Michelle R. Theberge

The defendants brought a motion seeking reconsideration or rehearing of reasons issued by a motions judge allowing an appeal from a Master's report in a construction lien dispute.

They relied on Rule 59.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 123(4) of the Courts of Justice Act, arguing the reasons were incomplete and failed to address several issues before the court.

The court held that the earlier decision constituted a valid decision under the Courts of Justice Act and that s. 123 applies only where a judge is unable to render a decision, not where a party disputes the adequacy of the reasons.

Any alleged legal error was properly the subject of an appeal rather than reconsideration.

The motion was dismissed and the plaintiff was awarded costs of $45,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The contractor appealed a decision of a master following a two‑day trial concerning a residential renovation contract and a construction lien dispute.

The master had denied the contractor any fee or profit and ordered the homeowners to reimburse only half of the contractor’s expenditures after finding a breach of a purported “timely reporting” obligation.

The contractor argued the master misinterpreted the contract by imposing obligations not contained in its plain language.

The court held that the master appeared to disregard the contract’s terms and erred in denying fees and profit on that basis.

The appeal was allowed and the contractor, as the successful party on appeal, was entitled to costs on a partial indemnity basis.