Legal Blog:

Krystyne Rusek co-authors article, “You’re Going to Court In Person?!! An update on courtroom technology from your Section Technology Liaisons”

Krystyne Rusek, counsel with Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, and with the assistance of Matthew Bradley, co-authored the article, “You’re Going to Court In Person?!! An update on courtroom technology from your Section Technology Liaisons” for the Ontario Bar Association. The article explores the gradual return back to in-person hearings and how lawyers are expected to use technology, with pointers on how to avoid disruptions and pitfalls.

Krystyne Rusek moderates panel, “Will Validation, Substantial Compliance and Electronic Documents: Updates and Future Changes”

On February 8, 2024, Krystyne Rusek, counsel at Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, is moderating a panel for the Ontario Legal Conference: Family, Estates and Real Estate Law. Krystyne will moderate the panel on “Will Validation, Substantial Compliance and Electronic Documents: Updates and Future Changes” with Liza Saad, Tupman & Bloom LLP, and Demetre Vasilounis, Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. The panel will address how the law has developed since the Succession Law Reform Act was amended in January 2022 to permit judges to validate wills that are non-compliant with formal requirements under the Act.

Costs (2)

Speaking of costs, in Prasher Steel Ltd. v. BWK, a 2023 decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the defendants were wholly successful in a decades-long contract dispute. The trial judge was tasked with determining the appropriate scale, and award, of costs.

The defendants asked for substantial indemnity costs. The judge noted that the normal scale of costs is only partial indemnity and that a higher scale of costs is reserved for exceptional circumstances, such as reprehensible or outrageous conduct on the part of one of the parties. Here, the judge agreed that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate for several reasons:

Lien Start Date

When a subcontractor supplies materials or services (collectively, “services“) to an improvement and is not paid, it has the right to register a lien against the project lands. Under the current Construction Act, a sub has to register its lien within 60 days of the last supply of the services. Under the old Construction Lien Act, a sub had only 45 days. The lien period also starts to run upon publication of substantial performance of the prime contract, but that alternative is not the subject of this newsletter. So, when does the sub last supply its services? That was discussed in Ozz Electric Inc. v. Bondfield Construction Company Limited, a 2023 decision of an associate judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

Parties

The sub, Honeywell, supplied services; the general, Bondfield, did not pay for them in full; and Honeywell registered a lien against the project lands on February 21, 2020. This registration was based on an alleged last supply of services of January 8, 2020. The project was governed by the old Construction Lien Act so that Honeywell had only 45 days to register its lien.