Todd Robinson

The defendants brought separate motions to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiffs opposed, citing personal hardships and economic challenges as reasons for the delay.

The court found the six-year delay to be inordinate but excusable given the plaintiff's personal circumstances and found insufficient evidence of substantial prejudice to the defendants.

The motions to dismiss were dismissed, and the court imposed a strict timetable for the action to proceed to trial.

The defendants brought a motion to extend the time to deliver a jury notice in a motor vehicle accident action.

The plaintiff opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the defendants failed to adequately explain the significant delay, which was attributed to lawyer inadvertence.

The court also found that granting leave would cause sufficient prejudice to the plaintiff, particularly due to the increased delay to trial and the plaintiff's nearly exhausted medical benefits.

This case involved a construction lien action and counterclaim arising from a renovation project.

Tenoes Construction, the contractor, initiated a lien action for unpaid work, while the Owners, Rafael and Andreia Oliveira Pinto, counterclaimed for breach of contract due to abandonment and deficiencies, and for damages under section 35 of the Construction Act for an exaggerated and invalid lien.

Tenoes' action was dismissed prior to trial due to procedural breaches, and the trial proceeded solely on the Owners' counterclaim.

The court found that Tenoes breached the contracts by abandoning the work and failing to complete or rectify deficiencies.

It also determined that Tenoes' lien was untimely and wilfully exaggerated.

The Owners were awarded damages for breach of contract and for the improper lien, while other claims for reimbursement and certain mortgage-related damages were dismissed due to insufficient evidentiary support.

The plaintiff electrical contractor brought a construction lien action against the defendant restaurant owner for unpaid services and materials supplied during a restaurant build-out.

The defendant disputed the contract price, scope of work, and claimed set-offs for alleged deficiencies and incomplete work.

The court found that the parties had formed a binding contract based on the plaintiff's estimate and that the defendant breached the contract by non-payment.

The court allowed a portion of the plaintiff's claimed extras but dismissed the defendant's set-off claims due to a lack of cogent evidence.

The plaintiff was awarded a lien and judgment in the amount of $66,307.50.

This endorsement addresses a motion by TruGrp Inc. to set aside a prior vacating order, specifically concerning the interpretation of the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice's role as custodian of lien security and the substitution of a letter of credit with a bank draft.

The court had previously directed that the Accountant and the Bank of Montreal (BMO) be served to provide their positions.

Both the Accountant and BMO confirmed that a bank draft could be accepted under specific conditions outlined in the letter of credit or with a further court order for substitution.

TruGrp's concerns regarding lien security extinguishment were addressed by these positions, leading to the effective withdrawal of the motion on its merits, with only costs remaining in dispute.

The plaintiff, Suzana Kovacevic, brought a motion to compel the defendant, Emir Kovacevic, to produce a credit card statement from December 2014, alleging it would corroborate a romantic relationship and Skype messages.

The court denied leave for the motion, finding the plaintiff had not diligently exercised discovery rights after the action was set down for trial.

Furthermore, the court dismissed the motion on its merits, determining the document was not relevant to any pleaded issue, there was no cogent evidence it still existed within the defendant's possession, and its probative value was disproportionate to the effort of obtaining it in a simplified procedure action.

Wiseway Global Canada Consulting Ltd. sought leave to further amend its statement of claim following examination for discovery.

CTBC Bank Corp. (Canada) opposed the motion, arguing that many proposed amendments improperly pleaded evidence and argument, contained unnecessary repetition and inconsistencies, and included unsupported or scandalous headings.

The court, applying Rule 26.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, granted leave in part.

It allowed most of the proposed amendments, emphasizing that a statement of claim should contain all material facts and that inconsistencies with a reply are not a bar to amendment.

However, the court denied leave for certain paragraphs and a heading that were found to improperly plead evidence or argument, or were unsupported by material facts (specifically, the "Ponzi scheme" characterization).

The defendant, Precision Resource Canada Ltd., brought a motion in a wrongful dismissal claim seeking to strike the plaintiff's statement of claim or, alternatively, compel a further and better affidavit of documents due to alleged non-compliance with documentary discovery obligations.

The plaintiff, Henry Dawkins, opposed the motion, arguing it was disproportionate.

The court found the plaintiff's non-compliance clear and inadequately explained, but declined to strike the claim, instead ordering the plaintiff to serve a sworn further and better affidavit of documents and setting a revised deadline for examinations for discovery.

This decision addresses costs and pre-judgment interest following an eight-day trial involving two separate actions.

In the first action, Sjostrom Sheet Metal Ltd.'s lien and contract claims against Geo A. Kelson Company Limited were dismissed, leading to Kelson being awarded costs.

In the second action, A. Amar and Associates Ltd. successfully proved its contract claim against Kelson, resulting in Amar being awarded judgment and costs.

The court fixed Kelson's costs against Sjostrom at $123,270.92 and Amar's costs against Kelson at $173,025.17.

Pre-judgment interest for Amar was set from the date its statement of claim was issued, emphasizing that issues are framed by pleadings.

The decision applied principles of proportionality and offers to settle, awarding substantial indemnity costs from the date of relevant offers.

This costs endorsement followed a successful motion by Sterling O&G International Corporation for leave to be represented by its director, Govind Thawani.

Sterling sought $5 million (or $5,749) in costs, while Alamos Gold Inc., Denis Flamand, and 939610 Ontario Limited sought no costs or fixed amounts.

