Construction Law - ODC

The appellant, Deltro Electric Ltd., appealed a decision of the Electrical Safety Authority Review Panel confirming the application of a 'Wattage Based' inspection fee to its solar farm installations.

The appellant argued that the fee was invalidly enacted due to procedural defects, that certain projects were exempt from the Electrical Safety Code, and that the use of MC4 connectors did not constitute an electrical installation requiring inspection.

The Divisional Court applied a reasonableness standard of review and dismissed the appeal, finding that the ESA had cured any initial procedural defects by the time the fees were applied, that the projects required ESA connection authorizations under the Distribution System Code, and that connecting PV panels with MC4 connectors constituted work on an electrical installation subject to inspection.

The appellant homeowner appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the respondent contractor $12,528 for home renovation work.

The homeowner argued the trial judge failed to consider expert engineering evidence and witness testimony regarding significant deficiencies in the contractor's work.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error by ignoring relevant evidence of defective workmanship and remedial costs.

The court substituted its own decision, finding the cost to remedy the deficiencies exceeded the amount owed to the contractor, and dismissed the contractor's claim entirely.

The appellants, construction trades, appealed a Master's decision granting summary judgment dismissing their breach of trust actions against the respondents and refusing to lift bankruptcy stays.

The Divisional Court upheld the Master's finding that the appellants' breach of trust claims were discovered when they signed minutes of settlement in 2009, making their 2012 and 2013 actions statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

Consequently, there was no basis to lift the bankruptcy stays under s. 69.4 of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.

The appeals were dismissed.

The appellant, MA Fire & Safety Protection, appealed a Small Claims Court decision dismissing its claim for unpaid services and granting the respondent temple's claim for $12,500 against Ayube Mohamed personally.

The dispute arose from a contract to install a fire suppression and commercial kitchen exhaust system.

The trial judge found the appellant fundamentally breached the contract by installing an inadequate electrical heater instead of a gas one and failing to ensure sufficient space for required 3M wrap.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error of fact or error of law, and rejected arguments regarding quantum meruit and mutual mistake.

The moving party brought a motion to quash an appeal of an order dismissing a motion to discharge a construction lien.

The moving party argued that the order was interlocutory and therefore unappealable under s. 71(3) of the Construction Lien Act.

The Divisional Court agreed, finding that the dismissal of the motion to discharge the lien did not finally dispose of the lien's validity, as the moving party would still have to prove the lien at trial.

The motion to quash was granted and the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

The appellant appealed a Small Claims Court decision ordering him to pay $25,000 for the construction of a pool.

The central issue was whether a $50,000 payment made by the appellant was a deposit for the pool project or payment for past construction projects.

The Divisional Court applied the palpable and overriding error standard of review and found that the trial judge's factual findings were supported by the evidence.

The appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to the respondents.

The moving parties, individual defendants in a construction breach of trust action, sought leave to appeal an order dismissing their motion for partial summary judgment.

The motion judge had found that the limitation period for the breach of trust claim did not necessarily run concurrently with the breach of contract claim, and that a contractual amendment regarding payment terms was supported by consideration.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no conflicting decisions, no reason to doubt the correctness of the motion judge's decision, and no matters of general or public importance.

The appellant contractor appealed the dismissal of its construction lien and quantum meruit claims against the respondent landowner.

The trial judge found the respondent was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act because it did not request the work, which was performed under a separate contract with a third-party purchaser.

The Divisional Court upheld this finding, concluding there was no palpable and overriding error.

The Court also dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, finding that while the trial judge erred in requiring the respondent to have caused the deprivation, the claim still failed because the appellant's contract with the third party constituted a juristic reason for the enrichment.

The appellants, homeowners, appealed a trial judgment that awarded the respondent masonry subcontractor $14,714.12 on a construction lien claim and dismissed the appellants' $200,000 cross-claim for slander of title.

The appellants argued the trial judge erred in interpreting the contract, finding the lien was preserved in time, and awarding $30,000 in costs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's factual findings regarding the contract terms and the date of last work.

The court also upheld the costs award, noting the appellants had refused to transfer the matter to Small Claims Court and had unnecessarily complicated the proceedings.

The plaintiff brought a motion to quash the defendant's appeal of a judgment and costs order under the Construction Lien Act, arguing the notice of appeal was not served within the required 15-day period.

The defendant brought a cross-motion to extend the time for service.

The court found inadequate evidence of a bona fide intention to appeal within the time limit and no real explanation for the delay, concluding the appeal was primarily directed at the costs endorsement.

The plaintiff's motion to quash was granted and the defendant's motion for an extension was dismissed, without prejudice to the defendant seeking leave to appeal the costs decision.

