Michael Round

The plaintiff flooring contractor sued the defendant general contractor for unpaid invoices relating to the installation of a concrete urethane floor in a brewery.

The general contractor counterclaimed and brought separate actions against the flooring subcontractors and the product manufacturer, alleging the floor was negligently installed and defective.

The court found that the alleged defects were cosmetic and resulted from the general contractor's decision to substitute a cheaper flooring product without the designer's approval, as well as poor maintenance by the brewery.

The court granted the plaintiff's claim for unpaid invoices and dismissed the general contractor's counterclaim and third-party actions.

Following a 31-day trial where the plaintiff was awarded $11 million in damages, the court determined the quantum of costs payable to the plaintiff.

The parties agreed that partial indemnity was the appropriate scale.

Applying the factors under Rule 57.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court fixed the plaintiff's partial indemnity fees at $675,000 plus HST and disbursements at $238,000 inclusive of HST.

An investor that had acquired the rights of a bankrupt Indigenous‑owned technology company sued a software corporation for breach of contract arising from a failed strategic partnership.

The plaintiff alleged the defendant committed to invest $1.5 million and provide technological support but later withdrew, causing the company’s collapse.

The court found a binding agreement was formed through oral approval and a confirming letter, and that the defendant’s internal corporate approval issues did not negate the contract.

Alleged misrepresentations regarding finances, market size, and potential investors were rejected.

Applying a modified valuation based on projected business plans and discounting for risk, the court awarded damages for the lost business opportunity.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to substitute five named individuals for 'John Doe' defendants.

The action involved allegations that the defendants improperly accessed and used the plaintiff's confidential bond trading information.

The court applied the two-part test for misnomer, focusing on whether the 'litigating finger' pointed at the proposed defendants such that they would have known they were the intended parties.

The court granted the motion for four of the individuals, finding they would have recognized they were implicated by the allegations of accessing or destroying information, but denied it for one individual whose role was not clearly implicated by the pleadings.