Darcia Perry

The moving party sought leave to appeal the decision of an adjudicator.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal and reserved the costs of the motion, fixed at $5,000, to the appeal panel.

The parties were directed to request a case conference to address the appeal schedule and a request for an interim stay.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a case management conference regarding a claim for compensation by Capital Paving Inc. against several utility companies under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012.

The Tribunal issued a procedural order on consent, setting out the organization of the hearing, requirements before the hearing, the issues list, the order of evidence, and the timetable leading up to a 14-day video hearing scheduled to begin in November 2026.

The Tribunal convened a Case Management Conference regarding claims for compensation filed by the claimant against several utility companies under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012.

The claims allege delays in providing locates within the statutory five-day period.

The Tribunal directed the parties to submit a revised draft Procedural Order and scheduled a 14-day video hearing for November 2026.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine its jurisdiction to hear claims for compensation for late locates under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, following the repeal of section 17(1)(c) on May 1, 2024.

The claimant argued that its claims were commenced prior to the repeal and that it had a vested substantive right to proceed under the Legislation Act.

The respondents argued that the legislature intended to eliminate the Tribunal's jurisdiction over such claims.

The Tribunal found that the repeal did not apply retroactively and that it retained jurisdiction to hear the claims on their merits.

The Tribunal convened Case Management Conferences for claims for compensation filed by the claimant against several utility companies for delays in providing locates.

Following the recent repeal of s. 17(1)(c) of the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, the respondents argued the Tribunal no longer had jurisdiction to award compensation.

The Tribunal initiated a motion to determine its jurisdiction via a written hearing and set a schedule for submissions.

The Tribunal convened a first Case Management Conference regarding a claim for compensation by the claimant against the respondent for alleged delays in providing locates under the Ontario Underground Infrastructure Notification System Act, 2012.

The respondent indicated that additional claims should be made against other members.

The Tribunal scheduled a second Case Management Conference to allow the claimant time to serve additional members and to receive a status update.

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision allowing a breach of trust claim to be joined with a construction lien claim under the amended Construction Act.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that while the Act itself is silent on joinder, O. Reg. 302/18 expressly permits only the joinder of breach of contract or subcontract claims.

By implication, the regulation precludes the joinder of trust claims in a construction lien proceeding.

The order permitting joinder was set aside and the trust claims were struck.

Following the dismissal of the action against it, the defendant Covanta sought partial indemnity costs of $62,323.43 plus incidental costs of $312,887.85.

The plaintiff argued the amounts were excessive and that incidental costs were effectively a claim for damages.

The court agreed with the plaintiff, finding the incidental costs inappropriate for a summary costs motion and the legal fees excessive compared to the plaintiff's own costs outline.

The court fixed costs at $40,000 payable by the plaintiff to Covanta.

The moving party, an owner/contractor on a construction project, brought a motion under section 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act to dismiss the plaintiff's action against it.

The plaintiff's construction lien had previously been vacated by the posting of security by the general contractor.

The court held that once a lien is vacated by the posting of security, the owner is no longer a proper party to the lien action as there is no privity of contract.

Furthermore, the court applied binding appellate authority to hold that claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit cannot be joined in a lien action under section 55(1) of the Act.

The motion was granted and the action against the moving party was dismissed.

The appellant commenced a construction lien action against the respondent, who counterclaimed for breach of contract and negligence.

The lien claim was dismissed, but the counterclaim proceeded to trial within the same action, resulting in a judgment for the respondent.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The respondent brought a motion to quash the appeal for want of jurisdiction, arguing the appeal lay to the Divisional Court under s. 71(1) of the Construction Lien Act.

The Court of Appeal granted the motion, holding that a judgment on a counterclaim in a construction lien action remains a judgment under the Act unless explicitly transferred to the ordinary procedure.

The appeal was transferred to the Divisional Court.