The recent case of Accurate Railroad Construction Ltd v Sierra Infrastructure Inc., 2024 ONSC 3722 provides guidance on fraud allegations in adjudication proceedings and whether or not to stay an adjudicator’s determination pending judicial review.

Happy Thanksgiving! Thank you for all of your support this year. We look forward to building with you in 2025!

While there is no appeal from adjudicator's determinations under the Construction Act (the "Act"), the court's jurisdiction to grant judicial review is set out in s. 13.18(5) of the Act.

Last week, Construct Legal hosted its first-ever Small Firms Associate Event, bringing together talented associates from small firms across Toronto.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice’s August 23, 2024, decision in R v Greater Sudbury (City) provides much-needed clarity on the ability of owners to rely on due diligence as a defence to claims brought under the Occupational Health and Safety Act (“OHSA”).

There have been very few Canadian cases dealing with flow-through claims. Fortunately, the recent case of Walsh Construction v Toronto Transit Commission et al., 2024 ONSC 2782, provides valuable guidance for parties advancing flow-through claims in construction contexts.

In the decision of High Tech Power Inc. v. BDA Inc., 2024 ONSC 4327, the court recently re-affirmed that adjudications under the Construction Act are to be upheld and that a party ordered by an adjudicator to pay money must make that payment to the successful party.

In this case1, Jamrik sought judicial review of an adjudication determination ordering it to pay the amount of $564,812.87 under the prompt payment regime. The Divisional Court held that the Adjudicator did not make the factual findings needed to determine whether the contract was complete and consequently whether the Adjudicator had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The Divisional Court quashed the decision and remitted it back to be heard by a new adjudicator.

CCDC-style agreements are used for many construction projects in Ontario. Two of the more common base-style agreements, the CCDC 5A and CCDC 5B, present very different project delivery methods from both the owner and construction manager perspective.

Parties to construction contracts must carefully consider their dispute resolution and contract documents' priority clauses. In our latest blog entry, Paul Conrod discusses a recent Ontario case involving the arbitration clause contained in the CCDC 14 Design-Build Stipulated Price Contract.

The Ontario Court of Appeal confirms that the proper route of appeal from an adjudicator’s determination is to the Divisional Court.

Sometimes a construction contract has terms that attempt to remove requirements and remedies available under the Construction Act. For example, the contract states that a party cannot lien or a party has to pay the full amount of an invoice without the statutory 10% holdback. Those terms are not enforceable as parties cannot contract out of their obligations under the Construction Act.

Vacating a lien from title using a letter of credit as security

Vacating the registration of a claim for lien from title to a property is a common and routine procedure in construction litigation.

Episode drop!

Thinking about going out on your own or modernizing your firm? One of the toughest decisions to make is about the software to choose. And now this software is more than just docketing, it involves AI too.

Key takeaway

If payments are made in accordance with section 28 of the Construction Act, those payments may be considered to reduce the security posted to vacate a lien. Using section 28 to make direct payments to subcontracts, including for holdback, may be an effective way to flow funds that are owing and reduce security posted for a lien.

Adjudications are seeing more use as a quick and efficient dispute resolution tool for Ontario-based construction projects. The fundamental components of adjudication are established in the Construction Act, but savvy industry participants should be aware of the impact construction contracts can (and cannot) have on adjudications.¹

Construction projects often generate excess soil and with that comes a statutory regime that needs to be complied with to avoid liability. Despite these laws coming into legal force and effect in phases over the last four years, there is still a lot of confusion about Ontario’s excess soil laws.

2708320 Ontario Ltd. cob Viceroy Homes v Jia Development Inc.,¹ provides helpful guidance on the interpretation of frivolous, vexatious and abusive liens under the Construction Act. It also examines the cost implications for stakeholders in construction lien proceedings who register liens that are baseless or grossly excessive.²

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2024/2024onsc746/2024onsc746.html

­Issued a statement of claim? Served the claim in accordance with the Rules? No defence delivered within the time limit and now you want to move to note the defendants in default and obtain default judgment? Not so fast! In Akhtar v. Taha Development, 2024 ONSC 746, the court outlines the various factors it considers when deciding whether to grant default judgment against defendants who have been noted in default.

If you receive a Notice of Non-Payment (form 1.1)¹ from the owner, you are being notified that the owner will not pay you for some or all of your proper invoice. You then have a short window of time to take action.