Zachary David Flemming-Giannotti

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.

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.

Varcon Construction Corporation appealed a partial summary judgment granted to 2099082 Ontario Limited (AWD Contractors) concerning a construction subcontract dispute.

Varcon's appeal challenged findings that AWD's work was not deficient and that AWD did not fail to rectify deficiencies.

AWD cross-appealed the motion judge's decision to order a trial on the subcontract's warranty provisions.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Varcon's appeal, finding no palpable and overriding errors in the motion judge's factual findings.

The Court allowed AWD's cross-appeal, determining there was no genuine issue requiring a trial on the warranty, as a plain reading of the contract did not support Varcon's interpretation that AWD was a general guarantor for all project defects.

The appellants sought to appeal a motion judge's decision dismissing their motion to stay an action in favour of arbitration.

The respondents raised a jurisdictional objection based on section 7(6) of the Arbitration Act, 1991, which provides that there is no appeal from the court's decision on a motion to stay.

The Court of Appeal held that section 7(6) precludes any appeal from a decision on a motion to stay, whether granting or refusing the stay, and therefore dismissed the appeal on jurisdictional grounds without reviewing the motion judge's analysis.

The defendants brought a motion to dismiss the action for delay under Rule 24.01(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, citing the plaintiffs' two years of inaction and failure to respond to correspondence.

The plaintiffs argued the defendants were in default for not delivering affidavits of documents and offered an explanation for their delay.

The court found the defendants were not in default due to rule amendments and rejected the plaintiffs' explanation as incredible.

However, the court declined to dismiss the action, noting that "contumelious" delay typically requires serial violations of court orders, which was not present.

The motions were dismissed without prejudice, but the plaintiffs were ordered to pay $11,000 in costs to the defendants and to deliver their affidavit of documents within 30 days, with defendants to follow 30 days thereafter.

The plaintiff, 2099042 Ontario Limited (AWD), brought a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the counterclaim of the defendant, Varcon Construction Corporation (Varcon).

Varcon's counterclaim sought damages for alleged deficient work, failure to warn, and failure to rectify deficiencies by AWD, which Varcon claimed led to a sewage system failure due to soil consolidation.

The court found that AWD's work was performed in a workmanlike manner, met all required standards, and was not deficient.

Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment in favour of AWD, dismissing Varcon's claims related to deficiencies, failure to warn, and failure to rectify.

However, the court determined that genuine issues requiring a trial existed regarding AWD's liability under the warranty provisions of the subcontract, even in the absence of deficient workmanship.

A trial was ordered to resolve these warranty issues and, if liability was established, to assess damages on a quantum meruit basis.

Homeowners retained a septic system installer to install a system in 2010, which was approved by the health unit.

Problems with smell and effluent began in 2011 and persisted through 2013.

The installer repeatedly assured the homeowners he could fix the problem and made several attempts to do so.

In 2015, the health unit condemned the system and issued a compliance order.

The homeowners sued in August 2015.

The trial judge dismissed the action as statute-barred under the Limitations Act, 2002, finding the claim was discovered by spring 2013.

The Divisional Court upheld this decision.

The Court of Appeal reversed, finding the trial judge failed to properly analyze section 5(1)(a)(iv) of the Limitations Act regarding when a proceeding would be an appropriate remedy.

The court held that the homeowners reasonably relied on the installer's superior knowledge and expertise, and a proceeding was not appropriate until the installer's remedial efforts ceased in winter 2014.

The action was therefore within the two-year limitation period.