Construction Law - SCJ

The defendant developer moved to discharge a construction lien registered by the plaintiff contractor, arguing the lien was registered out of time because the parties had entered into five separate contracts rather than one global contract.

The plaintiff cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting there was only one contract for the entire subdivision project.

Applying principles of contract interpretation, the court found the explicit provisions of the contractual materials clearly established five separate agreements.

Consequently, the plaintiff's lien was registered out of time and was invalid, particularly as it was registered against premises where no work or materials were supplied.

The defendant's motion to discharge the lien and release funds paid into court was granted.

The plaintiff equipment rental company moved for summary judgment against the defendant developer for rental charges and damages related to equipment left on the defendant's site after the general contractor went bankrupt and abandoned the project.

The plaintiff advanced claims of unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and conversion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding no evidence that the defendant used or benefited from the equipment after the contractor abandoned the site, nor any evidence that the defendant caused damage to the equipment.

The plaintiff municipality sought leave to amend its statement of claim to add its consulting engineer, WSP, as a defendant in an action concerning defective bridge rehabilitation work.

WSP opposed the motion, arguing the claim was statute-barred by the two-year limitation period.

The court applied the discoverability principle, finding that the plaintiff reasonably relied on WSP's professional advice that the defects were caused by poor workmanship rather than WSP's specified concrete mixture.

The limitation period did not begin to run until the plaintiff obtained independent expert reports revealing WSP's potential negligence.

The motion to add WSP as a defendant and extend the time to set the matter down for trial was granted.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to amend their statement of claim to allege a breach of minutes of settlement by the defendants.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing the proposed amendments were barred by the Limitations Act, 2002, as the plaintiffs ought to have discovered the alleged defects in the replacement materials upon delivery.

The court granted leave to amend, finding it was not clear that the claim was statute-barred, as the plaintiffs may have reasonably relied on the defendants' good faith in fulfilling the settlement.

The court also granted the plaintiffs' request to transfer the action to the ordinary procedure due to an increase in claimed damages.

At a pre-trial conference for a construction dispute, the parties agreed to vacate the scheduled trial dates and establish a protocol for a joint site inspection.

The inspection will involve representatives from various engineering and consulting firms to determine structural deficiencies, remediation methods, and costs.

The court issued a consent order detailing the inspection process, deadlines for expert reports, and scheduled a further pre-trial conference.

The plaintiff electrical sub-contractor sued the defendant contractor for $87,437 in unpaid invoices relating to three restaurant construction projects.

The parties operated on an informal, verbal basis with payments often made on account rather than allocated to specific invoices.

The court found the plaintiff's evidence more credible regarding the authorization of extras and the allocation of payments.

The court also rejected the defendant's limitation period defence, finding that periodic payments on the running account served as an acknowledgment of debt.

The plaintiff was awarded $77,437.30, reflecting the amount claimed less a $10,000 deposit that had been specifically allocated.

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff subcontractor's $11.1 million delay claim, arguing the plaintiff failed to provide strict contractual notice of the delay.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant had actual notice and that strict compliance was not required given the surrounding circumstances.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the issues of notice, credibility regarding backdated letters, and the complex factual matrix of the construction delay raised genuine issues requiring a full trial.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for a status hearing under Rule 48.14(5) to establish a timetable for the remainder of the action, which involved a claim for unpaid construction work on a custom home.

The defendants sought to have the action dismissed for delay.

The Master found that the plaintiffs had an acceptable explanation for the delay, as their former lawyer failed to advance the action despite their instructions, and that the defendants suffered no non-compensable prejudice.

The motion was granted, allowing the action to proceed with a new deadline to set it down for trial.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motions to lift bankruptcy stays and the granting of summary judgment dismissing the actions against the defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought over $166,000 in costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $126,124.12, apportioning the liability among the three plaintiffs based on the proportionate size of their respective claims, finding that the summary judgment motions effectively disposed of the entire actions.

The defendant counterclaimed against the plaintiff for $6,097.25 for unpaid invoices.

Neither party led any evidence or made any submissions regarding the counterclaim during the trial.

As a result, the court issued supplementary reasons dismissing the counterclaim.

The plaintiff general contractor sued the defendant flooring subcontractor for breach of contract after the installed resilient flooring exhibited loose, lifting, and telegraphing tiles.

