Peterman et al. v. Greenmark Builders Inc. et al., 2026 ONSC 157

1Following argument of this motion on May 15, 2025, it was ordered that a Small Claims Court action commenced by Harding Mechanical Contractors (“Harding”), a mechanical sub-contractor, against Greenmark Builders Inc.(“Greenmark”), (a project manager/general contractor), be stayed pending the outcome of a construction lien action (and an accompanying civil proceeding), filed in the Superior Court by Greenmark against the owners of the residence, Mr. Peterman and Ms. McGuinty. A renovation project was carried out on the residence of the home owners in the context of which a dispute between Greenmark and the homeowners arose resulting in the claims before the court.

2Harding’s lien in the sum of $14,020.33 was and is sheltered under Greenmark’s lien in the lien action relating to the same project and is included in the lien trust funds currently being held by the homeowners’ solicitors. The court ordered, at the conclusion of the within motion:

THIS COURT ORDERS that the Small Claims Court proceeding commenced by Harding Mechanical Contractors Inc. under Court File No. SC-23-001645670000 is stayed pending the hearing and determination of Superior Court of Justice Court File Nos. CV-23-00091337-0000 and CV-23-00091220-0000, pursuant to sections 106, 107 and 138 of the Courts of Justice Act;

3While Harding was unsuccessful in this motion, and indeed vigorously opposed the relief sought, the court recognizes that Harding pursued the Small Claims Court action as a strategy to collect payment on it's modest claim ($14,020.33), which the general contractor Greenmark and the homeowners acknowledge was for services actually rendered to the property-the dispute between them being as to which of them was responsible to pay Harding. There is no genuine dispute that the trust funds in the lien action include the amount Harding is claiming and is payable either by the homeowners or by Greenmark. The workmanship and the amount of Harding’s invoice are not in dispute. Unfortunately, the lien action in this court and an accompanying tort action which will be tried together with the lien action have morphed into a major tort proceeding which exceeds any concept of reasonable proportionality. Harding understandably sought to extricate itself from the costs and delay of involvement in that dispute. However it is untenable to have the same issues being adjudicated in two separate proceedings in two different courts.

4Cost submissions on the present motion reflect that it has consistently been the settlement position of Harding that it would accept payment of their invoice from the trust fund and waive any claims for interest and costs-clearly a generous position stubbornly refused by the homeowners and by Greenmark.

5In any event Greenmark was successful on this motion and are entitled to their costs, notwithstanding that Harding has an obviously valid claim to have its invoice paid from the lien trust funds.

6In the circumstances I award the moving party Greenmark costs of this motion in the sum of $5,000 to be paid by Harding forthwith and I further award Greenmark the additional sum $5,000 against the homeowners, payable as costs in the cause (in other words payable only if Greenmark is successful against the homeowners in this action). I am satisfied from reviewing the lengthy and detailed costs submissions that the homeowners appear to be blocking any resolution that would see Harding promptly paid from the lien trust. I am also aware that Greenmark are refusing to agree to any adjustment the costs portion of the lien trust to reflect such a payout to Harding, absent any apparent justification, and are thereby frustrating the resolution of the Harding claim.

7The parties are strongly advised to request a case conference before an associate justice, to discuss a resolution of this needlessly protracted and unnecessarily complicated claim.

Justice Charles T. Hackland

Date: January 9, 202

CITATION: Peterman et al. v. Greenmark Builders Inc. et al. 2026 ONSC 157