T. Joshua Morrison

The defendants brought a motion for partial summary judgment in a construction lien action, seeking a determination that the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) applied to their residential cost-plus construction contract and that the plaintiff breached the CPA by exceeding budget estimates by more than 10 percent.

The court granted the motion in part, declaring that the CPA applies to the contract and that it is a 'consumer agreement'.

However, the court found genuine issues requiring a trial regarding whether the specific budget line items constituted 'estimates' under the CPA and whether the parties had agreed to amend those estimates during the project.

The defendants in a construction lien action sought leave under section 67(2) of the Construction Lien Act to bring a motion for partial summary judgment.

The proposed motion would determine whether the Consumer Protection Act applies to the cost-plus construction contract and whether the plaintiff overbilled by exceeding statutory estimates.

The plaintiff opposed, arguing the motion was premature pending discovery.

The court granted leave, finding that determining the applicability of the Consumer Protection Act would likely expedite the resolution of the issues in dispute, even if some factual issues ultimately require a trial.

The applicant, a member of the Ocean Man First Nation, sought judicial review in the form of a writ of quo warranto to remove the chief and council from office.

She argued that the chief was suspended at a membership meeting and that the council had invalidly extended its term.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no legal basis or broad community consensus for the purported suspension, and that the council validly extended its term pursuant to the First Nations Election Cancellation and Postponement Regulations in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.