Peter B. Cozzi

The defendants brought motions under section 86(1)(b)(i) of the old Construction Act seeking costs against the plaintiff's former law firm, arguing the firm participated in preserving and perfecting a baseless construction lien.

The court held that liability under this section requires subjective actual knowledge, recklessness, or willful blindness regarding the baselessness of the lien, rather than mere negligence.

Finding no evidence that the law firm possessed such knowledge or acted with willful blindness at the time of preservation and perfection, the court dismissed the motions.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant owner for unpaid renovation work on a commercial condominium unit.

The parties disputed seven claims for extra work and a 10% discount clause for delay inserted by the owner.

The court found that the extra work was outside the scope of the contract and implicitly authorized, awarding the plaintiff $5,755.09 for the extras.

The court also held that the 10% discount clause was an unenforceable penalty, as it was not a genuine pre-estimate of damages, and dismissed the owner's claim for delay damages.

Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $12,535.09.

The Director of the Family Responsibility Office brought a default hearing to enforce child and spousal support arrears of over $292,000 against the respondent payor.

The payor argued he lacked the ability to pay and sought to encumber a property held in his deceased parents' estate, of which he was the sole executor and beneficiary.

The court found the payor failed to provide full and frank disclosure, thereby failing to rebut the statutory presumption of ability to pay under s. 41(9) of the FRSAEA.

The court ordered the arrears secured against the property, permitted the payor to list it for sale, and ordered ongoing monthly payments of $1,250 under threat of incarceration.

Following a 17-year common law relationship, the applicant sought a constructive trust over the respondent's share of the proceeds from the sale of their jointly owned home, along with child and spousal support.

The applicant had previously used a $275,000 motor vehicle accident settlement to pay off the joint mortgage and fund improvements, which the court found was a gift.

However, the court found a resulting trust in the applicant's favour regarding a subsequent remortgaging of the home used to purchase assets solely in the respondent's name.

The court awarded the applicant $25,132.34 for the trust claim, $5,436 in retroactive child support, and $40,000 in lump sum spousal support to compensate for the economic disadvantage suffered from dissipating her settlement funds.

The applicant sought to prohibit the Family Responsibility Office (FRO) from enforcing support arrears after he and his wife consented to an order extinguishing all arrears and withdrew from the FRO.

Prior to the consent order, the applicant made a support payment that was returned for non-sufficient funds (NSF), but the FRO had already disbursed the funds to the wife.

The court dismissed the application, finding that under sections 57 and 58 of the Family Responsibility and Support Arrears Enforcement Act, 1996, the FRO has an independent statutory right to continue enforcement to recover the NSF amount as reimbursement for monies paid out, regardless of the parties' private agreement to extinguish support arrears.