Katie McGurk

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the decision of P. Boucher J. dated June 24, 2025.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

As no costs outlines were filed, no costs were awarded.

The Chalmers defendants moved for a declaration that A3 Construction Inc.'s construction lien had expired and for an order vacating the lien and certificate of action from title.

A3 opposed and cross-moved for a declaration that its action was set down for trial before the expiry of the limitation period.

The court found that A3 took sufficient steps to set the action down for trial within the required time by submitting the trial record through the Civil Submissions Online Portal before the deadline, even though the record was initially rejected for procedural deficiencies.

The court dismissed the Chalmers' motion and granted A3's cross-motion, declaring the action set down for trial as of June 6, 2023.

The applicant, Johnson Bros.

Corporation, sought leave to appeal from a partial arbitration award and a final arbitration award concerning costs and interest.

The respondent, Soletanche Bachy Canada Inc., opposed the application.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the arbitration agreement, which incorporated CCDC 40 rules and stipulated that disputes would be "finally resolved" and awards "final and binding" precluded any right to appeal.

The court further held that even if a right to appeal existed, the proposed questions of law regarding the reversal of onus, weather-related damages, and COVID-19 impacts were either not pure questions of law or lacked sufficient evidentiary basis for appellate review.

The appellant appealed an order reducing the amount of security the respondent was required to pay into court to vacate a construction lien.

The appellant argued the motion judge erred in law by providing deficient reasons that prevented meaningful appellate review.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the motion judge's five-paragraph endorsement lacked sufficient explanation for reducing the security and failed to address the conflicting evidence regarding the contract price.

The appeal was allowed, the order was set aside, and the matter was remitted for redetermination by a different judge.

The plaintiff sued its former lawyer's estate and professional corporation for negligence and breach of contract after the lawyer allowed a construction lien to expire by failing to set the action down for trial within two years.

The defendants conceded the breach of the standard of care but disputed causation and damages, arguing the plaintiff failed to mitigate by not enforcing a related judgment and that the property lacked sufficient equity.

The court found the plaintiff did not act unreasonably in relying on the lawyer's advice that the lien was valid.

Assessing the complex evidence on the contaminated property's retrospective value, the court determined there was equity in the property and fixed damages at $472,000.

The parties sought costs following a consolidated application regarding a commercial lease dispute where the applicant obtained declaratory relief terminating the lease, but monetary claims were deferred to proceed as an action.

The applicant sought partial indemnity costs of $55,361.66, while the respondents sought costs of $63,068 arguing divided success.

The court found it could not accurately apportion the applicant's costs specifically to the successful declaratory relief claim and reserved the issue of costs to the trial judge hearing the remaining damage claims.

The applicant landlord sought vacant possession and damages from the respondents, a tenant and a related corporation.

The respondents brought a cross-application for damages and determination of rights under a settlement agreement.

The court found the landlord-tenant relationship had irretrievably broken down due to the tenant's admitted failure to pay rent, which constituted a fundamental breach of the lease.

The court granted the landlord a declaration that the lease was terminated and issued a writ of possession, delayed by 30 days.

However, due to significant factual disputes, credibility issues, and the potential need for expert evidence, the court converted all remaining claims for damages from both parties into a single action to proceed with fresh pleadings and examinations for discovery.

The plaintiff sued his former employer for constructive dismissal, wrongful dismissal, and human rights damages, alleging he was forced out after taking a medical leave.

The employer argued the plaintiff voluntarily resigned and, alternatively, that there was just cause for termination because the plaintiff performed unauthorized side jobs for cash using company resources.

The court dismissed the action, finding the plaintiff was not constructively dismissed when the employer requested the return of his company vehicle and cellphone.

The court further held that even if he had been dismissed, the employer had just cause due to the plaintiff's breach of the duty of loyalty and misappropriation of company property.

The human rights claims were also dismissed.