Jeremy Rankin

The plaintiff's motion to oppose confirmation of an Associate Justice's interim report in a construction lien matter was dismissed.

The successful defendants sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis due to an unaccepted offer to settle.

The court considered the defendants' success, the offer to settle, the importance of the issue, and the scale of the underlying litigation, fixing costs at $65,000 all inclusive.

The court dismissed Bellsam Contracting Ltd.'s motion to oppose confirmation of Associate Justice Robinson’s interim report in a construction lien dispute.

The decision confirms that the December 17, 2018 budget document was the governing contract, not a later, higher-priced quote.

The court found no error in the Associate Justice’s findings of fact or law, and emphasized the deference owed to such findings on review.

Bellsam’s new legal argument regarding conditional acceptance was rejected as it was not raised at trial and lacked evidentiary support.

This is a costs decision following a trial of an issue in a construction lien action.

The Torgerson Defendants sought substantial indemnity costs from Bellsam Contracting Limited.

The court found the Torgerson Defendants' overall costs claim excessive and disproportionate, particularly given the limited scope of the trial of an issue.

While acknowledging the Torgerson Defendants' success and their beating an offer to settle, the court significantly reduced the claimed costs, fixing them at $287,500 inclusive of HST and disbursements, payable by Bellsam.

The decision also addressed the recoverability of eDiscovery specialist fees.

The plaintiff in a proposed class action concerning failed syndicated mortgage investments brought a motion to lift a stay of proceedings and dismiss the action against the ADI Defendants.

A settlement had been reached in a related action (the FAAN Action) providing over $18.3 million to the investors, representing over 91% of the principal owed by the ADI Defendants.

The court found the settlement fair and reasonable, and approved the dismissal of the class action against the ADI Defendants without costs, as there was no prejudice to the putative class members.

The defendant, Olympia Trust Company, brought a consent motion to dismiss third-party proceedings against ADI Developments (Link) Inc., ADI Development Group Inc., and Tariq Adi.

The motion was brought after the plaintiff's main action against Olympia Trust was dismissed and a comprehensive settlement agreement resolving claims against the ADI Defendants was approved.

The court granted the motion, dismissing the third-party proceedings with prejudice and without costs, as the basis for the third-party claim was obviated and the dismissal was on consent.

The appellant appealed an advertising order issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority.

The parties reached a settlement and applied to dispose of the matter without a hearing under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The Tribunal issued a consent order withdrawing both the Registrar's order and the appeal without costs.

The appellant appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Tarion Warranty Corporation to refuse to grant an application for a determination that a home qualifies for enrolment in the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan.

The parties reached a settlement and applied under section 4.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Tribunal issued a consent order withdrawing the appeal and the Notice of Proposal without costs, and directed the Registrar to commence review of the appellant's application in the ordinary course.

The plaintiff contractor and defendant owners disputed which of two quotes formed the basis of their construction contract for a medical clinic build-out.

The court held that the plaintiff's December 2018 quote constituted a valid offer that was accepted by the defendants through an agent who had ostensible authority to bind the plaintiff.

The court found that the subsequent January 2019 quote was never accepted and lacked consideration, and therefore did not amend the contract.

The court also determined that the contract was solely between the plaintiff and the defendants' corporate entity, not the individual defendants.

The appellants appealed a Notice of Proposal issued by the Registrar of the Home Construction Regulatory Authority to revoke and impose conditions on their home construction licences.

The parties reached a settlement and applied to dispose of the matter without a hearing.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal issued a consent order revoking certain licences, imposing conditions on others, and requiring the payment of a $60,000 administrative monetary penalty along with the return of over $2.5 million in monetary benefits to affected purchasers.

The respondents, NYX Tannery Ltd. and the City of Mississauga, brought a motion to amend the Title of Proceedings to include the applicant's other name, Julie Samantha Lawrence, for enforcement purposes.

The applicant, Julie Daly, opposed the motion and also requested the judge's recusal and an adjournment.

The court dismissed the recusal and adjournment requests, finding no reasonable apprehension of bias and no valid grounds for adjournment, including that the anti-SLAPP motion stay did not apply.

The court granted the motion to amend the Title of Proceedings, finding no prejudice to the applicant that could not be compensated by costs.