Legal Blog

Technicality (2)

In our newsletter of May 2011, we discussed the case of Juddav Designs Inc. v. Cosgriffe, a 2010 decision of a construction Master in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. We commenced our discussion of the case by stating that, contrary to popular opinion, technicalities do not sway the ultimate result in a court action; rather, judges want to see a result that is just.

The Master held that a lien that the contractor registered was ineffective because the contractor registered it in the wrong name. Although the Master was forced to discharge the lien, she still held that the owners owed a personal debt to the contractor. She held the owners were liable on a quantum meruit basis and on an unjust enrichment basis. The owners were not content with the Master’s decision and opposed its confirmation.

Procedure

A trial of a construction lien matter in Toronto differs from the procedure outside Toronto. Instead of the trial being heard before a judge, the matter is heard by a Master by way of reference. The Master hears the matter in the same manner as a judge, but, instead of granting a judgment, issues a report. If the parties are satisfied with the report, a Toronto judge confirms the report, which then has the force of a judgment.

If the losing party is not satisfied, then the report confirmation is not a rubberstamp. Instead, the parties deal with it in the same manner as an appeal. The transcript of the reference is produced and full argument is made as to why the report should or should not be confirmed. The judge deals with the Master’s report using the same deference to the reasons for decision as any appellate court gives to a trial decision.

Confirmed

The judge gave short shrift to the owners’ arguments. She noted that the Master’s “decision was thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned. She exercised her jurisdiction appropriately under the (Construction Lien) Act and issued an award consistent with the powers prescribed to her. Her reasons do not contain any overriding or palpable error of fact or misapprehension of fact or law.”

The judge confirmed the Master’s report and awarded costs of $9,000 against the owners. A just result trumped a technical result.