2 total
A garnishment motion cannot be used to collaterally attack or stay an adjudicator's binding payment determination under the Construction Act.
Debtors moved to set aside, stay, or refuse a garnishment process seeking to enforce an adjudicator's determination requiring payment of the second draw under a construction contract.
The debtors argued that enforcement would be inequitable and unfair, and would result in double recovery for the contractor through both garnishment and a registered lien.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the adjudicator's determination was binding and enforceable through garnishment, and that the debtors' arguments amounted to an impermissible collateral attack on the adjudicator's decision.
The court held that garnishment motions are not intended to review the correctness of the underlying order and that allowing such review would undermine the prompt payment and prompt adjudication provisions of the Construction Act.
Application for accident benefits dismissed due to failure to prove quantum and incurred expenses.
The applicant sought income replacement benefits (IRBs) and attendant care benefits (ACBs) following a motor vehicle accident.
The adjudicator found that while the applicant met the pre-104 week disability test for IRBs as a server, she failed to establish the quantum of her entitlement because she did not produce her 2016 Notice of Assessment or post-accident tax returns.
The adjudicator drew an adverse inference from this failure to produce material financial documents.
The claim for ACBs was also dismissed because the applicant provided no evidence that she had actually incurred the expenses.
The application was dismissed in its entirety.
