Construction Law - ODC

The applicants sought judicial review of an Ontario Labour Relations Board decision that denied their successor rights application following the merger of two construction companies.

The Board had awarded bargaining rights for formwork to the Carpenters' Union to avoid jurisdictional conflict, as the merged entity intermingled employees.

The Divisional Court applied the reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the application, finding the Board's decision to avoid jurisdictional conflict under section 69(6)(c) of the Labour Relations Act was justified, transparent, and intelligible.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay the balance owing on a restoration contract.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred in finding a fixed-price contract, assessing deficiencies, and adding the respondent's corporation as a plaintiff at the start of trial.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the contract and deficiencies.

The court also held that adding the corporate plaintiff was either done on consent or was a permissible correction of a misnomer, as the appellant knew he was dealing with the individual respondent's company and suffered no prejudice.

The appellant property owner entered into a contract with the respondent builder for the construction of a luxury home, paying a $3.8 million non-refundable deposit.

After the appellant failed to pay over $10.4 million in interim invoices, the respondent obtained summary judgment.

The appellant appealed solely on the issue of whether the deposit should be credited against the judgment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the deposit was intended to secure completion of the contract and was forfeit due to the appellant's breach, rather than acting as a prepayment for interim invoices.

The appellant subcontractor supplied materials to a construction project but was not paid by the contractor, who subsequently went bankrupt.

Having failed to register a construction lien, the appellant sued the owner for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act and unjust enrichment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Act requires privity of trust for a trust claim and that the comprehensive statutory scheme of the Act provides a juristic reason precluding an unjust enrichment claim against the owner.

The Divisional Court issued an endorsement on costs following multiple appeals under the Construction Lien Act.

Noting that the case was litigated without regard for proportionality, the court recognized that the respondent on appeal had no choice but to engage with its meritorious but modest claim.

Costs of all appeals were fixed in the aggregate at $65,000 inclusive, payable to the respondent on appeal from the appellant and recoverable from the lien security.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment enforcing a construction lien against them.

The trial judge had applied the 'special circumstances' doctrine to extend the limitation period to add a tenant corporation as a defendant, and pierced the corporate veil to find the landlord corporation was an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act due to common ownership.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, holding that the 'special circumstances' doctrine does not apply to the mandatory statutory deadlines in the Construction Lien Act, and that the corporate veil cannot be pierced absent conduct akin to fraud.

The appellant sought to appeal a costs order made under the Construction Lien Act independent of the merits of the judgment.

The court held that pursuant to section 67(3) of the Construction Lien Act, the requirement to obtain leave to appeal costs under section 133(b) of the Courts of Justice Act applies.

As the appellant did not seek or obtain leave, the appeal was quashed.

The appellant mortgagee appealed multiple orders, including a finding of contempt for attempting to sell a property under a power of sale in violation of a court order, and a finding that the respondent's construction lien had priority over its mortgage.

The Divisional Court dismissed all appeals.

The court held that the appellant was bound by its formal admission of contempt made during sentencing, and the Apology Act did not apply to admissions made under oath or by counsel in court.

Furthermore, the court upheld the finding that the construction lien had priority because the appellant failed to prove any funds were actually advanced under its mortgage.

The appellant sought to appeal an order refusing a stay of summary judgment.

The Divisional Court held that under s. 71(3) of the Construction Lien Act, no appeal lies from an interlocutory order.

Citing Court of Appeal precedent, the court confirmed that an order refusing a stay of summary judgment is procedural and therefore interlocutory.

Consequently, the court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The appellant general contractor appealed a trial judgment awarding $142,553.33 to the respondent subcontractor in a construction lien action.

The appellant argued the respondent abandoned the project when faced with a payment dispute.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusion that the respondent had fully performed its obligations and did not abandon the contract, but rather stopped work due to the appellant's material breach in refusing to pay.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court decision awarding the respondent contractor $9,705.15 for pre-construction services.

The appellants argued they never agreed to pay for the services unless a construction contract was signed, and that the trial judge misapplied the doctrine of quantum meruit.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings and concluding that the trial judge correctly applied the test for quantum meruit, as the appellants were enriched by the respondent's services without a juristic reason.

