William Ribeiro

The plaintiffs brought an in-writing motion for default judgment following the striking of the defendants' statement of defence due to repeated procedural non-compliance.

The court accepted the plaintiffs' method of service given the history of non-compliance and granted default judgment in the amount of $267,790.10 for breach of a development and construction services agreement and unjust enrichment.

The court also awarded pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, and partial indemnity costs.

The plaintiff contractor brought an action to perfect a construction lien for unpaid renovation and flood repair work.

The court found that while there was no enforceable contract due to a lack of agreement on scope and price, the plaintiff was entitled to recovery on a contractual quantum meruit basis because the defendant requested and accepted the work.

The court valued the work at $56,554.67 based on the plaintiff's actual costs and dismissed the defendant's claims of deficient work.

The plaintiff was granted damages and a valid lien in that amount.

Zurich, the surety for the insolvent general contractor Bondfield, brought a motion to intervene as a party in a construction lien reference.

Zurich sought to participate in a vetting committee for the distribution of the owner's holdback among the timely lien claimants.

The court granted the motion, finding that Zurich had a direct interest in the holdback because it had made significant holdback advances to the major electrical and mechanical trades and had taken partial assignments of their lien rights.

The court ordered the timely claimants to pay Zurich's costs of $30,000.

This appeal concerned a pre-construction agreement of purchase and sale for a condominium unit.

The vendor purported to terminate the agreement, alleging the purchasers breached a clause prohibiting leasing without consent.

The application judge found the termination wrongful and granted specific performance.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the vendor lost its right to terminate by failing to act within a reasonable time after the alleged breach.

The Court further upheld the award of specific performance, finding that damages were an inadequate remedy given the advantageous terms of the original agreement, the rising real estate market, the purchasers' tied-up deposit, and the vendor's bad faith in attempting to re-sell the unit to related parties at an undervalue.

The issue regarding the subsequent lease to tenants became moot.

Following a judgment granting the applicants relief from forfeiture and specific performance for a condominium unit, the applicants sought full indemnity costs of $73,535.05 based on the respondents' alleged grave misconduct.

The respondents argued for partial indemnity costs in the range of $25,000 to $35,000.

The court found that while the respondents engaged in misconduct, it did not warrant an elevated costs award.

The court awarded the applicants partial indemnity costs fixed at $45,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The plaintiff was successful on the defendants’ motions to set aside default judgment and noting in default, and on its own motion for default judgment against Peter Duric.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity scale, alleging Mr. Duric was not transparent.

The court awarded costs on a partial indemnity scale, finding that while Mr. Duric materially changed his evidence, his conduct did not meet the threshold for reprehensible conduct required for substantial indemnity costs.

The court adjusted the plaintiff's claimed costs, reducing the amount against Leeds due to prior awards, but largely accepting the time claimed for other services.

The plaintiff obtained default judgment against Leeds Contracting Restoration Inc. and moved for default judgment against Peter Duric.

The defendants cross-moved to set aside the default judgment against Leeds and the noting in default against both defendants.

The court dismissed the defendants' cross-motion, finding that Peter Duric failed to prove he did not receive notice of the statement of claim and failed to demonstrate an arguable defence with supporting evidence.

The court also validated service on Leeds through Peter Duric.

Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Peter Duric for breach of trust under the Construction Lien Act was granted.

The plaintiff sought costs on a substantial indemnity basis, or alternatively, on a partial indemnity basis, following the dismissal of the defendant Surinder Sarin's motion to set aside default judgment.

The court declined to award substantial indemnity costs, noting that the defendant's conduct was not egregious enough, despite being assisted by counsel, and that he was self-represented.

The court also refused to award costs related to an aborted property sale.

Ultimately, the court found the plaintiff's request for partial indemnity costs to be reasonable given the case's complex history and the work involved, awarding $9,308.91 plus disbursements and HST.

The defendants brought a motion to set aside a default judgment obtained by the plaintiff landlord for unpaid commercial rent.

The court applied the test for setting aside default judgment and found that the defendants failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for their default, failed to explain the five-and-a-half-year delay in bringing the motion, and lacked a meritorious defence.

The motion was dismissed.

Following the dismissal of the plaintiffs' motions to lift bankruptcy stays and the granting of summary judgment dismissing the actions against the defendants, the court determined the appropriate costs award.

The defendants sought over $166,000 in costs.

The court awarded partial indemnity costs of $126,124.12, apportioning the liability among the three plaintiffs based on the proportionate size of their respective claims, finding that the summary judgment motions effectively disposed of the entire actions.

The plaintiffs, unpaid trades on a condominium construction project, brought motions to lift the statutory stays of proceedings under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act to pursue breach of trust claims under the Construction Lien Act against the individual directors of the insolvent developer.

The defendants cross-moved for summary judgment.

The court dismissed the motions to lift the stays, finding that the plaintiffs had previously settled their claims in exchange for a 'Trades Mortgage', the limitation period had expired, and there was no evidence of misappropriation or defalcation that would allow the claims to survive bankruptcy.

The actions against one of the directors were summarily dismissed.

