Master C. Wiebe

The moving party, Suncity, brought a motion to declare the responding party's construction lien expired for failure to perfect within the 90-day period under the old Construction Act.

The responding party argued the new Construction Act applied, which would extend the perfection period to 150 days, claiming Suncity was an 'owner' rather than a 'contractor'.

The court relied on clear admissions in the responding party's statement of claim that Suncity was the general contractor and Epic was the sole owner.

Consequently, the old Construction Act applied, the lien was declared expired, and the action was dismissed.

Following a trial where the plaintiff was awarded the full amount of its construction lien and breach of contract claim ($73,767.26), the court determined costs and interest.

The plaintiff had made an offer to settle for $55,000, which the defendant ignored.

The court found the defendant's conduct throughout the litigation to be obstinate, provocative, and designed to delay.

Despite the costs claimed ($123,565.03) being disproportionate to the judgment amount, the court awarded $120,000 for the reference and $15,000 for a motion to strike on a substantial indemnity basis, emphasizing that proportionality should not reward unreasonable conduct.

Prejudgment interest was set at 1% and post-judgment at 2%.

The plaintiff, Unimac, brought a motion to vary previous orders requiring it to post security for costs in favour of the defendant, Metrolinx.

Unimac argued the orders were based on false and misleading evidence regarding the location of a related action, and that new evidence undermined the credibility of a key affidavit.

The Master dismissed the motion, finding that the location of the related action was not material to the original decision and that Unimac could have discovered the true location with due diligence.

The Master also found that the new evidence would not have had an important influence on the original decision.