Sonny Ingram

The appellant appealed a motion judge's decision granting an order for security.

The appellant argued that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's decision, finding that the respondent had bargained for security, which differs fundamentally from damages.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondent.

Berkley Insurance Company (Applicant) sought a mandatory order compelling Rob Piroli Construction Inc. (Respondent) to honour an undertaking to direct funds into a trust as security for construction lien bonds.

Piroli Construction had breached this undertaking, using the funds to pay subcontractors instead.

The court found that damages would be an inadequate remedy because honouring the undertaking would make Berkley Insurance a secured creditor, unlike an unsecured judgment for damages.

The application for a mandatory order was granted, along with costs.

The appellant brought an application under Rule 14 for a mandatory order enforcing an undertaking to pay money related to construction bonds.

The application judge dismissed the application on procedural grounds, finding it was not properly brought under Rule 14.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the application was properly founded under subrules (d), (g), and (h) as there were no material facts in dispute and the interpretation of the contract was conceded.

The matter was remitted to the application judge for a decision on the merits.

The applicant sought judicial review of the respondent City's decision to award a water meter supply and installation contract to a competing bidder.

The applicant argued the City breached procedural fairness by using undisclosed evaluation criteria, specifically a technical ratio and a 5-year evaluation period.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Request for Proposals granted the City broad discretion and explicitly stated selection would be based on merit and price ratio.

The court also excluded the applicant's proffered expert evidence on procurement fairness, finding it unnecessary to assist the court.