Court File and Parties

CITATION: Con-sult Mechanical Inc. v. Anderson Webb Limited, 2026 ONSC 1685

DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 749/25 ML

DATE: 20260323

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

DIVISIONAL COURT

RE: CON-SULT MECHANICAL INC., Moving Party

AND: ANDERSON WEBB LIMITED, Responding Party

BEFORE: D.L. Corbett, Matheson and Schreck JJ.

COUNSEL: Jonathan Frustaglio, for the Moving Party James Richmond and Stephen Taylor, for the Responding Party

HEARD: In-writing

Endorsement

[1] The motion pursuant to s. 13.18(1) of the Construction Act, RSO 1990, c. C.30, for leave to bring an application for judicial review from the Determination of Adjudicator Kanter, dated August 25, 2025 (unreported), is dismissed.

[2] The responding party requested “full indemnity costs” but did not deliver a costs outline or bill of costs, or specify in its factum the amount of costs it was seeking, contrary to para. 52(c)(iii) of the Consolidated Practice Direction for Divisional Court Proceedings, which states:

Unless the court has directed an earlier deadline, the parties must upload the agreement they have reached on costs, or their bills of costs or costs outlines, at least one week before the hearing.

This provision, and predecessor requirements, have been the longstanding practice in the Divisional Court. Compliance with these requirements has been erratic, and based on anecdotal experience, seems to be getting worse over the past two years.

[3] Perhaps the reasons for these requirements are not well understood. The court wants the parties’ positions on costs before the parties know the court’s decision. Further, the court wishes to deal with everything, including costs, in one hearing process. Reconvening a panel, weeks later, to revisit a matter to decide costs, is not a good use of the court’s time and is a disproportionate expense in light of the value of most costs awards in this court.

[4] The court has made these points in past endorsements but considers it necessary to repeat them: where no costs materials have been provided in accordance with case management directions and/or the Practice Direction, the court’s general practice is to award no costs. In most cases the court will make this decision without providing reasons for it.

[5] We wish to be clear that we are not singling out the Respondent in this case: the responding factum was excellent. We address this issue in this case to reiterate a point of practice before this court that appears to be eluding a growing number of parties appearing in this court. The following cases are examples: Gong v. Ontario Securities Commission, 2023 ONSC 3718 (Div. Ct.), at para. 12; Sinnappu v. Tharmalingam, 2023 ONSC 4456, (Div. Ct.), at para. 4; Toronto (City) v. Minto (Mimico) Inc., 2024 ONSC 2674 (Div. Ct.), at para. 15; Abuoweimer v. Abu-Ewimer, 2024 ONSC 4802 (Div. C.t.), at para. 1; Holborn Chicopee GP Inc. v. Holborn Holdings Ltd., 2024 ONSC 4799 (Div. Ct.), at para. 1; Palmer v. Arthur, 2024 ONSC 4800 (Div. Ct.), at para. 1; K.C.C. Chooka Cabinet Ltd. v. Kingsway Consulting Group Inc., 2026 ONSC 378 (Div. Ct.), at para. 27.

D.L. Corbett J.

Matheson J.

Schreck J.

Released: March 23, 2026