Construction Law - SCJ

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for summary judgment to perfect a construction lien for unpaid renovation work following a flood at the defendant's property.

The defendant homeowner argued the contracts were part of an insurance scheme and that work was incomplete or deficient.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, rejecting the defendant's uncorroborated evidence and finding the plaintiff completed the contractual scope of work.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff for $79,329.10.

The plaintiff property owner contracted the defendant roofing company to install a new roof on an apartment building.

Following the installation, the roof experienced significant leaking and drainage issues.

The plaintiff's expert engineer concluded the roof was poorly installed, not properly secured, and posed a public safety hazard.

The plaintiff subsequently sold the building, agreeing to a $200,000 reduction in the purchase price due to the defective roof.

The court found the defendant breached the contract and was negligent in its installation, awarding the plaintiff $203,329.98 in damages for the price reduction and interim repair costs.

The plaintiff, a trim carpenter, brought a construction lien and breach of contract action against the general contractor and the homeowner for unpaid work on a residential project.

The court found that the general contractor wrongfully repudiated the oral subcontract by failing to pay the plaintiff and denying him access to the site.

The court also found that the general contractor made a pre-contractual misrepresentation that formed a collateral warranty, causing the contract price to revert to its original higher amount when the condition was breached.

The plaintiff was awarded a lien of $16,225, for which both defendants were jointly and severally liable, and $7,200 in breach of contract damages against the general contractor.

The plaintiff construction manager brought an action against the defendant developer for unpaid invoices totaling over $1 million.

The defendant counterclaimed for delay damages, costs to rectify deficiencies, and return of construction management fees, alleging the plaintiff failed to perform its contractual obligations.

The court found that the parties had varied the written contract by their conduct and that the plaintiff was not responsible for any of the project delays, which were caused by the defendant's failure to provide a completed design and obtain permits on time.

The court also held that the plaintiff was not liable for construction deficiencies, as those were the responsibility of the trades.

The plaintiff was awarded $644,871.69 for unpaid invoices, with deductions made for overcharges and unproven payments.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for summary judgment against the corporate owner and its principal for unpaid amounts on a commercial redevelopment project.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the debt, rejecting the defendants' claims of a fixed price and substandard work.

The court also found that the corporate owner breached the statutory trust provisions of the Construction Act by receiving funds after substantial performance was certified and failing to remit them to the plaintiff.

The individual principal was held personally liable for the breach of trust as he had effective control of the corporation and knew or ought to have known of the breach.

The plaintiff in a construction dispute brought a motion to compel the defendants to answer questions refused at discovery and to produce a further and better affidavit of documents.

The core issue was whether the defendants implicitly waived solicitor-client privilege regarding advice received during the negotiation of an Amending Agreement.

The Master found no waiver regarding the negotiation of the agreement, but found an implicit waiver regarding advice on payments made after the agreement.

The Master also ordered disclosure of competing quotations but denied requests for consultant files and financial means.

The plaintiff was granted leave to complete the discovery and awarded partial indemnity costs of $6,500.

The defendant moved to stay the plaintiff's construction lien actions and discharge the liens, arguing that the plaintiff corporation lacked a controlling mind after its sole director became bankrupt.

The court found that neither the bankrupt director nor a secured creditor holding a share pledge agreement had the legal authority under the Business Corporations Act to direct the litigation.

The court stayed the actions but granted a 30-day cure period for the plaintiff to rectify the corporate governance issue, and ordered the plaintiff to post $150,000 in security for costs as a precondition to lifting the stay.

The plaintiff brought a motion to strike the defendant's statement of defence and counterclaim for failing to comply with trial directions to deliver affidavits for evidence in chief.

The defendant, who was self-represented after his counsel was removed, brought a motion to adjourn the trial to retain new counsel.

The court found the defendant's non-compliance was deliberate, part of a delay strategy, and showed a profound lack of interest in the proceedings.

Applying the test for striking pleadings, the court struck the defendant's set-off and counterclaim but allowed the defence to stand so the defendant could cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses.

The motion to adjourn was dismissed.

The defendant brought an ex parte motion to vacate a construction lien registered by the plaintiff.

The court declined to grant the motion because the defendant failed to submit a copy of the registered claim for lien and the proposed letter of credit contained unacceptable conditions referencing the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits.

The motion was deemed dismissed without prejudice to being brought again with a complete record and appropriate security.

The defendant successfully moved to reduce the plaintiff's construction lien on the basis that it was wilfully exaggerated.

The parties could not agree on costs for the motion.

