Michael Handler

Following a decision where the plaintiffs successfully opposed confirmation of a Master's Report on a single issue that granted them priority over the defendant mortgagees, the court determined the costs of the action.

The plaintiffs sought $117,279.01 based on an offer to settle, while the defendants argued for $3,260.65 due to the plaintiffs' limited success on most issues.

Balancing the proportionality of time spent on the successful issue against the fact that it yielded the plaintiffs' entire desired remedy, the court awarded the plaintiffs $35,000 in costs.

The Defendant Mortgagees brought a motion, and the Lienholders brought a cross-motion, for reconsideration of a judgment regarding priority under s. 78(3) of the Construction Act.

The court reviewed the test for reconsideration, noting it is reserved for rare circumstances involving obvious errors of inadvertence.

Finding that both parties were essentially attempting to re-argue legal questions and valuation findings appropriate for an appeal rather than reconsideration, the court dismissed both the motion and the cross-motion.

The plaintiffs, two lienholders, brought a motion opposing the confirmation of a Master's Report which found that the defendant mortgagees had priority over their construction liens under s. 78(3) of the Construction Act.

The Master had awarded the mortgagees all proceeds from the receivership sale of the contaminated property.

The Superior Court confirmed the Master's finding that the mortgagees had priority for the funds advanced under the vendor take-back mortgage.

However, the Court set aside the portion of the Report granting the mortgagees priority for additional fees, charges, and expenses not directly related to the sale, allowing the lienholders access to the remaining funds to satisfy their liens.

The plaintiff subcontractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant general contractor and owner for unpaid invoices and extras relating to structural steel work.

The defendant general contractor counterclaimed for delay, deficiencies, and back charges, arguing the plaintiff failed to adhere to the project schedule and change order procedures.

The court found that the parties never agreed to a formal written contract or the change order procedure, but proceeded on an agreed price and scope of work.

The court held the plaintiff completed its work within a reasonable time and was not responsible for the project delays, which were attributable to the general contractor.

The plaintiff's claim for the contract balance and proven extras was allowed, and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.