Robin E. Spinks

The owner of leased commercial premises moved under the Construction Lien Act to declare three construction liens invalid and to discharge security posted to vacate them, arguing the lien claimants failed to correctly identify the owner in their claims for lien.

The court considered whether the naming errors constituted non‑compliance with s. 34(5) of the Act or merely a failure to strictly comply curable under s. 6.

The evidence showed the tenant owner had used multiple corporate and unregistered names and had not registered certain business names, contributing to confusion about the proper legal entity.

The court held that the errors—misplacing the owner’s name in the electronic form or naming related Equinox entities—were failures to strictly comply but not fatal defects, and no prejudice was established.

Motions to discharge the liens were dismissed and the lien claimants were permitted to amend pleadings to correctly name the tenant owner.

A contractor performing underground garage restoration severed an underground hydro cable while chipping concrete at the entrance to a parking garage.

The property owner withheld payment of certified progress invoices and claimed backcharges for repair costs arising from the incident.

The court held that the contractor was contractually responsible for locating underground utilities and was liable for the repair costs because it failed to obtain a hydro locate that would have prevented the damage.

However, the owner was not entitled to withhold certified payments while awaiting potential claims and was required to pay contractual interest on the delayed invoices.

The contractor’s damages and the owner’s backcharges offset each other, leaving only interest payable.

The applicants appealed a Notice of Proposal by the Director of Vehicle Inspection Standards to refuse to issue a Motor Vehicle Inspection Station licence and to refuse to register the individual applicant as a mechanic.

The refusal was based on numerous convictions for violations of the Highway Traffic Act, specifically failing to affix inspection stickers, and providing false information on a registration application.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal upheld the Proposal, finding that the applicants' repeated breaches of the law and lack of diligence provided reasonable grounds to conclude they would not operate their licensed activities in accordance with the law and with honesty and integrity.

The plaintiff contractor brought a construction lien action for unpaid invoices totaling $30,716.09 for home renovations.

The defendant homeowner counterclaimed for deficiencies, accommodation expenses, and a full refund, arguing the unwritten contract was unenforceable under the Consumer Protection Act.

The court found the defendant deliberately deceived the plaintiff by promising payment to ensure completion.

Applying section 93(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, the court held it would be inequitable not to enforce the contract.

The plaintiff was awarded the balance owing, less set-offs for minor deficiencies and cleaning.

The Registrar issued a Notice of Proposal to revoke the registration of Lifetime General as a motor vehicle dealer and to refuse registration to LTG Auto Sales Ltd. and Ahmed Salami as a salesperson, citing financial irresponsibility and failure to disclose a personal judgment.

The Licence Appeal Tribunal found that the applicant's personal debt and inadvertent failure to disclose did not afford reasonable grounds to believe he would not carry on business with integrity and honesty.

The Tribunal directed the Registrar to grant and continue the registrations subject to terms and conditions, including mandatory disclosure and completion of a certification course.

The defendants sought an order in the nature of an appeal from a construction lien master’s report confirming liability arising from renovation work performed on the defendants’ home.

The master found that although the corporate plaintiff was not the direct contracting party, recovery was available on the basis of unjust enrichment given the services and materials supplied and the essential connection between the corporate entity and the individual who performed the work.

The defendants argued the master exceeded jurisdiction under the Construction Lien Act and erred in awarding equitable relief and in recognizing a subcontractor’s lien entitlement.

The court held that the statutory scheme provides broad authority to resolve all matters arising from the lien action and permits personal judgment even where a lien fails.

Finding no palpable or overriding error, the court confirmed the master’s report.