Legal Blog

Prompt Payment

SOTA Dental Studio Inc. v. Andrid Group Ltd. 2022 Ont SCJ (Div Ct)

An adjudicator’s decision may not be appealed, but is made without prejudice to a party’s rights to deal later with the issue in court or in arbitration. Section 13.18(1) of the Construction Act provides that an unhappy party may apply for judicial review, but only with leave of the court. Section 13.18(7) of the Construction Act provides that an application does not stay the requirement to comply with the decision unless the court orders otherwise. In this case, the applicant neither paid the amount the adjudicator ordered, nor attempted to obtain leave for judicial review, nor requested a stay of the decision. It just brought the application. The court dismissed the application without inquiry into the merits noting that prompt payment was integral to the scheme of the Act and that failure to comply with a decision may lead the court to refuse leave and, even with leave, the applicant must first obtain a stay of the decision.

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