The court awarded the defendant costs on a substantial indemnity basis, finding that the plaintiff's conduct in wilfully exaggerating the lien warranted a higher scale of costs to deter such practices in the construction community.

Costs were fixed at $34,500.

The moving party brought motions to declare the plaintiffs' construction liens expired under the Construction Lien Act.

The substantive relief was granted on consent.

The only remaining issue was costs.

The court declined to award costs to the moving party, finding that its counsel had engaged in sharp practice by failing to respond to correspondence from opposing counsel that revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of the statutory deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court held that correcting this clear mistake would not have sacrificed the client's rights and that the motions could have been brought ex parte or in writing.

The defendants brought a motion to stay a construction lien action, arguing it was commenced without proper corporate authority.

The plaintiff corporation's Unanimous Shareholders Agreement required a three-director board, but the action was authorized by a single director.

The court found that the indoor management rule did not apply because the dispute involved internal corporate governance issues rather than a simple collection matter.

The court granted the motion and stayed the action until a valid resolution is passed by a properly appointed board of directors.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiff's two construction defect actions for delay.

The actions were commenced in 2011 and 2012 but had not progressed to discoveries.

The plaintiff's former counsel claimed a 'mental block' prevented him from advancing the files, and the plaintiff's principal claimed ignorance of the delay.

The court found the delay was inordinate and inexcusable, noting the plaintiff's principal failed to monitor the litigation.

The court also found actual prejudice to the defendants, including the death of a key witness.

The motions were granted and the actions dismissed.

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff subcontractor's claim for the balance owing on a construction contract, while preserving their own counterclaim for delay damages.

The dispute arose from the construction of a water treatment plant, with the plaintiff alleging inaccurate schedules and specifications, and the defendants alleging the plaintiff failed to meet timelines.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that significant factual issues required determination at trial and it was inappropriate to decide the plaintiff's claim summarily while leaving the defendants' counterclaim for trial.

The applicant appealed three arbitral awards dismissing its claims against the respondent municipality for remediation costs, additional construction costs, and interest related to a waterfront development project.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the arbitrator made reversible errors of law and breached procedural fairness in all three awards by relying on legal theories and defences—such as an implied 'time is of the essence' term, implied fiduciary-like duties for a construction manager, and equitable estoppel—that were never pleaded or argued by the parties.

The court held that these errors were not trivial and tainted the outcomes, directing the parties to schedule a case management conference to determine the appropriate remedy.

The plaintiff brought a motion to enforce Minutes of Settlement after the defendant failed to pay the required interest on the settlement amount.

The settlement included a provision that failure to cure a default within 10 days would result in a consent judgment for the full original lien claim of $611,061.10, less any principal paid.

The defendant argued for relief from forfeiture, claiming the penalty was unconscionable.

The court rejected this argument, finding the consent judgment was not disproportionate to the original claim and that the defendant had not been taken advantage of.

The motion was granted, and judgment was ordered for the net amount of $286,061.10.

The plaintiff contractor brought a motion for interlocutory relief under the Construction Lien Act, seeking an order requiring the defendant owners to pay a holdback amount into court, a stay of the action pending arbitration, and the appointment of an arbitrator.

The court granted the stay on consent but dismissed the requests for payment into court and the appointment of an arbitrator.

The court found that the holdback was no longer necessary to protect subcontractors as the lien period had expired, and the plaintiff already had a lien on the property.

The request to appoint an arbitrator was deemed premature as the parties had agreed to mediate first.

Following a trial where the plaintiff contractor failed to prove entitlement to a construction lien and the defendant owners obtained a nominal judgment of $738.20 on their set-off defence, both parties sought costs.

The court noted divided success, as the plaintiff successfully established the owners breached the contract, but the owners successfully defeated the lien claim.

Given the divided success and the expiration of the owners' settlement offers prior to trial, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs.

The Defendant Mortgagees brought a motion, and the Lienholders brought a cross-motion, for reconsideration of a judgment regarding priority under s. 78(3) of the Construction Act.

The court reviewed the test for reconsideration, noting it is reserved for rare circumstances involving obvious errors of inadvertence.

Finding that both parties were essentially attempting to re-argue legal questions and valuation findings appropriate for an appeal rather than reconsideration, the court dismissed both the motion and the cross-motion.

The defendants, Aragon and the Town of Mono, brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff engineering firm's claims for unpaid invoices and to discharge construction liens registered against their properties.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment regarding the unpaid invoices, finding that the limitation period issue required a trial.

However, the court granted the motion to discharge the construction liens, concluding that the liens had expired because the work performed within the 45 days prior to registration was administrative and deficiency-related, which does not extend the time for preserving a lien.