Z. Pringle

The defendant general contractor brought a motion for security for costs against the plaintiff subcontractor in a construction dispute.

The plaintiff claimed $78,342.90 for unpaid work, while the defendant counterclaimed for $171,050.98 alleging deficient work and delay.

The court found there was good reason to believe the corporate plaintiff had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay a costs award, as its financial evidence was outdated and all assets were encumbered by a general security agreement.

Applying a holistic approach, the court concluded it was just to order security for costs and directed the plaintiff to post $10,000 for steps up to the completion of discoveries.

The defendants brought a motion seeking a declaration that the plaintiff's construction lien had expired before registration and an order for its discharge.

The defendants argued the contract was abandoned on July 27, 2016, more than 45 days before the lien was registered on September 23, 2016.

The court reviewed the correspondence between the parties and found insufficient evidence to conclude the contract was unequivocally terminated or abandoned on that date.

The motion was dismissed as the defendants failed to prove there was no genuine issue for trial regarding the date of abandonment.