Todd Robinson

The plaintiff, executor of John Stewart's estate, moved for production of bank records from Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD) and the defendants.

The motion sought records of funds deposited by Stewart into a defendant's account, changes in signing authority, and subsequent transfers.

The defendants opposed, citing privacy.

The court granted the motion in part, ordering TD to produce records related to the initial deposit and signing authority changes, but denied the request for broader tracing records from the defendants, finding their relevance tenuous at this stage.

Costs were awarded to the plaintiff due to the defendants' non-compliance with prior orders.

This motion, part of a larger reference concerning the Nobu Residences condominium complex, addressed the application of the transition provisions in section 87.3 of the Construction Act.

The core issue was whether the former Construction Lien Act (CLA) or the current Construction Act applied to the improvement and associated liens, which directly impacted lien timeliness.

The owner, 35 Mercer Limited, the contractor, Urban Integrated Group Inc., and a lien claimant, Brunco Insulation Ltd., argued for the application of the CLA, while Desco Plumbing and Heating Supply Inc. contended the current Construction Act should apply.

The court found that the CLA continues to apply to the improvement and all liens arising from it, based on evidence that a procurement process for the improvement commenced before July 1, 2018.

The court rejected arguments that the owner's affidavit was deficient, that ex parte vacating orders were binding, that the onus to provide transition dates was "murky" or that project delays like the COVID-19 pandemic should influence the application of section 87.3.

This judgment addresses two lien actions arising from bridge rehabilitation work.

The plaintiffs, JCL Concrete Pumping Limited and Ontario Trucking and Disposal Ltd., claimed breach of contract or, alternatively, quantum meruit and unjust enrichment against SEMA Railway Structures Inc. for materials and equipment supplied.

The central issue was whether a contract was formed between SEMA and the plaintiffs, or with "JCL Group Inc." The court found no contract between SEMA and the plaintiffs, concluding that SEMA reasonably believed it was contracting with JCL Group Inc. As the plaintiffs had unequivocally withdrawn their alternative claims in quantum meruit and unjust enrichment prior to trial, the court dismissed their actions and discharged their liens.

SEMA's set-off claim was also dismissed as it was contingent on a contract being found.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action for delay and discharge certificates of pending litigation.

The action, commenced in 2014, arose from an alleged oral trust agreement and wrongful eviction.

The original plaintiff lost capacity and passed away during a lengthy period of inactivity, and her evidence was never preserved.

The court found the delay to be inordinate, inexcusable, and highly prejudicial, as a fair trial was no longer possible without the deceased plaintiff's direct evidence.

The motion was granted, the action was dismissed, and the certificates of pending litigation were discharged.

The defendants, Kyrollos Maseh and Marina Tanious, brought a motion seeking to discharge the plaintiff's lien and dismiss the action due to the plaintiff's non-compliance with a prior order regarding undertakings and costs.

Prior to the hearing, the plaintiff complied with some aspects, and the parties resolved the substantive motion, leaving only costs to be determined.

The court, applying principles from Muskala v. Sitarski, declined to award the moving defendants their claimed costs of the motion, finding them excessive and largely attributable to costs of the action rather than the motion itself.

The court noted the plaintiff's breach necessitated the motion but also found the defendants' approach to reviewing disorganized answers contributed to their claimed costs.

The final order was no costs for the motion, without prejudice to the defendants claiming those costs as costs of the action.

The plaintiffs moved to amend their statement of claim to add a $50,000 claim for aggravated and punitive damages, alleging the defendants breached an oral agreement by commencing eviction applications at the Landlord and Tenant Board.

The defendants opposed the motion, arguing delay, limitation periods, lack of an independent actionable wrong, and that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the LTB.

The court granted the motion, finding that the delay could be compensated by costs and a tight discovery timetable, and that the underlying factual determinations regarding the alleged oral agreement were within the Superior Court's jurisdiction.

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.