Court of Appeal for Ontario
Before: Sossin, Monahan and Osborne JJ.A.
Parties
Between
Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 550
Plaintiff (Respondent)
and
Del Ridge (Appleby) Inc.*, Del Ridge Homes Inc.* and The Corporation of the City of Burlington
Defendants (Appellants*)
NCK Engineering Ltd. and Coreslab Structures (Ont) Inc.
Third Parties
and
Keith Loffler McAlpine Architects
Fourth Party
Counsel and Hearing
Paul H. Starkman and Xiao Yu Wang, for the appellants
Derek A. Schmuck, for the respondent
Heard and rendered orally: July 16, 2026
On appeal from the order of Justice Paul R. Sweeny of the Superior Court of Justice, dated March 24, 2026.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1The appellants appeal the order of the motions judge dated March 24, 2026 dismissing their motion brought pursuant to r. 51.06 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, on the basis of alleged admissions by the respondent to dismiss as statute-barred certain of their claims advanced in the underlying action pursuant to ss. 4 and 15(2) of the Limitations Act, 2002, S.O. 2002, c. 24, Sched. B.
2The appellants/defendants were the developers of a condominium project in Burlington, Ontario. The respondent/plaintiff is the condominium corporation. In the underlying action, the condominium corporation advances various claims about alleged deficiencies and problems in the construction of the project. The claims that were the subject of the order appealed from related to the design of columns and precast concrete slabs installed on the balconies of the condominium units.
3The underlying action is scheduled to proceed to trial in the Superior Court sitting at Hamilton, commencing on October 5, 2026, pursuant to a previous case management order.
4Following a case conference held in this matter on June 19, 2026, this appeal was expedited and the parties were directed to be prepared to address the issue of jurisdiction before the panel at the hearing of the appeal.
5We have now heard those submissions.
6As noted above, the motion was brought pursuant to r. 51.06, and as specifically noted by the motion judge, it was not a motion for summary judgment. The motion judge dismissed the motion on the basis, as he stated, that "the alleged admissions are insufficient to ground a r. 51.06 order." He went on to find that the proposed r. 51.06 procedure was inappropriate as it required him to infer admissions based on discovery transcripts and documents and to make findings of fact without the benefit of viva voce evidence, or properly admitted documents, which he was not prepared to do.
7The order appealed from did not finally dispose of the rights of any parties to the litigation nor did it finally dispose of any issue. In particular, it did not constitute a final disposition of the issue of whether or not the structural balcony claims referred to above were statute-barred. Counsel for the respondent confirmed in argument today his agreement that the motion judge's decision does not deprive the appellants of the right to argue the limitation period defence at trial.
8Rather, the motion judge simply, but clearly, determined that r. 51.06 did not provide the appropriate procedure by which those issues ought to be determined in this case and that the issue should be determined on a full record. Accordingly, he dismissed the motion brought pursuant to r. 51.06. Nothing more.
9It follows that the order is interlocutory, with the result that the appeal properly lies to the Divisional Court.
10Pursuant to s. 6 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, with the result that it must be quashed.
11Accordingly, the appeal is quashed with costs payable by the appellants to the respondent in the agreed-upon amount of $11,000, all-inclusive.
"L. Sossin J.A." "P.J. Monahan J.A." "Osborne J.A."