Wade W. Sarasin

This motion involved multiple parties in consolidated construction lien actions concerning two large-scale solar projects.

The plaintiff, Lennox Snow Fence Co. (1982) Ltd., acting as carriage counsel for several lien claimants, sought to approve Vetting Committee recommendations regarding lien quantum and timeliness, and for payment.

ABB Inc., the general contractor, brought a cross-motion to reduce the security it posted for Simpson's Fence (Chatham) Inc.'s liens and to transfer a related breach of trust action.

The court dismissed the motion to approve the Vetting Committee recommendations due to Simpson's Fence's objections and lack of consensus, and denied immediate payment to lien claimants.

However, it ordered the discharge of liens for Clarida, Mod Space, and SMS Rents, and the return of associated security.

The court also denied ABB's request to reduce security for Simpson's Fence's liens, finding genuine issues of fact requiring trial.

Common discoveries and production were ordered for all lien claimants.

The breach of trust action was transferred to Napanee to be heard after the lien claims.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend its statement of claim and related pleadings in a commercial dispute arising from a failed partnership and subsequent transfer of business assets.

The proposed amendments included clarifications to existing claims, a limitations defence to counterclaims, and new allegations relating to purchase options under lease agreements for real estate, equipment, and rolling stock.

The defendants opposed certain amendments, arguing prejudice due to a pending application in another court seeking specific performance of the purchase options.

The court held that most amendments were legally tenable and permitted them, subject to the plaintiff providing further particulars.

However, amendments concerning the option-to-purchase issues were deferred until after the resolution of the related application in London, Ontario to avoid duplicative litigation and procedural complexity.

The applicants were successful at trial in having a notice filed under section 71 of the Land Titles Act removed from title to certain real property.

The applicants sought substantial indemnity costs, arguing the respondents acted unreasonably by registering and refusing to remove the notice.

The court found the respondents did not act unreasonably, but merely took an incorrect position, and awarded partial indemnity costs.

The court fixed the applicants' costs at $50,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, considering the importance of the matter, the lack of jurisprudence on section 71, and the comparative costs outlines.

A contractor brought a construction lien action seeking payment of a final invoice for exterior renovation work on a condominium complex.

The property owner resisted payment and counterclaimed, alleging the contractor breached the contract by installing vinyl siding that was uneven and failed to comply with various industry standards.

The court considered whether additional contractual terms requiring compliance with installation guides and other standards should be implied into the contract.

It held that only limited implied terms applied, including that the work be performed in a workmanlike manner and comply with the Building Code.

While minor instances of non‑compliance with fastening requirements were proven, they caused no demonstrated loss and did not justify withholding payment or supporting the counterclaim.

The applicants sought an order directing the Director of Land Titles to remove certain registrations, including a notice of an unregistered estate, right, interest or equity registered under s. 71 of the Land Titles Act.

The dispute arose from a 2006 agreement involving the transfer of commercial property and contemplated future commercial arrangements between related corporate entities.

The respondent consented to the removal of a registered notice of option.

However, uncertainty remained regarding whether the respondent or related entities possessed a registerable interest in the lands.

The court ordered the removal of the notice of option and directed that a trial of issues be held to determine whether any registerable interest existed under the agreement at the relevant times.