Robert Harason

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding parties to provide information required under section 39 of the Construction Act.

The responding parties provided the requested information after the motion was served but before the hearing.

The moving party sought costs of the motion.

The court awarded costs to the moving party, finding that the responding parties caused the unnecessary motion by failing to respond to the section 39 demand within the statutory 21-day period and making no reasonable effort to resolve the motion costs.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the corporate plaintiff under Rule 56.01(1)(d).

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion seeking a sealing order for an affidavit and to exclude certain evidence allegedly obtained improperly by the defendants.

The court dismissed the cross-motion for a sealing order, finding the plaintiff did not meet the Sherman Estate test.

On the security for costs motion, the court found the defendants met their initial onus of showing good reason to believe the plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario, and the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient assets.

The plaintiff was ordered to post security for costs in the amount of $105,000 on a pay-as-you-go basis.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's action and discharge its construction lien, arguing that the plaintiff corporation contracted using an unregistered business name and failed to disclose its corporate identity.

The plaintiff argued the lapse in registration was inadvertent and the defendants were aware they were dealing with a corporation.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the voluminous and contradictory affidavit evidence raised serious credibility issues that could not be resolved on a summary basis and required a full trial.

The moving defendant sought to set aside a default judgment, noting in default, and substantial indemnity costs order granted after he failed to attend discoveries and the motion for judgment.

The court applied the Rule 19.08 test considering promptness, explanation for default, and the existence of an arguable defence.

The defendant learned of the judgment only upon service of an examination in aid of execution and moved promptly thereafter, with delay largely attributable to difficulty obtaining the court file.

The court found a plausible explanation for the default and an arguable defence concerning alleged unpaid construction invoices and the contractual requirement for written authorization of extras.

The court also held that the plaintiff’s failure to disclose a prior $60,000 settlement with a co‑defendant—representing most of the total claim—was a significant non‑disclosure that independently justified setting aside the judgment.

In a commercial dispute concerning allegedly defective heat pumps installed in condominium projects, the defendants moved to withdraw an admission in their Statement of Defence that certain individual defendants were partners in the corporate defendant.

The court applied the three‑part test for withdrawing admissions, requiring a triable issue, a reasonable explanation for the admission, and absence of non‑compensable prejudice.

The defendants failed to provide credible affidavit evidence explaining the admission and did not satisfy the requirements of the test.

The motion to withdraw the admission was dismissed.

The court permitted certain amendments to the Statement of Defence, required further particulars for others, and imposed a discovery plan after the parties were unable to agree.