Legal Blog

Deficient Reasons

Masonry Group Inc. v. Marydel Homes (Beaverton) Inc. 2025 Ont CA

Contractor and owner disagreed over payment for masonry work on a residential subdivision. Owner had paid most of the invoiced amount for work done through 2021; a balance of $193K remained in dispute. A subsequent 2022 contract for work on Lot 121 included a clause stating this balance would be added to the new contract price. Contractor registered a lien for $228K on Lot 121. Owner vacated it by paying security into court and then moved to reduce security. The motion judge reduced the security amount without giving any explanation for doing so. The judge said he would provide more reasons, but did not. The key issue involved interpreting the 2022 contract and the definition of “price” within the Construction Act to determine if the disputed balance was properly included in the lien amount. The court held that the motion judge’s reasons were insufficient, preventing meaningful review. The court set aside the order and remitted the matter to a different judge for re-determination.

Written by Jonathan Speigel, the founding partner of Speigel Nichols Fox LLP, leads the litigation and construction practices.