Milena Celap

The defendant, the Attorney General of Canada, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's $2,000,000 action for breach of contract, quantum meruit, and unjust enrichment.

The plaintiff, a contractor, sought additional payment for delays and increased costs incurred during a window replacement project at a maximum-security penitentiary.

The court granted the motion and dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the mandatory dispute resolution and notice provisions under the general contract after the government rejected its claim.

In a construction dispute over a roofing contract, the plaintiff contractor sought payment of an outstanding balance while the defendants counterclaimed alleging defective workmanship and water damage.

During trial, a voir dire was conducted to determine the admissibility of defence expert reports served after a court‑ordered deadline and partially based on destructive testing conducted outside the presence of the plaintiff’s expert.

The court granted leave to admit a late-served expert report concerning building design because the delay caused no prejudice and did not delay the trial.

However, the court excluded opinion evidence derived from destructive testing performed after the plaintiff’s expert had left the premises, finding the testing occurred contrary to a prior court order requiring the plaintiff’s expert to be able to attend.

The court held that the probative value of such evidence was outweighed by its prejudicial effect due to the unfairness created by unilateral testing.

In a costs endorsement arising from a guardianship application under the Substitute Decisions Act, the court determined responsibility for costs incurred up to and including January 4, 2012.

Applying estate-litigation costs principles and Rule 57 factors, the court held that ordinary civil costs rules govern subject to limited exceptions and found the responding party's conduct unnecessarily prolonged the proceeding.

The court rejected attempts to reduce costs based on legal aid billing rates and disallowed claimed prospective future legal work.

It fixed all-inclusive costs for both the applicant and one responding party, directed immediate payment from the estate, and required reimbursement by the other responding party.