Michael Mandarino

The court considered a motion by 485 Logan Developments Inc. to declare a construction lien registered by Accurate General Contracting Ltd. expired for failure to preserve and perfect the lien in time.

The court found that Accurate’s alleged post-completion work did not extend the lien period, characterizing it as “bootstrapping.” The lien was declared expired, the action dismissed, and damages for the lien bond premium were awarded to Logan.

The defendant, 485 Logan Developments Inc., brought a motion under section 44(5)(b) of the Construction Act to reduce the security it posted for a claim for lien registered by the plaintiff, Maple Drywall Inc., relating to a stacked condominium project.

The court found a genuine issue of fact as to whether an "overage" amount was part of the contract price and thus properly included in the lien, but determined that 30% of the overage was not owed, requiring a reduction in posted security.

The court also awarded damages to Logan for excessive interest paid on the lien bond and partial indemnity costs to Maple, reflecting the parties' relative success and conduct.

A surety (Westport) brought an interpleader motion seeking a declaration of priority over funds awarded to a subcontractor (High Tech) in an ODACC adjudication, or alternatively, for the funds to be paid into court.

The funds were held in trust by the general contractor's (BDA) counsel due to competing claims.

The court found that Westport, as surety, had a valid security interest and trust claim over the funds based on the indemnity agreement with High Tech.

The court rejected High Tech's argument that the Construction Act's prompt payment provisions gave it priority.

However, the court also found that there were triable issues regarding Westport's good faith in processing claims and making advances, which precluded a final order for immediate payment to Westport.

Therefore, the court ordered the disputed funds to be paid into court pending the outcome of ongoing litigation between the parties.

The applicant, a nurse employed by a hospital, was sued for invasion of privacy after she repeatedly accessed a patient's private hospital records without authorization and without being involved in the patient's care.

The insurance carriers appealed a lower court decision requiring them to defend the nurse under a commercial general liability policy.

The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the policy language covering invasion of privacy, including intrusion upon seclusion, clearly applied to the unauthorized access to medical records.

The court held that such conduct arose from the hospital's operations and fell within the scope of coverage intended by the policy.

The applicant, a hospital employee, sought a declaration that the respondent insurers owed her a duty to defend a civil action.

The underlying action alleged the applicant committed the tort of intrusion upon seclusion by repeatedly accessing a patient's medical records without authorization.

The insurers denied coverage, arguing the applicant was not acting under the direction of the hospital and the claim did not arise from the hospital's operations.

The court held that the policy's privacy coverage inherently included unauthorized access to records, and that the collection and maintenance of medical records fell within the hospital's operations.

The application was allowed, and the insurers were ordered to defend the action.