Kyle MacLean

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 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.