Call us: (905) 366 9700
Legal Blog:
Nov
03
2020
Security for Costs
Bolton Mechanical v. EBC Inc. 2020 Ont SCJ (MC)
Master held that the defendant general established that there was good reason to believe that the plaintiff lien claimant had insufficient assets in Ontario to pay costs of the action. Coming to that conclusion, she (a) held that the plaintiff was allowed to refuse to provide evidence of its assets because it was the defendant’s initial onus to show good reason (b) gave a little weight to the fact that the plaintiff did not own real property in the Ottawa area (c) gave a full weight to the admission that the plaintiff would no longer be doing any more mechanical work. She held that if a case is complex or turns on credibility, it is generally not appropriate to make an assessment on the merits of the action at the interlocutory stage; success or failure must appear to be obvious. In this case, it was not obvious. She held that the existence of a counterclaim does not preclude the court from making an order for security for costs, but may be a factor in the quantum ordered. She ordered $50,000 security, which was the exact amount that the defendant had allocated towards costs in the lien bond.
Continue Reading >Nov
03
2020
Pleadings
Siemon v. Perth Standard Condominium Corporation 2020 Ont CA
The plaintiff did not plead specific statutes, but pleaded the underlying facts and complaint. The court held that “It is only when a statutory provision would take the opposing party by surprise that it must be specifically pleaded before it can be relied on.”
Continue Reading >Nov
01
2020
Tender Novelty
In the last 24 years, we have written about cases dealing with the law of tender and how that law has evolved over the past 36 years. Many cases dealt with a disappointed low bidder suing the tendering authority one rung up on the construction ladder (i.e. a sub suing a general or a general suing the owner). The disappointed bidder would claim that it was the low bidder for the work and that the tendering authority improperly chose to award the contract to another bidder. Other cases dealt with the tendering authority, whether owner or general, suing a bidder for failing to enter into the construction contract after the tendering authority had accepted the bid.
However, in law, one can never say one has seen everything. Something new always pops up – as it did in LaPrairie Works Inc. v. Ledcor Alberta Limited, a 2019 decision of the Alberta Queen’s Bench. In this case, the disappointed general did not sue the owner for alleged breach of the tender contract; instead, it sued the successful general to whom the owner awarded the contract.
