M. Shell

The plaintiff construction manager brought a motion for summary judgment for its share of cost savings realized on a condominium project.

The defendant owner argued there were no cost savings and counterclaimed for damages.

The court interpreted the construction management contract, determining the Gross Liveable Area and finding that only construction costs managed by the plaintiff should be included in the actual total cost calculation.

The court granted summary judgment, finding no genuine issue for trial, and ordered a reference to determine the exact quantum of cost savings.

The defendant owner brought a motion to discharge the plaintiff construction manager's claims for lien.

The plaintiff had registered a lien for over $7.5 million, representing its 50% share of cost savings realized on the construction project pursuant to the contract.

The defendant argued that cost savings are akin to profit-sharing and are not lienable under section 14 of the Construction Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that cost savings provisions are integrally linked to the services provided by a construction manager and are therefore properly lienable.

The moving party sought leave to add two entities as respondents to an application challenging the validity of a municipal by-law authorizing financial arrangements related to a film studio project.

The proposed respondents argued that the limitation period for adding parties had expired and that they were neither proper nor necessary parties to the threshold issue concerning the by-law’s validity.

The court held that the proposed entities had no role in the enactment or validity of the by-law and would only potentially be relevant if the application succeeded and issues of repayment or accounting arose.

The court further found that the moving party had actual or constructive knowledge of the entities’ involvement well before the expiry of the limitation period and could not rely on discoverability.

The motion to add the parties was dismissed.

The moving party sought leave to add two entities as respondents to an application challenging the validity of a municipal by-law alleged to constitute illegal bonusing.

The proposed parties argued the claim was out of time and that they were not proper or necessary parties to the threshold issue concerning the validity of the by-law.

The court held that the proposed entities were not necessary to determine the legality of the by-law, which primarily concerned the municipality and an existing municipal corporation.

In any event, the limitation period to add them had expired, and the moving party could not rely on discoverability because public records and earlier correspondence put it on notice of the transfer of interests.

The motion to add the parties was therefore dismissed.