Les O’Connor

Following a summary judgment motion where the plaintiff obtained judgment for a portion of its claim for drywall installation and extras, both parties sought costs.

The plaintiff claimed $78,810 and the defendant claimed $95,056.76.

The court found both claims totally unreasonable and criticized the parties for ignoring the proportionality principles set out in Hryniak v. Mauldin.

To discourage wasteful use of court time, the court awarded the plaintiff significantly reduced costs of $15,000, inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff drywall contractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the defendant general contractor for the balance owing on a construction contract and for over $1.1 million in alleged extras.

The defendant admitted a portion of the contract balance and a portion of the extras but disputed the remainder, citing delays, deficiencies, and lack of written authorization for the extras.

The court granted partial summary judgment for the $750,641 admitted by the defendant but dismissed the balance of the motion, finding that the conflicting evidence regarding verbal authorizations, design changes, and project delays required a trial.