Recent Cases
A proven track record of navigating complex construction disputes.
We represent clients across the sector with a focus on achieving early and cost-effective resolution with pragmatic results. Where formal proceedings are unavoidable, our clients’ successes reflect our commitment to securing favourable outcomes through strategic advocacy.
Construction Lien Cases
Oakleigh Holdings Inc. v. Demikon Construction Ltd., 2026 ONSC 1660 (CanLII)
This ruling from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice addresses motions to dismiss two lawsuits stemming from a single condominium development project known as Matchedash Lofts. The defendant, Demikon Construction Ltd., sought to strike claims brought by Oakleigh Holdings Inc. and Aurelia Limited Partnership, arguing that the multiple proceedings constituted an abuse of process and a wasteful multiplicity of litigation.
At the hearing of the motion, the respondents agreed to discontinue their counterclaim which effectively dealt with the relief being sought by Demikon on one of of the motions. Justice Boswell then examined whether a separate claim regarding balcony deficiencies should be allowed to proceed independently. Justice Boswell ultimately ordered that the balcony deficiency action be heard together with, or immediately following, the primary construction lien action to ensure judicial economy and procedural efficiency.
The decision emphasizes the court’s commitment to the (then) Construction Lien Act’s goal of resolving all project-related disputes in a single, comprehensive manner.
Counsel
Demikon Construction Ltd. v. Oakleigh Holdings Inc., 2024 ONSC 6261 (CanLII)
In the case of Demikon Construction Ltd. v. Oakleigh Holdings Inc., the court clarified that owners cannot receive credit for “jumping the rung” of the construction pyramid under Section 28 unless the recipient is a person currently holding a valid lien. The ruling overturned a lower court’s decision, emphasizing that these payments do not automatically reduce the security posted to vacate a lien if they occur after lien rights have expired.
Furthermore, the court highlighted the importance of verifying that funds are actually owed to the subcontractor, specifically when the contractor alleges deficiencies or delays. To avoid legal risks, owners ought to obtain formal acknowledgments or debt assignments rather than relying on moral obligations to pay trades directly. This legal precedent serves as a critical warning for payers to strictly adhere to the statutory requirements of the Construction Act when bypassing contractual privity.
We note that the defendants, Oakleigh and Aurelia, obtained leave to Appeal. The Court of Appeal is hearing the appeal in May 2026, and we will report back with the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Counsel
Devlan Construction Ltd. v SRK Woodworking Inc., 2023 ONSC 3035 (CanLII)
In this leading case, we successfully appealed a Motion Judge’s decision that the (new) Construction Act, RSO 1990 c. C30 allows claimants to join a breach of trust claim with an action to enforce a construction lien. The Divisional Court agreed with our submissions that a trust claim is not a contract claim, that the Act precludes the joinder of non-contract claims and that adding a breach of trusts claim as of right would unreasonably complicate a lien action by increasing documentary production, examinations for discovery, the number of parties and the issues to be tried (all contrary to the requirement that a lien action be tried as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible).