Robert N. Kostyniuk

The plaintiff subcontractor failed to preserve and perfect a construction lien against the owner's property.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend its statement of claim to add claims of unjust enrichment and quantum meruit against the owner.

The owner brought a cross-motion to strike the claim against it under Rule 21.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion and granted the owner's motion to strike, holding that the Construction Act is a complete code and a subcontractor who fails to preserve its lien rights has no equitable recourse against the owner.

The applicant sought a one-half beneficial interest in a home solely owned by the respondent, claiming she contributed over $200,000 towards its purchase and extensive renovations during their relationship.

The respondent admitted unjust enrichment but argued the applicant was only entitled to a monetary award based on value received.

The court found the parties were engaged in a joint family venture and that the applicant's contributions were investments, not loans.

Concluding that a monetary award would be unfair and difficult to quantify, the court imposed a constructive trust granting the applicant a 50% beneficial ownership in the home.

Following the breakdown of a marriage involving two children with significant developmental needs, the applicant sought sole custody, retroactive child support, spousal support, equalization of net family property, and related relief.

The respondent sought sole or joint custody, claimed arrears of child support, and disputed income and property issues.

The court applied the best‑interests analysis under the Divorce Act and ordered joint custody with substantial parenting time to each parent.

Income was imputed to the respondent at $60,000 due to unreliable financial disclosure and unreasonable business deductions, resulting in ongoing child support and spousal support obligations.

The court also determined the parties’ net family property and ordered an equalization payment after finding that transfers to the respondent’s mother were not legitimate loans but attempts to defeat equalization.