offer expired by its own terms and was not accepted within the specified time.

Because there was no communication of acceptance before expiry, there was no meeting of the minds.

The appeal was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Competing motions for summary judgment arose from a failed real estate transaction involving a vacant residential lot.

The purchasers claimed the parties had reached a binding agreement of purchase and sale and sought specific performance and damages.

The vendors argued their counter‑offer contained an express irrevocability deadline and was never accepted before expiry.

The court applied basic contract principles of offer and acceptance, holding that the vendors’ amended document constituted a counter‑offer that lapsed when the purchasers failed to communicate acceptance within the stated time.

As no meeting of the minds occurred, no enforceable agreement existed and the purchasers’ action was dismissed.

Following a construction lien trial involving landscaping services, the successful plaintiff sought costs exceeding $100,000 based largely on an offer to settle that it had bettered at trial.

The court considered Rule 49.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and proportionality governing costs awards.

Although the plaintiff obtained judgment and had made a favourable settlement offer, the court found the claimed hours and total costs excessive relative to the amount recovered.

Taking into account the defendant’s unsuccessful counterclaim and litigation conduct but emphasizing proportionality, the court fixed costs at a reduced amount.

A contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment for landscaping work performed at a residential property.

The property owner argued the parties had agreed to a fixed lump‑sum contract and counterclaimed for the cost of correcting deficiencies and completing the work.

The court found no lump‑sum contract existed and instead concluded the arrangement was an open‑ended design‑build project where costs increased as the owner selected upgraded materials and features.

After reviewing a Scott Schedule and evidence of work performed, the court determined the contractor was entitled to payment for completed work subject to deductions for deficiencies.

Judgment was granted enforcing the construction lien for the net amount owed after deducting remediation costs.

The appellant moved to amend its statement of claim after the expiry of the limitation period to add its parent corporation as a plaintiff, arguing misnomer.

The Master and Divisional Court dismissed the motion, finding it was an attempt to add a new party rather than correct a misnomer.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision, confirming it was not a misnomer and reaffirming that the special circumstances doctrine did not survive the enactment of the Limitations Act, 2002.

The appellant appealed an order declaring a 'Covenant and Postponement of Claim' valid and enforceable against it.

The appellant argued it was a guarantor, not a principal debtor, and was released from liability due to a failure to receive a demand notice.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the specific language of the Covenant precluded the appellant from relying on the lack of notice, and that the appellant had ratified the events that might have otherwise entitled it to release.

The appellant operated an adult entertainment parlour.

The City of Hamilton revoked the appellant's licence for failing to actively carry on business within a reasonable time.

The appellant sought judicial review, arguing a denial of procedural fairness because the City failed to provide proper disclosure of the grounds for revocation as required by its own by-law.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the City's failure to provide proper notice and disclosure tainted the hearing from the outset and denied the appellant its right to a fair hearing.

The revocation was quashed and the licence reinstated.

The applicants sought judicial review of a decision by the City of Hamilton to revoke their adult entertainment parlour licence.

The municipality had passed a by-law to reduce the number of such parlours, allowing revocation if a business was not actively carried on within a reasonable time.

The applicants had not opened for business because they were waiting for a liquor licence, which was delayed due to unpaid retail sales tax from another business.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding no procedural unfairness, bias, or bad faith.

The court held that the municipality's finding that the business had not opened within a reasonable time was not patently unreasonable, as the delay in obtaining a liquor licence was not the municipality's responsibility.