Ronald Peterson

This costs endorsement followed a summary judgment motion where portable school classrooms were found to be "improvements" under the Construction Act.

OnPoint Group Ltd., the successful party on the main issue, sought full indemnity costs, while intervening parties also sought partial indemnity costs.

The court awarded OnPoint Group Ltd. $35,000 and the intervenors $9,500, both on a partial indemnity basis.

The decision considered factors such as mixed success, complexity, and the novelty of the issue, and addressed the impact of bilingual proceedings on costs.

The defendant Conseil des Écoles Catholiques du Centre Est (CECCE) brought a summary judgment motion to determine if portable school classrooms built by the plaintiff OnPoint Group Ltd. are "improvements" under the Construction Act, thereby engaging lien provisions, and to dismiss OnPoint's unjust enrichment claim.

The court found the portables are "improvements" and lienable due to their on-site completion, known final destination, CECCE's holdback practices, and enhancement of the school's utility.

However, the unjust enrichment claim was dismissed as CECCE was not unjustly enriched and a juristic reason (contract with general contractor) existed.

The Ontario Land Tribunal held a Case Management Conference regarding an appeal of the Rideau Valley Conservation Authority's refusal to grant permission for development.

The parties agreed to narrow the issues for the hearing and to prepare a Procedural Order.

The Tribunal scheduled a further Case Management Conference and set dates for a three-day video hearing.

The defendant owner moved under s. 44(2) of the Construction Act to vacate a $2.14 million construction lien by paying a reduced amount into court.

The plaintiff contractor opposed and cross-moved for leave to register a certificate of pending litigation (CPL).

The court allowed the defendant's motion, finding that the plaintiff's claims for contractual interest and delay damages were not lienable, and set the security amount at $1,046,647.52 based on the plaintiff's admissions.

The cross-motion for a CPL was dismissed because the Construction Act provides a complete code for lien claims, conferring no separate interest in land, and the plaintiff failed to include a claim for a CPL in its statement of claim.

The applicant property owner brought a motion for leave to amend its notice of application regarding a disputed agreement of purchase and sale.

The proposed amendments sought to add a fixed closing date and to discharge a certificate of pending litigation (CPL) that the respondent developer had obtained in a separate action.

The court granted leave to add the fixed closing date, as the respondent alleged no prejudice.

However, the court refused leave to add the request to discharge the CPL, finding that the proposed amendment failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action and constituted an improper collateral attack on an order made in a separate proceeding.

The appellants appealed a trial judgment awarding damages and costs to the respondents for breach of a contract to purchase bakery equipment.

The trial judge found the appellants waived conditions in the offer to purchase by signing a lease, did not repudiate the offer, and that the individual appellant was personally liable.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's findings of fact or mixed fact and law.

The court also upheld the costs award, finding it was within the trial judge's discretion and not disproportionate.