The defendants in a construction lien action moved to discharge the plaintiff's lien and dismiss the action after the plaintiff failed to attend two scheduled cross-examinations.

The Master found the abortive cross-examinations insufficient to discharge the lien, but nevertheless discharged the lien and dismissed the action on the basis that the proceeding would be procedurally difficult and expensive.

The plaintiff appealed.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Master breached procedural fairness by deciding the motion on grounds not raised in the notice of motion, depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to respond.

The Court also held that a motion to discharge a lien under s. 47(1) of the Construction Lien Act is analogous to a summary judgment motion and is inappropriate where there are disputed issues of fact.

The appellant, an assignee of unpaid invoices for trucking services, appealed a Small Claims Court decision that dismissed its breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act against the corporate and personal respondents.

The trial judge had granted judgment for breach of contract against one corporate defendant but found no trust funds were received by it, and that the other corporate defendant had properly disbursed all received funds to beneficiaries under section 10 of the Act.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's assessment of the facts or application of the statutory trust provisions.

The appellants appealed a trial decision in a construction lien action, arguing the trial judge misapprehended evidence, failed to find a verbal contract altering payment terms, and was biased.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge's conclusions were supported by the evidence and the unambiguous written agreement.

The court also rejected the bias allegation, noting it was not raised at trial and had no basis.

Costs of $25,000 were awarded to the respondents.

The appellant owner appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent contractor $62,983.84 for unpaid construction work.

The appellant argued the trial judge erred by refusing to allow documentary evidence for its counterclaim for lost rental income and by finding the contract was a unit price contract rather than a fixed price contract.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the appellant had not sought to introduce the documentary evidence at trial and the trial judge properly interpreted the contract documents.

The judgment was varied only to add post-judgment interest.

The appellant appealed a summary judgment decision dismissing its claim for unpaid construction work as statute-barred.

The motions judge found that the invoice rendered by the appellant was a demand obligation under s. 5(3) of the Limitations Act, 2002, and that the limitation period commenced on the date the invoice was rendered, precluding the discoverability principle.

The Divisional Court majority upheld the decision, confirming that an invoice payable on demand is a demand obligation and time starts to run when the demand is made.

The appeal was dismissed.

The plaintiffs appealed a trial judgment regarding a contract for the construction of a home that was destroyed by fire before completion.

The trial judge found the plaintiffs had terminated the contract and awarded the defendant $100,000 on its counterclaim for lost profits, while awarding the plaintiffs a small net judgment from insurance proceeds.

The Divisional Court upheld the finding that the plaintiffs terminated the contract but found the trial judge erred in calculating the insurance trust funds and the counterclaim damages.

The appeal was allowed in part, reducing the counterclaim to $20,000 and varying the net judgment in favour of the plaintiffs to $60,765.

The appellants appealed a Master's order granting summary judgment dismissing their action against the respondents.

The action arose from the allegedly defective installation of a hot water heater in their new home, which they claimed caused carbon monoxide exposure and adverse health effects.

On appeal, the appellants argued the Master erred by denying an adjournment, exceeding his jurisdiction, reversing the burden of proof, and applying the wrong legal test for causation.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the Master correctly applied the law, properly held the moving parties to their burden of proof, and correctly concluded that the appellants failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue for trial regarding causation.

The appellant appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal decision dismissing his claim against Tarion Warranty Corporation for second-year warranty construction deficiencies.

The appellant argued he was denied a fair hearing due to the Tribunal Member's bias and erroneous evidentiary rulings, including restricting his expert's testimony.

The Divisional Court found no reasonable apprehension of bias and held that the Member properly exercised discretion in limiting the expert's evidence regarding Ontario Building Code standards.

The appeal was dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal from a judgment in a construction lien case.

The defendants' Manitoba counsel missed the 15-day appeal period prescribed by the Construction Lien Act, mistakenly believing they had 30 days from the entry of the formal order.

The court granted the extension, finding that the defendants had formed an intention to appeal within the relevant period, the delay was reasonably explained by counsel's error, and the plaintiff would not suffer prejudice that could not be compensated by costs and interest.