Neal Altman

The appellant contractor appealed a trial decision awarding prejudgment interest at the Courts of Justice Act rate rather than the higher contractual rate.

The respondent homeowners cross-appealed the trial judge's award of damages for two change orders and the refusal to award damages for deficiencies covered by a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) settlement.

The Divisional Court dismissed both the appeal and cross-appeal.

The court found the trial judge did not err in the interest award because the contractor had withdrawn its claim for the contractual rate at trial.

The court also upheld the trial judge's findings that the change orders were payable as extras and that the LAT had jurisdiction to enforce the settlement regarding deficiencies.

Following a successful appeal, the appellant sought costs for both the appeal and the motion below.

The Divisional Court awarded the agreed-upon costs of the appeal fixed at $20,000.

The court also reversed the lower court's costs order, awarding the appellant $15,000 for the motion below, with a reduction applied due to the appellant's late filing and failure to raise a key point at the initial hearing.

The appellant appealed a Superior Court judgment that dismissed his motion opposing the confirmation of a Construction Lien Report.

The Divisional Court found that the appellant was essentially repeating the same submissions made to the lower court.

The appeal was dismissed for the reasons given by the Superior Court judge, and costs of $10,000 were awarded to the respondent.

The appellant appealed a decision invalidating his construction lien for being commenced nine days after the 90-day limitation period.

The motion judge had held that the date of last supply stated in the Claim for Lien form was a binding admission requiring powerful evidence to overcome, despite uncontradicted evidence that the actual date of last supply was later.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding the motion judge erred in law by failing to consider s. 6(1) of the Construction Act, which provides that a claim for lien is not invalidated by a minor irregularity, such as an incorrect date, absent prejudice.

The court permitted the appellant to raise s. 6(1) for the first time on appeal and dismissed the respondent's motion to invalidate the lien.

The moving party sought an extension of time under s. 71(2) of the Construction Act to appeal a judgment that declared his construction lien expired and cancelled a $1.212 million lien bond.

The moving party missed the 15-day appeal deadline by 12 days due to his former counsel's incorrect advice regarding the appeal period.

The Divisional Court granted the extension, finding that the moving party had a bona fide intention to appeal, the delay was minimal and reasonably explained, the respondent suffered no real prejudice, and the proposed appeal regarding the validity of the lien claim had arguable merit.

This motion concerned a solicitor's negligence claim where the defendants sought further and better production of documents from the plaintiff, including a particularized Schedule 'B' for privileged documents.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion to amend the statement of claim, notably to include a Charter-based claim against the defendants.

The court granted the defendants' motion for further production, emphasizing the plaintiff's obligation for fulsome disclosure in a solicitor's negligence claim, and ruled that solicitor-client privilege was impliedly waived regarding the legal advice and litigation strategy in the underlying criminal matter.

The court denied the plaintiff's proposed Charter amendment, finding no legal basis for such a claim against a private actor.

The appellant tenant appealed a decision of the Landlord and Tenant Board dismissing her request for a review of an eviction order for failure to pay rent.

The tenant argued she did not receive the notice of hearing by mail and that the Board erred in law by dismissing her review request without an oral hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the statutory provisions governing service by mail.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the respondent board refusing to grant him a second appeal hearing after he failed a clinical skills equivalency exam.

The applicant argued that the initial appeal panel did not have his typodonts before it and that he was denied procedural fairness when the board rejected his request for a second appeal based on new procedural and medical issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the panel had the proper materials and that the applicant should have raised his procedural and medical concerns during the exam or in his initial appeal.