S. Costa

The defendant brought a motion for leave under s. 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act for production and discovery of the plaintiff.

The plaintiff brought a cross-motion for similar relief against the defendant.

The plaintiff had previously set the action down for trial, triggering Rule 48.04(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires a substantial and unexpected change in circumstances to grant leave for further discovery.

The court granted the defendant's unopposed motion.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding that the plaintiff deliberately chose to set the action down for trial without completing discoveries and failed to meet the strict test under Rule 48.04(1).

The defendant general contractor brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff subcontractor's action, obtain default judgment on its counterclaim, and cancel a lien bond.

The plaintiff had abandoned the action after its counsel was removed from the record.

Another subcontractor opposed the cancellation of the lien bond, arguing it should be pooled to cover its own costs and interest.

The court dismissed the plaintiff's action, granted default judgment on the counterclaim, and ordered the lien bond cancelled, finding that the pooling provisions of the Construction Lien Act did not apply where all liens had been bonded off.