3 total
Substantial indemnity costs awarded against defendants for pursuing unmeritorious defences in a construction lien action.
Following a trial of two construction lien actions, the parties sought costs and pre-judgment interest.
The court rejected requests to pay costs from security posted for an expired lien.
The successful plaintiff, Senso, was awarded substantial indemnity costs of $120,000 against both defendants jointly and severally due to their pursuit of unmeritorious defences.
The partially successful plaintiff, TMAP, was awarded partial indemnity costs against one defendant.
The successful defendant, Finch, was awarded partial indemnity costs against TMAP and the co-defendant, but was denied costs for the time its self-represented principal spent on the trial due to a lack of evidence regarding lost opportunity costs.
Pre-judgment interest was awarded based on fluctuating rates as calculated by the plaintiffs.
The court upheld a material supplier's construction lien and contract claim while dismissing a subcontractor's untimely lien but granting its contract claim.
This trial resolved two outstanding subcontractor and supplier construction lien actions arising from a condominium development project.
The supplier, Senso, sought payment for building materials, while the subcontractor, TMAP, sought payment for door and trim installation work from the contractor, DC&F, and the owner, Finch.
The court found that Senso's lien was timely and valid, allowing it to recover its lien amount from security posted in court, and granted Senso a contract judgment against DC&F. Although TMAP's contract claim against DC&F was successful, the court dismissed TMAP's lien claim because it failed to prove that it supplied lienable services within the statutory period.
Additionally, the court rejected DC&F's 'pay-when-paid' defense and determined that Finch's statutory holdback obligations exceeded Senso's proven lien.
The court declined to schedule a motion due to lack of notice and confirmed that a stay of execution automatically expired upon the dismissal of an appeal.
This endorsement addresses two procedural matters: a proposed summary judgment motion by the Slades against Frank Manzo, and Tanfi Limited's request for a case conference to vary an order regarding a stay of a writ of possession.
The court declined to take steps on the Slades' proposed motion due to lack of proper notice to Mr. Manzo.
Regarding Tanfi's request, the court clarified that the stay of the writ of possession, which had been extended until the disposition of the Slades' appeal, had expired upon the Court of Appeal's dismissal of that appeal.
The court stated that no further order was required for Tanfi to enforce its summary judgment, and declined to schedule a case conference as it was unnecessary.
The court also directed that no further informal communications be made to the judge's assistant.
