William Ross MacDougall

This costs endorsement follows the dismissal of two construction lien actions brought by JCL Concrete Pumping Limited and Ontario Trucking and Disposal Ltd. against SEMA Railway Structures Inc. and Metrolinx.

The court addresses the parties’ submissions on costs, ultimately awarding substantial indemnity costs to SEMA, the successful party, and rejecting the plaintiffs’ arguments for limiting or reducing costs.

The decision reviews the applicable statutory framework, the conduct of the parties, and the offers to settle, and finds that SEMA’s costs were reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and related economic torts arising from the formation of Icon Plumbing and the departure of key personnel from Riva Plumbing.

The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants competed unlawfully, misused confidential information, or caused any compensable loss.

The counterclaim for unpaid bonuses by Mike Ladisa and Joseph Ferrari was allowed, with damages awarded in the agreed amount plus interest.

The applicant, Manitou Gold Inc., sought an interim order under section 182(5) of the Ontario Business Corporations Act for advice and directions to hold a special meeting of shareholders to approve a plan of arrangement with Alamos Gold Inc. The court assessed whether the applicant was acting in good faith and satisfied statutory requirements, noting that a detailed examination of the information circular or a full fairness analysis was not required at this interim stage.

The relief sought was unopposed.

The court granted the interim order, finding the proposed steps appropriate for shareholder notice and voting.

The appellant Ledore Investments Limited appealed from a Superior Court judgment that set aside a commercial arbitration award.

The underlying dispute arose from final subcontract accounting in a major bridge construction project, where the respondent Ellis-Don Construction Ltd. was the general contractor and the appellant was a subcontractor supplying steel.

The central issue concerned whether Ellis-Don had made a written claim for delay costs within the time required by Article 15.1(a) of the subcontract.

The arbitrator found that Ellis-Don had not made an actual claim in writing, distinguishing between an intention to claim and an actual claim.

The appeal judge reversed the arbitrator's award, finding the arbitrator had misapplied legal principles from Doyle Construction.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding the arbitrator's interpretation of Article 15.1(a) was eminently reasonable and reinstated the arbitration award.

The plaintiff, Riva Plumbing Limited, brought a motion to consolidate its action (the "Riva Action") with a wrongful dismissal action brought against it by a former employee, Aleem Aziz (the "Aziz Action").

The court applied the threshold test for consolidation under Rule 6.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, finding that while there were some common facts, there were no common questions of law or fact of sufficient importance to warrant consolidation.

The court also considered factors such as avoiding multiplicity of proceedings (Courts of Justice Act s. 138) and achieving a just, expeditious, and least expensive determination (Rule 1.04).

It concluded that consolidation would not achieve a just outcome, particularly given the Aziz Action was proceeding under Simplified Rules, which would lose its advantages if consolidated with a complex action.

The motion was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the responding parties.