R. Quance

The plaintiff contractor registered a construction lien and claimed payment for services and materials supplied to build a commercial addition for the defendant owner.

The project was delayed primarily due to issues relocating a hydro transformer, leading the owner to terminate the contract and claim set-off for completion costs and deficiencies.

The court found mutual breaches of contract but determined the owner owed the contractor $146,735.50 for unpaid certified work, subject to allowable backcharges of $54,917.95.

The court awarded the contractor the net balance of $91,817.55 plus prejudgment interest, while dismissing several of the owner's backcharge claims for lack of proof or failure to plead them.

Following a successful summary judgment motion, the plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis.

The defendant had advanced allegations of tax fraud and illegality against the plaintiff in the pleadings, which the court found were serious and unsupported.

The court reviewed the factors under Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 131 of the Courts of Justice Act, including indemnity principles, the parties’ expectations, complexity of the proceedings, and the importance of the issues.

The court held that unfounded allegations of dishonesty and illegality can justify costs on a higher scale.

Substantial indemnity costs were therefore awarded.

A real estate brokerage sought summary judgment for unpaid commission under a Buyer Representation Agreement after the defendant purchased a property during the agreement’s term.

The defendant argued the agreement had been terminated by an oral agreement and that the brokerage failed to perform its obligations to assist with the purchase.

The court held that the alleged oral termination lacked evidentiary support and failed to establish the essential elements of a binding agreement.

The court also found the brokerage had fulfilled its contractual obligation to assist the buyer and that the eventual purchase largely relied on earlier efforts undertaken by the brokerage.

Summary judgment was granted and the buyer was ordered to pay the contractual commission.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to enforce Minutes of Settlement regarding the sale of a marina property.

The defendant opposed, claiming a set-off and counterclaim for damages resulting from the collapse of boat slips due to snow load, alleging the plaintiff failed to maintain and insure the property while in possession.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the Minutes of Settlement contained a full release and imposed no obligation on the plaintiff to maintain or insure the property for the defendant's benefit.

The defendant was ordered to pay the $500,000 owed under the settlement.

Following execution of an ex parte Anton Piller order authorizing the seizure of computer hardware and smartphones, the parties disputed the method for returning the seized computers to the respondent.

The applicants alleged the devices contained confidential customer lists and email addresses that had been misappropriated.

They proposed removing the existing hard drives and installing new drives containing only non-confidential information copied by a forensic expert.

The respondent objected to replacing the hard drive on one computer containing business records and applications.

The court approved the applicants’ proposed deletion and hard-drive replacement process, subject to safeguards requiring forensic expert involvement, a report to the court, and restoration of operating systems and applications, and ordered return of the devices by a specified date.