N. Wainwright

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 brought a motion for the interim preservation of a 1963 Pontiac Parisienne, alleging he purchased it from the defendant who subsequently resiled from the agreement.

The defendant sought an adjournment to challenge the court's jurisdiction, as the sale occurred in Illinois.

The court granted an interim interim preservation order, finding a serious issue to be tried and that the balance of convenience favoured preserving the unique vintage vehicle.

The order was made without prejudice to the defendant's right to bring a jurisdictional motion, and the plaintiff was required to pay the balance of the purchase price into court.

Following an interpleader application regarding funds held for a construction project, two creditors asserted priority claims which were dismissed.

Two other respondents took the lead in opposing these priority claims and subsequently sought their costs.

The court awarded $10,000 in partial indemnity costs to the successful respondents, to be paid equally by the unsuccessful creditors, with the award divided 60/40 in favour of the respondent who took the primary lead.

The applicant sought remedies under the Business Corporations Act after discovering the respondent co-director had forged his signature on pandemic relief loans and deposited fraudulent cheques, leaving the corporation in debt.

The respondent admitted to the forgeries.

The court granted judgment for the $35,000 the applicant paid to cover the overdraft, awarded $25,000 in punitive damages, set aside the forged loan agreements and personal guarantees, and awarded substantial indemnity costs.

The applicant and one of the respondents, siblings and co-estate trustees, sought directions on six issues regarding the administration of their mother's estate.

The court denied requests to have the estate pay the trustees' legal fees, finding the litigation was personal and adversarial.

The court also resolved disputes over rent-free occupation of estate property, an estate vehicle, and a loan.

Finally, the court awarded $25,000 in total executor compensation, split equally between the two trustees, noting their poor cooperation and the excessive time taken to administer the estate.

The respondents brought a motion to strike an oppression application commenced by the applicants.

The applicants were minority shareholders of a holding company that owned a minority interest in the respondent corporation, but did not own shares in the respondent corporation directly.

The moving parties argued that the applicants were not proper 'complainants' under s. 245(c) of the Business Corporations Act.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that it was not plain and obvious that the applicants would fail to qualify as complainants, given the court's broad discretion and the factual issues surrounding the corporate structure and the applicants' relationship to the company.

The plaintiff, a general contractor, sought an injunction to prevent Tarion Warranty Corporation from drawing on two performance bonds after Tarion terminated the plaintiff from a repair project for a leaking condominium parking garage.

The plaintiff argued the bonds were conditional payment obligations subject to a repair agreement.

The court found the bonds were autonomous demand bonds, meaning Tarion's right to call on them was independent of the underlying contract.

Applying the Supreme Court's decision in Angelica-Whitewear, the court held that an injunction against a demand bond requires a strong prima facie case of fraud.

As the plaintiff did not allege fraud, the motion was dismissed.

The court also noted the plaintiff would fail the traditional RJR-MacDonald test for injunctive relief.