Call us: (905) 366 9700
Legal Blog: Five Liners
Nov
06
2025
Construction Owner
Demasi Contracting Inc. v. Farahmand 2025 Ont SCJ
A lien claimant obtained default judgment against the landowner. The claimant sought to establish priority over the existing 1st mortgagee, arguing that the mortgagee was an “owner” under the Construction Act. The judge dismissed the motion. The judge found that the mortgagee knew about the work being conducted, but the work was not conducted at its request. More importantly, the judge found that s. 78 did not grant priority to the lien claimant over the mortgage.
Continue Reading >Nov
06
2025
Adjudication
Integricon Construction Inc. v. Stevens 2025 Ont SCJ
Construction contract called for draws to be made at various milestones. The 2nd draw was to be made when the foundations were completed and backfilled. The owners refused to pay the full 2nd draw because their mortgagee had determined that the 2nd draw resulted in a 25% payment whereas the project was only 15% completed. The contractor left the job, filed a lien, and initiated adjudication. After the adjudicator found in favour of the contractor, the contractor garnished the owners. The owners dredged up the same submissions to the judge that the adjudicator rejected. The judge refused to allow a backdoor attack on the adjudication result and allowed the garnishment to continue.
Continue Reading >Nov
04
2025
House Inspection
Miller Desjardins v JF Lajoie Construction Inc. 2025 Ont SCJ
A house inspector missed obvious patent defects, resulting in the purchasers having problematic foundation, roof, and some windows and doors. The judge held that there was no breach of contract because the purchasers’ real estate agent retained the inspector and paid his $425 fee. Although we do not agree with this finding, it does not matter; the judge held that the inspector breached his duty of care in tort to the purchasers and awarded damages of approximately $68,000.
Continue Reading >Nov
04
2025
Breach of Contract (Real Estate)
Major Weston Homes Ltd v. Li 2025 Ont SCJ
Developer’s standard form agreement included a clause that stated that the purchaser had to retain a lawyer at least 30 days before closing and, if the purchaser did not, the purchaser waived tender and was in breach of the contract. The judge enforced this provision and held that the purchaser was in breach of contract. The judge refused to allow interest on the damages at 20% per year, even though it was set out in the agreement. The judge relied on a previous decision that stated that a “surprisingly onerous interest rate” had to be brought to the purchaser’s attention.
Continue Reading >Oct
30
2025
Damages (Real Estate)
Baldwin v. Williams 2025 Ont SCJ
Purchasers breached an agreement of purchase and sale because they could not get financing after the property had fallen in value. The vendors resold the property for a loss. The court noted that the duty to mitigate only requires the plaintiff to take reasonable steps, not all possible steps, to reduce its loss. The court ordered damages for the difference in the two sale prices and extra costs that the vendor’s incurred as a result of owning the property from the date of the original closing to the date of the final closing of the resale.
Continue Reading >Oct
30
2025
Encroachment
Bachli v. McLeod 2025 Ont SCJ
Defendant’s retaining wall encroached on his neighbour’s property. Predecessors in title had entered into an encroachment agreement that allowed the encroachment for 21 years. The agreement had expired and the new neighbour wanted the encroachment gone. The court noted that the parties had not negotiated an extension or a new agreement and granted a declaration that the retaining wall was encroaching on the neighbour’s land.
Continue Reading >Sep
23
2025
Lawyer and Non-Client
Furney v. Hazan and Chhina 2025 Ont CA
Plaintiffs claimed that a mortgage broker improperly instructed its lawyer to register a collateral mortgage without plaintiffs’ consent and that the lawyer registered the collateral mortgage to block plaintiffs’ mortgage financing and was involved in the improper removal of funds from his trust account. Plaintiffs also alleged that another entity, other than the lender, was somehow involved. The Court of Appeal dismissed the action against the other entity because it was not the lender and plaintiffs pleaded nothing to demonstrate its involvement. The Court allowed the action against the lawyer to continue, even though the lawyer was not plaintiffs’ lawyer, because plaintiffs had alleged that lawyer had participated in a fraud and merely following his client’s instructions did not insulate him from liability.
Continue Reading >Sep
18
2025
Adjudication Priorities
Westport Insurance Corporation v. BDA Inc. 2024 Ont SCJ
After a dispute, a general terminated its sub’s subcontract and claimed against the sub’s surety on the sub’s bonds. The surety advanced payments to the general under a mitigation agreement. The sub subsequently obtained an adjudication determination awarding money to it, which the general paid to its lawyer in trust. The sub and the surety each wanted those funds. The judge decided that the surety had a security interest over the money under its indemnification agreement with the sub and therefore had priority but was not entitled to immediate payment due to ongoing litigation between the parties that could affect the surety’s ultimate entitlement. The court ordered the disputed funds to be paid into court pending the outcome of those proceedings.
Continue Reading >Sep
18
2025
Norwich Order
Canadian Tire Corporation Limited v. Eaton Equipment and Milburn 2025 Ont CA
Canadian Tire recovered against Eaton and others a $3.3 mil judgment for a fraudulent warranty repair scheme in which Eaton billed Canadian Tire for non-authentic repairs. The defendants appealed the summary judgment decision and then brought a motion before the Court of Appeal seeking a Norwich order to compel production of insurance information from Canadian Tire and its insurers. The chambers judge refused the order because a Norwich Order is a pre-trial discovery remedy only. The judge also held that, given their established fraudulent conduct, the defendants did not come to the court with clean hands and were therefore disentitled to an equitable remedy.
Continue Reading >Sep
11
2025
Grammar – Interpretation
Paloma Resources LLC v. Axis Insurance Company 2025 US C of A
The plaintiff sued its insurer for denying coverage in a prior lawsuit in which a third party alleged that the plaintiff’s employee stole confidential information. The plaintiff settled the third party’s action and wanted the insurer to cover the settlement. The trial court granted summary judgment for the insurer, finding the insurance policy’s intellectual property exclusion applied. The Court of Appeals vacated the summary judgment regarding the exclusion. The interpretation turned on the grammatical effect of the insertion of the determiner “the” before another phrase in a list. The clause was over 5 lines long in one sentence and demonstrated the effect of bad drafting.
Continue Reading >