Kitto Lau

The defendant municipality brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff contractor's action for additional compensation arising from unexpected subsurface soil conditions during a sewer construction project.

The municipality argued the claim was barred by the contract's strict notice provisions, a release executed by the contractor, and the expiry of the two-year limitation period.

The court dismissed the motion, finding genuine issues for trial on all three grounds due to an insufficient evidentiary record provided by the municipality, particularly regarding the parties' course of conduct, the scope of the release's exceptions, and the exact date the claim was discovered.

The respondents brought a motion for a stay of execution of a prior judgment by Justice Akhtar, which ordered the removal of illegal construction at their properties due to flagrant violations of building codes and zoning bylaws.

The court dismissed the respondents' motion, finding their conduct to be a continuation of prior violations and their arguments specious.

The court applied a higher test for staying a final judgment, requiring proof that enforcement would be oppressive, vexatious, or an abuse of process, and would not cause injustice to the plaintiff.

The court found that the City's enforcement was not oppressive and that the public interest in safety outweighed the respondents' claims.

Costs were awarded to the City.

The City of Toronto and its Chief Building Official applied under s. 38 of the Building Code Act, 1992, for orders compelling Nikolaos Lambrinos and 1187310 Ontario Limited to remove unauthorized construction and comply with building and zoning by-laws at 102 and 104 Ulster Street.

The properties had a long history of unapproved additions and conversion into multiple dwelling units, deemed unsafe.

The respondents' defenses, including claims of non-receipt of orders and alleged permits, were rejected due to lack of credibility and evidence.

The court found flagrant and unjustified violations of the Building Code Act and Ontario Building Code, making retrospective approval impossible.