M. Marrie

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the defendants to transfer an action from Milton to Toronto, which the plaintiffs had opposed.

The court applied principles from Schreiber v. Mulroney and Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario, considering Rule 57 factors and proportionality.

The plaintiffs were ordered to pay the defendants partial indemnity costs of $2,980.00.

This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion brought by the defendants to transfer an action from Milton to Toronto.

The court, applying Rule 57 factors and principles from *Schreiber v. Mulroney* and *Boucher v. Public Accountants Counsel for the Province of Ontario*, ordered the plaintiffs to pay partial indemnity costs to the defendants.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Milton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region, pursuant to Rule 13.1.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding no rational connection to Milton and determining that Toronto was a substantially better venue, given that the project, contractual agreement, and all events giving rise to the claim were located in Toronto, as were the parties and their counsel.

The defendants brought a motion to transfer the action from Milton (Central West Region) to the Toronto Region, arguing that Toronto was the more appropriate venue.

The plaintiffs opposed the motion.

The court granted the transfer, finding no rational connection to Milton and that Toronto was a substantially better venue, based on a holistic application of Rule 13.1.02(2)(b) factors, including the location of the project, the events giving rise to the claim, and the parties' residences.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action against the defendant owner for extension and delay costs incurred during a construction project governed by a CCDC2 fixed price contract.

The project was delayed by six months due to owner-directed changes and design issues, which were addressed through Change Orders that extended the contract time and increased the price, but did not include the contractor's site and delay costs.

The court dismissed the action, finding that under the fixed price contract, the contractor was required to include all costs associated with a change in the Change Orders, or alternatively, provide timely written notice of a delay claim.

The court also declined to grant relief from forfeiture, concluding that the contractor's failure to follow the contractual notice provisions was unreasonable and undermined the cost certainty intended by the contract.

The plaintiff, Finn Way General Contractors Inc., brought a motion seeking leave to admit a late-served expert report concerning construction delays and costs.

The defendant, Lakehead University, opposed the motion, arguing the report was served late and that expert opinion evidence was unnecessary.

The court found a reasonable explanation for the late service and no prejudice to the defendant.

However, the court ultimately dismissed the motion, ruling that the expert report was not necessary to assist the trier of fact, as its observations were conclusions lacking discernible analysis and usurped the role of the trial judge.

This endorsement concerns the costs award following a judgment in favour of Finn Way General Contractor Inc. for $134,606.

Finn Way sought $85,000 in costs, while Superior Masonry (Thunder Bay) Ltd. proposed $25,000.

The court, applying Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, fixed costs at $25,000 plus HST and disbursements, disallowing travel expenses for out-of-town counsel as no special expertise was required.

The plaintiff general contractor sued the defendant masonry subcontractor for breach of contract after the defendant withdrew its bid due to a calculation error.

The court found that the defendant was bound by its bid and breached the contract by unilaterally withdrawing.

However, the court rejected the plaintiff's claim that the parties had agreed to an $80,000 reduction in the bid price.

The plaintiff was awarded damages for the difference between the defendant's original bid and the replacement subcontractor's price, plus mitigation costs and lost markup.

The plaintiff architect brought a construction lien action for unpaid fees against the defendant developer of a high-rise condominium.

The developer counterclaimed for delay and impact damages, alleging the architect failed to coordinate consultant drawings and made design errors.

The court found the architect's coordination duty was limited to cooperating with other consultants, not managing them.

The architect met the professional standard of care and validly suspended services for non-payment.

The court awarded the architect $55,906.54 for agreed base services but dismissed claims for unapproved extras.

The developer's counterclaim was dismissed entirely.

The moving party, Onespace Unlimited Inc., brought a motion to strike portions of a reply affidavit sworn by the responding party's principal witness in advance of a summary trial.

The moving party argued the impugned statements contained improper argument, opinion evidence from a lay witness, and legal conclusions.

The court granted the motion in part, striking statements that constituted improper argument or unqualified expert opinion, while retaining statements that were factual observations or inextricably tied to the witness's overall impressions.

This endorsement addresses several refusals arising from examinations for discovery between the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) and two of the Designers, WSP Canada Inc. and IBI Group Architects (Canada) Inc., in a complex construction litigation involving the Steeles West Subway Station project.

The court applied rules of discovery, relevance, and proportionality to compel answers or further productions regarding litigation privilege, evidence supporting delay allegations, reasons for not replacing a contractor, and clarification of legal positions on specifications.

The applicants obtained a default judgment against their former lawyer for missing limitation periods in their personal injury claims.

They sought to garnishee the lawyer's professional liability insurance policy with LawPro.

LawPro had denied coverage because the lawyer completely failed to report the claim or cooperate in its defence.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that LawPro's denial of coverage was appropriate due to the lawyer's fundamental breach of the policy's cooperation condition.

Relief from forfeiture was unavailable, and public policy did not require LawPro to operate as a no-fault insurer.

A court-appointed receiver-in-aid-of-execution sought an advance order immunizing it from personal liability for costs in litigation intended to recover assets allegedly concealed by the judgment debtor through family members, corporations, and third parties.

The receiver argued that the receivership estate lacked sufficient assets to cover potential adverse costs and that denying immunity would prevent the recovery action from proceeding, undermining access to justice.

The court reaffirmed the general rule that receivers and trustees who initiate litigation do so at their own risk unless indemnified by estate assets or creditors.

The proposed undertaking by the judgment creditor was found insufficient and unsupported by evidence of financial capacity.

The court held that the case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting a departure from the “loser pays” principle and refused to create a novel category of advance cost immunity orders.