The plaintiff replaced the defective flooring and sought to recover the costs.

The defendant argued the issues were caused by excess moisture in the concrete slab, for which it had obtained a liability release.

The court found that the defendant failed to properly prepare the concrete substrate in accordance with the contract specifications, causing the delamination and telegraphing.

The plaintiff was awarded the replacement costs, less the amount claimed for profit.

The plaintiff and defendant both sought leave to amend their pleadings in an accounting dispute arising from a construction management contract.

The defendant opposed the plaintiff's proposed amendment, arguing it raised a new cause of action that was statute-barred under the Limitations Act.

The Master applied a broad approach to defining a cause of action and found the amendment was based on the same factual matrix as the original claim.

The Master also found that discoverability was a genuine issue for trial, as the plaintiff only received the defendant's general ledger recently.

Both parties were granted leave to amend their pleadings, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.

The plaintiffs and defendants brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached between the parties, including the third party 1671233 Ontario Limited (167). 167's insurer had appointed counsel who agreed to the settlement on 167's behalf, but 167 subsequently refused to sign the release and issued a fourth party claim.

The court found that a valid settlement agreement was reached by counsel with ostensible authority.

Applying the factors from Milios v. Zagas, the court exercised its discretion under Rule 49.09 to enforce the settlement, finding it clear, reasonable, and not unduly prejudicial to 167.

Consequently, 167 was ordered to execute the release and its fourth party claim was stayed.

The defendant in a construction dispute brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff subcontractor.

The plaintiff opposed the motion, claiming impecuniosity resulting from the defendant's failure to pay for work performed.

The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide robust particularity of its financial situation to establish impecuniosity.

However, recognizing the merit of the plaintiff's claim and the need to balance financial risk against prejudice, the court ordered security for costs on a step-by-step basis, requiring the plaintiff to post $15,000 rather than the $116,571.12 requested by the defendant.

The defendants brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the plaintiff's action regarding alleged defects in the design of an HVAC system, arguing the claim was statute-barred.

The plaintiff argued the claim was not discovered until he received an expert report, as the defendants had assured him the design was not flawed.

The court found that the plaintiff knew of the damage and believed the defendants were responsible well before the two-year limitation period expired, as evidenced by his emails and refusal to sign a release.

The motion for summary judgment was granted and the action was dismissed.

The moving party landlord brought a motion to discharge several construction liens registered against its property, arguing it was not an 'owner' under the Construction Lien Act because the work was requested by its bankrupt tenant.

The court found that the landlord and tenant were connected through common directors, officers, and legal counsel, and the landlord had paid substantial amounts for leasehold improvements.

The court dismissed the motion, concluding there was a genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the landlord's status as an owner.

The plaintiff brought a motion to extend the time for service of its Statement of Claim under the Construction Lien Act.

The court granted the extension nunc pro tunc, finding that the default was not intentional, there was no inordinate delay, and the delay would not prejudice a fair trial.

However, because the motion was necessitated by the plaintiff's inadvertence, costs were awarded to the defendants.

The plaintiffs brought actions for breach of contract and breach of trust after the defendant general contractor abandoned a construction project.

The defendants were noted in default.

The court found the corporate defendant liable for breach of contract and breach of trust for failing to pay subcontractors.

The sole director of the corporate defendant was found personally liable for the breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act.

The court awarded compensatory damages but declined to award punitive damages or substantial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff hired the defendant general contractor for a home renovation on a cost-plus basis.

After becoming concerned about costs, the plaintiff hired a cost consultant who discovered a fraudulent invoicing scheme, including inflated sub-trade accounts and double-counted HST.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for civil fraud and to pierce the corporate veil to hold the sole shareholder personally liable.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the contractor committed civil fraud and the shareholder used the corporation as an instrument of fraud.

The defendants' counterclaim for unpaid invoices was largely dismissed due to lack of supporting documentation.

The plaintiff paving contractor brought a motion for summary judgment for unpaid invoices.

The defendant general contractor refused to pay, arguing that the asphalt was defective and that a liability release it signed prior to the paving was void due to economic duress.

The court found that the release was a valid amendment to the contract and that the defendant failed to establish economic duress, as it had alternatives available and the plaintiff's pressure was legitimate given the cold weather conditions.

Summary judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiff.