Lawrence Pick

The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendant, Hossein Azargive, to reattend discovery to answer numerous refusals.

The refusals concerned questions about photographs, design-related issues, applicable professional standards, and specific factual inquiries regarding negligent renovation work.

The court found the questions relevant to the pleadings and the defendant's defence, including his professional standards and expert opinion.

The motion was granted, and the defendant was ordered to reattend discovery.

The appellants appealed an order dismissing their motion to add their mortgagee, Home Trust Company, as a defendant in their action against their insurer.

The appellants sought to add the mortgagee solely to obtain an injunction against mortgage enforcement proceedings while the insurance dispute was resolved.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that an injunction is a remedy, not a cause of action, and the proposed amended statement of claim failed to plead any tenable cause of action against the mortgagee.

Following a construction lien trial in which the plaintiff contractor’s lien claim was dismissed and the defendants succeeded on a counterclaim for overpayment, the court addressed the issue of costs under the Construction Lien Act.

The owners sought partial indemnity costs exceeding $83,000, including a significant expert witness disbursement.

The court applied the discretionary factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and considered complexity, success at trial, and the parties’ conduct.

The contractor argued there had been divided success and challenged the necessity of certain legal work and disbursements, but the court rejected these submissions.

Concluding that the owners were the successful parties and that their claimed costs were reasonable within the expectations of the litigation, the court awarded partial indemnity costs with a reduction to one expert report.

A contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment for renovation work performed on a residential property.

The homeowners disputed the claim and counterclaimed alleging overpayment, asserting the work was subject to a guaranteed maximum budget.

The court found no enforceable contract existed because the parties never agreed on the essential term of price.

The contractor was nevertheless entitled to compensation on a quantum meruit basis for the reasonable value of services and materials supplied.

Accepting expert quantity‑surveying evidence, the court determined the fair value of the work was less than the amount already paid, resulting in dismissal of the contractor’s claim and a small award to the homeowners on their counterclaim.

The appellant challenged a motion judge’s ruling that Ontario courts had jurisdiction over an action alleging conspiracy to commit fraud.

The Court of Appeal held that the record disclosed tortious conduct with an essential part occurring in Toronto, including a renegotiation agreement and losses arising from it, thereby engaging the presumptive connecting factors that the tort was committed in Ontario and that a contract connected with the dispute was made in Ontario.

The court also accepted evidence linking the appellant to the movement of the respondent’s funds through a company partly owned by the appellant and into the appellant’s personal account.

The appeal was dismissed and costs were fixed in favour of the respondent.