The court, exercising its discretion under the Courts of Justice Act and Rules of Civil Procedure, found Sterling's costs claim unsubstantiated, particularly regarding lost opportunity costs for a self-represented litigant.

The court also noted Sterling's rejection of a reasonable settlement offer from Alamos.

Ultimately, the court ordered that each party bear their own costs, expressing serious concerns about Sterling's unsubstantiated allegations and excessive costs request.

The plaintiff brought a motion to compel answers to refusals and undertakings, which was settled by the defendant shortly after the motion materials were served.

The parties could not agree on costs.

The plaintiff sought over $26,000 in partial indemnity costs, while the defendant argued for $2,000 to $3,000.

The court found the plaintiff's costs entirely disproportionate, noting the plaintiff failed to serve a refusals chart until 11 months after the notice of motion and prepared full motion materials despite the defendant's cooperative stance.

The court fixed costs at $5,489.

The defendants brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff, Shaun Rootenberg, under Rule 56.01(1)(d)-(f) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and s. 18(1) of the Libel and Slander Act.

The motion was dismissed because the defendants failed to meet the threshold evidentiary requirements.

Specifically, their supporting affidavits did not adequately show the nature of the action and defence as required by the Libel and Slander Act, nor did they provide sufficient evidence to establish that the plaintiff's action was frivolous or vexatious.

Although the plaintiff conceded insufficient assets, the defendants failed on other necessary criteria.

TruGrp Inc. moved to set aside an ex parte order vacating its construction liens, arguing that the form of letter of credit used as security was uncertain and inconsistent with the Construction Act and the Accountant's statutory role.

Karmina Holdings Inc. opposed, arguing the motion was meritless and that the letter of credit form was standard.

The court dismissed Karmina's procedural challenges but adjourned the motion to allow the Accountant of the Superior Court of Justice and the Bank of Montreal to make submissions on the core dispute regarding the sufficiency and statutory compliance of the letter of credit.

The plaintiff, Galaxy Communities Inc., initiated a construction lien action against the owners and a financial institution.

Galaxy failed to comply with court orders and did not appear for trial, resulting in a non-suit of its claim.

The court proceeded with the undefended counterclaim brought by the owners, alleging breach of contract due to deficient construction work, unapproved design changes, and delayed performance.

The court found the contractor in breach and awarded the owners damages for rectification costs, project management fees, and delay-related expenses.

This case involved a construction lien action and counterclaim concerning renovation work at York University.

Monalt Environmental Inc. (subcontractor) sued BDA Inc. (contractor) for unpaid work, while BDA counterclaimed for completion costs, alleging Monalt failed to complete the full scope of demolition work, specifically stairs and a ceiling slab.

The court found that Monalt's contractual scope of work did include the disputed demolition.

Monalt breached the contract by refusing to complete this work and suspending operations without a contractual basis for demanding payment.

BDA was justified in withholding payment.

The court assessed BDA's proven damages for completion costs and set them off entirely against Monalt's claim for unpaid amounts, resulting in no net amount owing to Monalt and no judgment for either party on their respective claims.

Praxy Cladding Corp. brought a motion to compel answers to refused questions and further answers to undertakings given at the examination for discovery of Stone Lamina Inc. and GCAT Group Inc. The court granted the motion in part, ordering further answers to some undertakings and many refused questions, and setting a deadline for further examinations.

The balance of the motion was dismissed.

The decision clarifies principles of relevance and proportionality in discovery, particularly in the context of construction lien actions.

The Bank of Nova Scotia ("BNS") sought summary judgment against former spouses Danilo Milosevic and Dusica Grabovica for a joint line of credit debt.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding Mr. Milosevic's liability for the debt itself, affirming joint and several liability.

However, a genuine issue was found regarding the precise accounting of the debt, specifically the applicable interest rate and calculation of accrued interest, which was ordered to proceed to a trial of the issue.

Ms. Grabovica's liability was already set for a mini-trial concerning her signature's authenticity.

Costs were reserved to the trial judge.

Insite Construction Management Inc. (applicant) brought a motion to compel Ambient Mechanical Ltd. (respondent) to serve a further and better affidavit of documents, arguing that Ambient had refused to produce documents relevant to project costing in a lien action.

Ambient contended that all relevant documents had been disclosed, the requested documents were irrelevant based on the pleadings, and the request was overly broad.

The court dismissed Insite's motion, finding that the project costs were not relevant given the current pleadings, which primarily focused on whether Insite performed any work at all.

The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing Insite to revisit the production request if relevance is established through examinations for discovery.

Ambient was awarded partial indemnity costs.

The defendant moved to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired and to dismiss the action in its entirety.

The plaintiff conceded the lien had expired but opposed the dismissal of its joined contract claim.

The court declared the lien expired and vacated the registrations but refused to dismiss the contract claim, finding insufficient evidence of prejudice or undue delay solely attributable to the plaintiff.

The contract claim was permitted to continue as an ordinary action under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The defendant/plaintiff by counterclaim, a corporation, brought a motion seeking leave under Rule 15.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to be represented by its sole director, officer, and shareholder, a non-lawyer.

The opposing parties argued the action was complex and the representative would be a key witness.

The court granted the motion, finding the representative capable of advocating for the single-person corporation and noting there is no principled reason to deny leave when an individual would have the right to self-represent.