N. Wilson

Following a successful motion interpreting a price adjustment clause in a land development agreement, the applicant sought the return of disputed funds held in trust by the respondents' solicitor, along with interest.

The court determined the appropriate interest rates for both the undisputed mortgage amounts paid late by the applicant and the disputed funds held in trust by the respondents.

The court awarded 4% simple interest to the respondents on the late undisputed payments and 4% simple interest to the applicant on the disputed funds held in trust, allowing the respondents to retain the GIC interest earned.

The parties engaged in a dispute over the renovation of a residential property.

The plaintiff contractor claimed unpaid amounts for construction work, alleging an oral agreement for project management and general contracting.

The defendant homeowners alleged the project was a joint venture to flip the property and claimed damages for incomplete and deficient work, as well as unpaid loans.

The court found no enforceable contract or joint venture existed due to a lack of certainty of terms.

The court applied quantum meruit, valuing the work performed by the contractor and deducting the cost of proven deficiencies.

The court ordered the homeowners to pay the remaining balance to the contractor.

The parties engaged in a dispute over the renovation of a residential property.

The plaintiff contractor claimed unpaid amounts for construction work, alleging an oral agreement for project management and general contracting.

The defendant homeowners alleged the project was a joint venture to flip the property and claimed damages for incomplete and deficient work, as well as unpaid loans.

The court found no enforceable contract or joint venture existed due to a lack of certainty of terms.

The court applied quantum meruit, valuing the work performed by the contractor and deducting the cost of proven deficiencies.

The court ordered the homeowners to pay the remaining balance to the contractor.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to show cause why their action should not be dismissed for delay.

The action arose from a construction mortgage dispute and was related to a separate Brampton action where the defendants had obtained summary judgment against the plaintiffs.

The Master found that the plaintiffs' involvement in the related action and the defendants' failure to serve a statement of defence provided an acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Master also found no non-compensable prejudice to the defendants and ordered that the action proceed.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs in a construction lien action, alleging the plaintiff had insufficient assets.

The plaintiff did not assert impecuniosity or provide financial documents.

The court granted leave for the motion under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act and ordered the plaintiff to pay $36,000 in security for costs in two installments, plus costs of the motion.

The court provided further directions regarding a court-ordered election for a not-for-profit corporation.

The issue was whether 18 individuals whose memberships had been suspended or terminated were eligible to vote as 'regular members' if they operated convenience stores as franchisees rather than independent owners.

The court found that the corporation's Articles did not exclude franchisee store operators from regular membership, provided they contributed to the generation of profits for the corporation.

The court ordered that the 18 individuals could vote if they submitted an affidavit confirming their contribution to the corporation's profits.