Kyle Alexander MacLean

The plaintiffs moved for a status hearing to extend the deadline to set their complex construction action down for trial.

The defendant DeMarco Construction opposed, arguing the delay was inexcusable and caused prejudice due to the death of its primary witness.

The court found the plaintiffs provided an acceptable explanation for the delay, citing health issues and difficulties scheduling mediation.

The court also held that the prejudice from the witness's death was not attributable to the plaintiffs' delay and was attenuated by the availability of discovery transcripts and documentary evidence.

The motion to extend the deadline was granted.

The defendants brought a motion under section 44 of the Construction Act to reduce the security posted for a construction lien registered by the plaintiffs.

The defendants argued that the lien claim included non-lienable services (real estate consulting, property management) and exaggerated amounts (labour hours, demolition, framing, drywall).

The court found that the plaintiffs' claims for real estate consulting and property management fees were non-lienable and that other claims, particularly for labour, were exaggerated and unsubstantiated.

The motion was granted, and the security was significantly reduced from $173,125 to $15,903.19.

This case concerned a contract dispute between Harris Brothers Ltd. (plaintiff) and Mud Creek Capital Corp. (defendant) regarding levelling and regrading work for wind turbine towers.

The plaintiff claimed over $130,000 based on an alleged "open" time and materials contract, while the defendant argued the contract was for approximately $10,000 or $40,000.

The court found that the binding contract was a $40,000 purchase order, which required written agreement for any additional work.

Due to the plaintiff's failure to obtain such written consent for work exceeding the $40,000 cap, the court limited the plaintiff's recovery to the contract price.

Claims for quantum meruit and unjust enrichment were dismissed as a binding contract existed.

The defendant's counterclaim for costs to complete the work was also dismissed because they had prohibited the plaintiff from finishing the job.

Claims against the personal defendants were dismissed due to lack of evidence of personal liability.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding parties to provide information required under section 39 of the Construction Act.

The responding parties provided the requested information after the motion was served but before the hearing.

The moving party sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs to the moving party, finding that the responding parties caused the unnecessary motion by failing to respond to the section 39 demand within the statutory 21-day period and making no reasonable effort to resolve the motion costs.

The plaintiff, a developer, brought a motion under Rule 32.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to inspect and collect data from townhomes it previously built, which were subject to statutory warranty claims for heating issues.

The non-party respondent, Tarion Warranty Company, and the homeowners opposed the motion, arguing it would delay scheduled remediation work.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the inspection might be necessary, it would unreasonably delay the compensation and repair process for the homeowners, whose needs must take priority under consumer protection legislation.

The plaintiff developer brought a motion under Rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to inspect and conduct non-destructive testing at several townhome units where heating deficiencies were alleged.

Tarion Warranty Corporation, a non-party respondent administering statutory warranty claims, opposed the motion, arguing it would delay scheduled remedial work.

The court granted the motion, finding the inspection necessary for the proper determination of issues in the proceeding and noting that the plaintiff's proposed schedule would not interfere with Tarion's planned repairs.

The plaintiff sought summary judgment against the individual defendants, Robert Paul Rawlings and Darlene Ann Rawlings, and a declaration that the judgment would survive their bankruptcy.

The plaintiff had paid deposits to Rawlings Constructors Limited for a custom home that was never completed, and the corporation subsequently went bankrupt.

The plaintiff argued that the individual defendants were personally liable due to fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation regarding a book's authorship, and that the corporate veil should be pierced.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion, finding no personal liability for the Rawlings post-bankruptcy, no fiduciary duty, no fraudulent misrepresentation, and no basis to pierce the corporate veil.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision regarding a paving contract dispute.

The appellant argued the Deputy Judge erred by not awarding prejudgment interest on its counterclaim for defective work dating back to the respondent's original invoice date.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Deputy Judge's quantification of damages based on the cost of remedial work at a later date inherently incorporated the time value of money, and therefore denying earlier prejudgment interest was a proper exercise of discretion to avoid over-compensation.

The respondent brought a claim for unjust enrichment to recover money she paid to acquire and renovate a house registered in the appellants' names.

The motion judge granted summary judgment in favour of the respondent, finding unjust enrichment and awarding her $221,914.11.

The appellants appealed, arguing that summary judgment was inappropriate given conflicting evidence regarding the parties' agreement and that the motion judge's reasons were insufficient.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment, finding that the motion judge failed to adequately explain how she resolved conflicts in evidence, made insufficient credibility findings, and failed to properly analyze the equities and mutual benefits exchanged between the parties.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment seeking the return of funds she invested in a property purchased with her sister and brother-in-law.

The plaintiff provided the entire purchase price and contributed to renovations, but the property was registered solely in the defendants' names.

The court found that the defendants were unjustly enriched and failed to rebut the presumption of resulting trust.

Summary judgment was granted, ordering the defendants to pay the plaintiff $221,914.11, representing her total investment in the property.

On a motion by a defendant in the main action and plaintiff in a companion contribution and indemnity action, the court considered whether two construction-related proceedings arising from a leaky warehouse roof should be tried together or consecutively.

Applying the Rule 6.01 gateway criteria and the factors identified in 1014864 Ontario Ltd. v. 1721789 Ontario Inc., the court found the actions arose from the same factual matrix, involved overlapping causation issues, and created a real risk of inconsistent factual findings if heard separately.

The court declined consolidation but ordered that the actions be tried one immediately following the other, with the main action proceeding first and common witnesses to be examined once subject to the trial judge's direction.

Costs were left for further written submissions.

The defendant brought a motion for security for costs and a stay of previous costs orders made against him.

The plaintiff had previously obtained summary judgment for indemnification regarding an estate administration and intended to withdraw the remaining claims.

The court found that ordering security for costs would have no practical significance, as the only remaining step was the plaintiff's motion to withdraw the claim.

The court also found no reason to stay the previous costs orders.

The defendant's motions were dismissed.

In a construction lien action, the defendant contractor sought leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring an interlocutory motion for security for costs and requested that the plaintiff post $75,000.

The court held that leave may be granted where the proposed interlocutory step is necessary to ensure procedural fairness, particularly where there is evidence suggesting the corporate plaintiff may lack sufficient assets in Ontario to satisfy a potential costs award.

After reviewing evidence including outstanding writs, multiple lien actions, and insufficient financial disclosure, the court found good reason to believe the plaintiff lacked adequate assets.

Security for costs was therefore ordered, but in a reduced amount proportionate to the lien claim and the security already posted to vacate the lien.

Following dismissal of a motion to transfer a family proceeding from Kitchener to Owen Sound, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The successful party sought substantial indemnity costs based on an alleged offer to settle and a bill of costs exceeding $9,500.

The court found the offer did not comply with Rule 18(14) of the Family Law Rules because it was unsigned and not open until the hearing commenced.

Applying Rule 24 principles and considering proportionality, the court awarded partial indemnity costs and reduced both fees and disbursements claimed.

The plaintiff brought a motion for contempt after the defendant failed to comply with a litigation timetable order.

The defendant eventually provided the required productions, rendering the contempt motion moot, but the parties disputed costs.

The court found that the defendants' counsel had disregarded the timetable order and that the plaintiff's counsel had made every effort to follow up before bringing the motion.

The court awarded the plaintiff $2,500 in costs.