Ryan Christopher Hauk

The court denied the moving parties' request for leave to bring urgent motions to vacate claims for lien and certificates of action under section 44 of the Construction Act, finding no true urgency.

The endorsement criticizes the excessive length and lack of organization in the motion materials and highlights the improper use of the court’s urgent motion process.

However, the court allowed the moving parties a limited opportunity to proceed in writing, subject to strict conditions, to avoid jeopardizing an upcoming refinancing.

The applicants sought relief arising from Minutes of Settlement concerning the respondents' proposed building of a new three-story house, alleging breaches related to a third-story deck/patio doors overlooking their backyard, and soil addition potentially harming their tree.

The court found no breach of the Minutes of Settlement, determining that the respondents' building plans were in "substantial compliance" with the agreed-upon Revised Zoning Drawings.

The court also found no expert evidence to substantiate the applicants' drainage or tree damage concerns and dismissed the application, noting that the parties had resolved a separate mutual right-of-way issue.

A former equity partner withdrew from an accounting partnership and joined a competing firm, triggering a liquidated damages clause requiring payment equal to two times the partner’s “permanent capital.” The dispute concerned whether shareholder loans made through a related corporation formed part of “permanent capital” under the partnership agreement.

The court interpreted the agreement according to its plain language and held that permanent capital was equivalent to the partner’s capital account in the partnership, which had been equalized to $10,000 and did not include shareholder loans.

The plaintiff was therefore liable for $20,000 in liquidated damages but was entitled to repayment of capital, profit share, shareholder loan amounts, and related payments.

Allegations of fiduciary misconduct and various counterclaims by the partnership, including claims for suppressed work‑in‑progress and loss of opportunity damages, were rejected.