Following the dismissal of a motion brought by the defendant and a lien claimant to declare the plaintiff's construction lien expired, the court determined the costs payable to the successful plaintiff.

The plaintiff sought substantial indemnity costs of over $80,000, citing an unaccepted offer to settle and the importance of the motion.

The court found the offer did not comply with Rule 49 and awarded partial indemnity costs.

Applying the principle of proportionality and considering the factors in Rule 57.01, the court fixed costs at $22,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST.

The moving party, Pruna, sought summary judgment to dismiss the claim against him, discharge a construction lien, and vacate a certificate of action.

The motion was dismissed due to multiple triable issues, including the supply and installation of paving stone, the commercial relationship between the plaintiff and co-defendant Lansbridge, the nature of Pruna's contractual relationship with Lansbridge, the amount of holdback, and the identification of the party with contractual liability.

The court found that summary judgment would not provide a fair and just adjudication, as credibility was a primary issue requiring oral evidence.

The defendants Laari Construction Ltd. and SMS Rents brought a motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff Carpenters Union's construction lien had expired due to non-compliance with Section 34(5) of the Construction Lien Act.

The defendants argued that the lien was improperly registered because it did not contain the names and addresses of the individual Carpenters Union members who performed the work.

The Carpenters Union contended that naming the trustee as agent for affected members was sufficient, especially given the practical difficulties in identifying individual workers and their specific entitlements at the time of registration.

The court found that the Carpenters Union had sufficiently identified the lien claimants by naming the trustee as agent for the affected members and complied with Section 34(5) of the Act.

Consequently, the motion brought by Laari and SMS Rents was dismissed.

Two subcontractors asserted construction lien claims arising from demolition and abatement work performed on a condominium project.

The owner argued the liens had expired because a certificate of substantial performance had been published following a transition agreement that purported to terminate the original contract and trigger the lien period.

The court held the certificate of substantial performance was invalid because the statutory conditions for substantial performance under the Construction Lien Act were not met and the agreement was inconsistent with the Act’s holdback regime.

The court further held the equipment supplier’s lien was preserved in time, as its rental contract had not been terminated and the supplier had not received the contractual notice required to end supply.

Both lien claims therefore remained valid and recoverable against the statutory holdback.

Following a successful summary judgment dismissing an action concerning enforcement of an alleged agreement of purchase and sale for vacant land, the court determined costs.

The defendants sought full indemnity or alternatively substantial indemnity costs, relying partly on an earlier offer to settle.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were not warranted absent misconduct or other exceptional circumstances, and declined to apply Rule 49 consequences where the plaintiffs recovered no judgment.

The court fixed costs on a partial indemnity basis and reduced the defendants’ claimed fees after reviewing the hours spent.

Total costs were awarded against the plaintiffs.

Competing motions for summary judgment arose from a failed real estate transaction involving a vacant residential lot.

The purchasers claimed the parties had reached a binding agreement of purchase and sale and sought specific performance and damages.

The vendors argued their counter‑offer contained an express irrevocability deadline and was never accepted before expiry.

The court applied basic contract principles of offer and acceptance, holding that the vendors’ amended document constituted a counter‑offer that lapsed when the purchasers failed to communicate acceptance within the stated time.

As no meeting of the minds occurred, no enforceable agreement existed and the purchasers’ action was dismissed.

Following three motions in which the plaintiff was entirely successful, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs payable by the defendants.

The court emphasized the principle of indemnity and the broader purposes of costs awards, including encouraging settlement and discouraging unnecessary litigation steps.

One defendant failed to comply with Rule 57.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure by not delivering a Form 57B cost outline, which limited the court’s ability to assess proportionality and undermined the defendant’s objections to the plaintiff’s claimed costs.

The court found the plaintiff’s preparation and allocation of legal work reasonable given the complexity and importance of the motions.

Costs were fixed at $8,000 inclusive of disbursements and HST, payable jointly and severally by the defendants.

The plaintiff creditor brought a motion for a certificate of pending litigation over a matrimonial home transferred from the debtor husband to his wife after the plaintiff had commenced a construction lien trust action.

Following a later judgment against the debtor and unsuccessful collection efforts, the plaintiff commenced a fraudulent conveyance action seeking to set aside the transfer.

The court held that under s.103 of the Courts of Justice Act and Rule 42.01, a certificate of pending litigation may issue where there is a reasonable claim to an interest in land pending trial.

Given the timing of the transfer, the nominal consideration, and the existence of a judgment debt, the plaintiff established a sufficient interest in the property to justify preservation of the asset.

The certificate of pending litigation was ordered to issue, with costs to the plaintiff.

Following reasons disposing of a motion in a construction lien action, the court was required to quantify the costs payable by the unsuccessful lien claimant.

The moving parties sought partial indemnity costs after succeeding on a motion involving issues including whether the lien should be discharged under s. 47 of the Construction Lien Act.

Applying s. 86(1) of the Act and the factors in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court assessed the reasonableness of the claimed fees, disbursements, and settlement offer.

The court fixed costs at a reduced amount and declined to order personal liability for costs against individuals associated with the plaintiff corporation because the evidentiary record was insufficient at this stage to meet the legal test for non‑party costs.