Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-21-876-0000 Date: 2023 11 27

Superior Court of Justice – Ontario 491 Steeles Avenue East, Milton, Ontario L9T 1Y7

Re: Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 472, Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 490 and Halton Standard Condominium Corporation No. 500, Applicants -and- Tritan Inc., Respondent

Before: C. Chang J.

Counsel: A Casalinuovo, for the Applicants C. Kopach and S. Gaudreau, for the Respondent

Heard: November 27, 2023 (in writing)

Endorsement

[1] The applicants bring this motion for consent orders discharging the respondent’s construction liens and directing the return of security paid into court. For the following reasons, I am not prepared to grant the relief sought based on the materials filed.

[2] The notice of motion incorrectly refers to the discharge of a “Claim for Construction Lien”. It is a lien that is discharged, not a claim for lien.

[3] In addition, the motion materials fail to address whether there are any other preserved liens that may be sheltering under the respondent’s. This issue is properly addressed by way of updated parcel registers that include deleted instruments for all properties against which the subject lien(s) is/are claimed and has/have been preserved and perfected. Despite there being hundreds of applicable PINs in the case-at-bar, the applicants have provided only one parcel register that includes no deleted instruments.

[4] This sloppiness extends to the proffered draft order.

[5] The “ON READING” preamble improperly refers only to “the Motion Record and Consent”. A proper preamble sets out the evidence that was filed on the motion; e.g., “ON READING the affidavit Franca Russouw sworn October 13, 2023 and the exhibits attached thereto, filed,”. A proper preamble also references the applicable consent separately; e.g., “and on the consent of the respondent”.

[6] In addition, the draft order incorrectly refers to the discharge of “the registration of the Construction Lien of Titan”. Again, it is a lien that is discharged, not its registration. Also, it is a claim for lien, not the lien itself, that is registered.

[7] Furthermore, the draft order also incorrectly refers to the moneys paid into court as having been “filed” with the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice. Security that has been posted or paid into court to vacate the registration of a claim for lien is deposited – not filed – with the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice. Also, the draft order improperly provides for the “release and disbursement” of the subject security to the parties’ respective lawyers. Section 46(4) of the Construction Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.30, clearly and expressly mandates that the posted security be returned to the person who posted it. There is no provision for “release and disbursement” to anyone else.

[8] Unfortunately, the slapdash approach to drafting that is evident in the applicants’ motion materials is not a rare albatross. Far too often in this court, the materials filed by counsel fall below any reasonable minimum standard of propriety.

[9] Counsel must be punctilious in the drafting of their materials. They must, in the proper discharge of their duty, attend to each and every drafting task with the highest levels of care and fastidiousness without regard to whether the applicable litigation step is proceeding on consent or is expected to be vigorously opposed.

[10] As a result of carelessness, this straightforward consent motion is being sent back and must be returned a second time for further consideration by the court. This has resulted in – and will result in more – wasted time, money and painfully scarce judicial resources.

[11] Counsel must do better. Their clients and the administration of justice deserve no less.

[12] The applicants are to file, at their earliest opportunity, appropriate supplementary materials and a proper draft order that rectify the deficiencies identified above.

[13] I am seized of this motion.

C. Chang J. Date: November 27, 2023