Kyle Alexander MacLean

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 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 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.