The respondent subcontractor obtained default judgment against the general contractor for unpaid work and subsequently sued the appellant owners for breach of statutory trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The motion judge granted summary judgment against the owners and their directors.

On appeal, the respondent conceded the motion judge erred in finding a subcontractor could be a beneficiary of the owner's trust under s. 7(1).

The respondent alternatively argued the owners were liable under s. 13 for having 'effective control' of the general contractor by paying its invoices.

The Divisional Court rejected this argument, holding that merely paying invoices does not constitute effective control of a corporation's relevant activities.

The appeal was allowed and the claim against the owners dismissed.

The appellant subcontractor appealed the dismissal of its unjust enrichment claim against the respondent condominium corporation.

The general contractor went bankrupt, leaving the subcontractor unpaid.

The condominium corporation retained the statutory holdback but did not pay the subcontractor, who had not registered a lien.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the trial judge erred in concluding the contract between the owner and general contractor was a juristic reason to deny the claim.

The court held the owner was unjustly enriched by retaining the holdback and awarded the subcontractor the holdback amount.

Metrolinx brought a motion to quash Unimac's application for judicial review of a security for costs order made by a Master in a construction lien action.

Unimac alleged procedural unfairness based on communications between the Master and Metrolinx's counsel, and errors in the Master's treatment of evidence.

The Divisional Court found the communication complaints to be utterly devoid of merit and the evidentiary complaints to be matters for an appeal, not judicial review.

Since the Construction Lien Act prohibits appeals of interlocutory orders, the court held that the judicial review application was an abuse of process attempting to circumvent this prohibition.

The motion to quash was granted.

The appellants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment ordering them to pay damages for a defectively installed engineered hardwood floor.

The floor buckled because it was glued at the edges without T-moldings, contrary to standard practice, though the respondent had insisted on this installation method.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the Deputy Justice's conclusions that the appellants bore the contractual risk, that the Consumer Protection Act applied, and that the individual appellant was personally liable under the contract.

The appellants appealed a trial decision regarding a contract for siding installation, arguing the respondent contracted to supply defective siding.

The appellants also brought a motion to admit fresh evidence of recent siding repairs.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion to admit fresh evidence, finding it was not fresh, reliable, or likely to affect the outcome.

On the merits, the court upheld the trial judge's finding that the contract did not include an express or implied obligation to re-sheath.

The court also upheld the dismissal of the counterclaim due to a lack of evidence regarding the cost to rectify minor Building Code transgressions.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The defendants appealed a Small Claims Court judgment awarding the plaintiff $25,000 for breach of a settlement agreement.

The settlement required the defendants to direct an owner's holdback to the plaintiff's counsel and pay an additional $25,000 in post-dated cheques.

The defendants argued that because the holdback was larger than anticipated, they had overpaid and were not required to remit the remaining cheques.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the defendants breached the clear terms of the settlement agreement, which triggered the default judgment provisions.

The appellant appealed the dismissal of two Small Claims Court actions for unpaid construction funds and holdback.

The trial judge had dismissed the claims as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002.

On appeal, the Divisional Court found that the trial judge erred in calculating the limitation period for the holdback funds, as the Construction Lien Act dictates when holdback becomes payable.

The claims for holdback were issued within the limitation period.

However, the trial judge correctly concluded that the claims for regular contract funds and lost profits were statute-barred.

The appeal was allowed in part, and the holdback claims were remitted for trial.

The appellants appealed a motion judge's decision that failed to confirm a Master's Report in a construction lien dispute.

The Divisional Court found that the motion judge failed to apply the proper deferential standard of review to the Master's findings of fact regarding cost overruns, project management failures, and the nature of the contract.

The appeal was allowed, the motion judge's decision was set aside, and the Master's Report was confirmed with a minor arithmetical correction.

The applicant contractor sought leave to appeal a costs order made by the Regional Senior Judge following a construction lien trial and subsequent motion.

The applicant claimed over $158,000 in costs on a $60,000 claim, which the Regional Senior Judge reduced to $45,000 on the basis of proportionality.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no error in principle and agreeing that the costs claimed were grossly excessive and disproportionate to the amounts in issue.

The appellant appealed an order of a case management Master striking its defence of set off and counterclaim due to repeated breaches of court orders and failure to produce documents.

The Divisional Court applied the standard of review for discretionary orders of a Master, finding that the Master had ample evidentiary basis and applied the correct legal principles.

The appeal was dismissed, as the Master's decision to strike the pleadings to prevent trial delay and prejudice to the respondent was justified.