3 total
The court dismissed the plaintiffs' procedural motions in a lien action and ordered them to attend cross-examination, awarding substantial indemnity costs.
This decision addresses a lien action under the Construction Act, where the plaintiffs allege a contract for services with the defendants for which they have not been paid.
The court reviews the parties' compliance with section 39 of the Act, the sufficiency of particulars and document inspection, and the need for a timetable to move the proceeding forward.
The court finds the defendants' response to the section 39 request sufficient, denies the plaintiffs' requests for further particulars and inspection, and orders the plaintiffs to plead and attend cross-examination.
Costs are awarded to the defendants.
Motion for default judgment adjourned to allow homeowner defendants to formally move to set aside noting of default.
The plaintiff electrical subcontractor moved for default judgment against the defendant general contractors in a construction lien action.
The homeowner defendants, who had also been noted in default, appeared and requested that the noting of default against them be set aside, arguing they had disputed liability early on but were ignored.
The court declined to grant default judgment against the general contractors immediately, as doing so would prejudice the homeowners' ability to dispute the quantum.
The motion was adjourned to allow the homeowners to bring a formal motion to set aside the noting of default.
The defendant was convicted of driving while suspended after failing to establish a due diligence or mistake of fact defence regarding his unpaid fines.
The defendant was charged with driving a motor vehicle while his driver's license was suspended under the Highway Traffic Act, contrary to section 53(1).
The Crown alleged the defendant drove on May 18, 2012, in Burlington while suspended for unpaid fines.
The defendant claimed he had no knowledge of the suspension, arguing he did not receive the notice of suspension and believed he had obtained an extension to pay his fines through a telephone conversation with a courthouse clerk.
The court found the actus reus proven beyond a reasonable doubt and determined the defendant failed to establish the defence of due diligence or honest and reasonable mistake of fact on a balance of probabilities.
The defendant was convicted.
