5 total
Adjudicator lacked jurisdiction over part of a construction contract because separate improvements trigger different transitional provisions.
The applicant sought judicial review of an adjudicator's decision awarding the respondent $93,445.92 under the Construction Act.
The dispute centered on whether the adjudicator had jurisdiction under the Act's transitional provisions, given the contract covered clean-up work for two separate wastewater ponds (Pond #7 and Pond #14) with different procurement dates.
The Divisional Court held that the works on the two ponds constituted separate improvements on non-contiguous lands.
Consequently, the adjudicator lacked jurisdiction over claims related to Pond #7, as its procurement process commenced before the adjudication provisions came into force.
The court quashed the award for Pond #7 and reduced the total award to $11,638.17 for Pond #14.
The Court of Appeal upheld the motion judge's refusal to dismiss the action for delayed disclosure of expert documents and a partial settlement agreement.
The appellants appealed a motion judge's order, raising two issues: the respondent's failure to produce foundational expert documents and the untimely disclosure of a settlement agreement.
The Court of Appeal found no error in the motion judge's decision not to dismiss or stay the action on either ground.
The court upheld the motion judge's finding that the settlement agreement did not "entirely change the litigation landscape" and was not a Pierringer agreement requiring disclosure.
The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.
Leave to apply for judicial review of adjudicator's decisions granted with stay of orders.
The moving party, the Town of Caledon, brought a motion for leave to apply for judicial review of two decisions made by an adjudicator.
The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave, with costs of $5,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.
The court also ordered that the disputed amount paid into court remain there pending the final decision, and stayed the impugned orders.
Corporate plaintiff ordered to post $20,000 security for costs after failing to establish impecuniosity.
The defendant, AIM Recycling Hamilton, brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Compass Mechanical Contracting Inc., under Rule 56.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff argued the motion was barred because the action had been set down for trial and that it was impecunious.
The court granted the defendant leave to bring the motion, finding the plaintiff had insufficient assets.
The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide robust financial disclosure to establish impecuniosity.
Balancing the interests of justice, the court ordered the plaintiff to post $20,000 in security for costs.
Disciplining employees for a concerted refusal to work voluntary overtime during a legal strike violates the Labour Relations Act.
The union filed a complaint alleging the employer violated the Labour Relations Act by issuing disciplinary letters to three transit drivers who refused to work voluntary overtime.
The refusal was part of a union-imposed ban on overtime during a legal strike position.
The Board held that a concerted refusal to work overtime constitutes a strike, and because the employees were in a legal strike position, their participation was a protected right under the Act.
The employer's disciplinary action amounted to prohibited discrimination and penalization for exercising a statutory right.
The employer was directed to remove the warning letters from the employees' files, but the union's application for consent to prosecute was denied.
