Stéphane Bond

The defendants, McDonald Brothers Construction Inc. et al., brought a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action, commenced in 2016, had seen no progress since discoveries in 2018, and the plaintiff failed to comply with a 2019 order to retain new counsel.

The court found the delay to be inordinate and inexcusable, rejecting the plaintiff's explanations related to personal health, financial difficulties, and the pandemic.

Despite no finding of intentional or contumelious conduct, the plaintiff failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice arising from the delay.

The motion was granted, and the action was dismissed with costs awarded to the defendants.

This was a motion for summary judgment to enforce a settlement agreement.

The respondents argued the agreement should be set aside due to duress, misrepresentation, and mistake of fact, contending a full hearing was required.

The court found the matter suitable for summary judgment under Rule 20 and Hryniak v. Mauldin.

The court dismissed the respondents' arguments, finding insufficient evidence for duress, no fundamental mistake regarding the agreement's terms (including CPP, EI, and taxes), and no basis for negligent misrepresentation.

Summary judgment was granted to the moving party, enforcing the settlement agreement, and substantial indemnity costs were awarded against the respondents.

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave to amend the statement of claim, seeking to add a new defendant and remove an existing one.

The court identified numerous procedural deficiencies in the motion record, including an improper basis for bringing the motion in writing (expectation of unopposed vs. consent), lack of affidavit of service for the proposed new party, use of antiquated terminology ("style of cause"), and issues with the consent form and document filing.

The motion was not granted at this time and was adjourned with specific directions for the plaintiff to correct the record and ensure proper service on all parties, including the proposed new defendant.

This decision addresses the costs of a previously dismissed motion brought by 256613 Ontario Inc. (the Owner) to strike and discharge construction liens registered by GTA General Contractors Ltd. and Karar Al-Najari (the Contractors).

The Contractors, having successfully defended the Owner's motion, sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale.

The court, considering the complexity and importance of the liens but noting the Contractors' unsuccessful argument regarding the interlocutory nature of the Owner's motion, awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale in the amount of $6,700, including HST and disbursements.

The applicants sought a stay of orders issued by the respondent municipality under the Building Code Act regarding their heritage buildings, which were in an unsafe condition.

The applicants wanted to demolish the buildings without complying with the heritage permit conditions.

The court applied the RJR-Macdonald test and dismissed the motion for a stay, finding no serious issue to be tried, no irreparable harm, and that the balance of convenience favoured the public interest in preserving heritage buildings and ensuring safety.